Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Modern Bicycles and Cycling Speeds : Any Measurable Relation?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Ron

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:08:42 AM8/21/10
to
Its not about the bike. Or is it?

Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
show.

But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
significant to be appreciated?

More here, with an analysis of the article written in Bicycle
Quarterly (summer edition) - http://bit.ly/ag2SOR

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 9:06:04 AM8/21/10
to
Per Ron:

>Its not about the bike. Or is it?

Paved vs un-paved roads have got to account for some of it.

Dunno about fenders vs no fenders... Would the added drag be
significant?
--
PeteCresswell

m-gineering

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 10:26:29 AM8/21/10
to


stageracing isn't about being fastests, it's about crossing the line
first. With the variance in team dominance, stagelenght, road surface,
and how far in the race the television starts reporting this sort of
analysis is pretty useless. Comparing time trial resulst would have made
more sense

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

MikeWhy

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 10:51:35 AM8/21/10
to

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:knjv6617645ftbcos...@4ax.com...

Corporate sponsorship generated a class of genteel athletes whose day job is
to train and race using the then best understanding of physiology and
nutrition, making it viable for the common but extremely gifted man to
briefly set aside more traditional lifestyles and fully develop his athletic
potential. It also pays for the support infrastructure of coaches, doctors,
trainers, mechanics, and road crews who do nothing else but devote their
full attention to preparing and pampering these athletes. Teammates and team
cars loaded with spares and whole replacement bicycles follow them closely
on the race course. Compare this to the early days when the lone racer would
stop at the local blacksmith for road repairs. And all they managed was 55%
faster?

RicodJour

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:03:19 AM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 3:08 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> show.
>
> But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> significant to be appreciated?

55%...? Since the 90's...? Ummm - no.
http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

If you're about the change since the early 1900's, then the answer is
two fold - paved roads and it's a markedly shorter race than the early
days. Not smoking and drinking hallucinogens during the off season
also helped.
http://www.vintage-poster-market.com/configurations/www.vintage-poster-market.com/images/produits/miniature/2060.jpg

R

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 12:33:36 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:03 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:08 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> > Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> > Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> > inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> > speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> > show.
>
> > But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> > from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> > contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> > tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> > does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> > significant to be appreciated?
>
> 55%...?  Since the 90's...?  Ummm - no.http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

>
> If you're about the change since the early 1900's...

The OP must have meant 1900s.

> ... then the answer is


> two fold - paved roads and it's a markedly shorter race than the early
> days.  Not smoking and drinking hallucinogens during the off season

> also helped.http://www.vintage-poster-market.com/configurations/www.vintage-poste...

And in the early days of the race, there was no support. Recall the
story of one competitor breaking his fork and building a new one
almost by himself in a blacksmith shop? ("Almost" because someone
pumped the bellows as he hammered, and for that he was penalized!)

I'm sure aero technologies have increased time trial speeds. I'm sure
that removing even a full pound from a 175 pound bike+rider increases
uphill speed by something less than 1/175, which is not much. I'd bet
that devices like STI, while perhaps helpful in a few finishing
sprints, have not affected overall speeds in any detectable manner.

But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.

- Frank Krygowski

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 12:54:14 PM8/21/10
to
On 21 Aug, 08:08, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> Tours are faster than those of the past.

Freewheels and multiple gearing selected by remote linkage is now
permitted.

> True. For instance, since its
> inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> show.

Huh, more like 5%, speeds have not really changed much since, um,
1988, total 'milage' being rather consistent at around 3500km over
20/21 days.

>
> But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> significant to be appreciated?

Speeds are more consistent now because there are more top athletes
applying correct training methods consistently. The encouragement
given by support staff is a phsychological edge permitting the less
dedicated athlete to reach a level for which he would otherwise fail
to attain.

Better road surfaces have permitted the transformation of wheels from
suspending the rider from road shock to giving low drag in a wind
tunnel and most importantly, provide greater space for advertising.
Frames have gone the same way, they are now bicycle shaped
billboards. Without team car backup with multiple spare frames for
the team leader the carbon fibre bike would be unlikely to exist in
the TDF, it certainly could not have existed on the roads 50 years
ago.

The TDF is after all a mobile billboard and the bike companies need to
sell their overpriced technology.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 12:57:39 PM8/21/10
to

Dear Frank,

For the Tour de France, the modern speed advantages include:

--shortened distances, well under 3,000 miles instead of over 3,000
--rest days
--pavement
--bikes that weigh ~17 pounds instead of ~25 pounds
--better shoes and clothes
--multiple-speed gearing instead of flip-flop hubs (no walking up some
passes)
--fewer flats (darned few horseshoe nails, common even after WW2)
--much better tires with lower rolling resistance
--no daily water-bottle restriction
--no stopping to fill water bottles from local fountains
--no need to carry pumps, inflators, and two spare tires
--no stopping to fix your own flats
--no stopping to scribble at check-in stations
--air-conditioned rooms for the French summer
--far better nutrition and training
--far more prize money as an incentive
--much more corporate investment in sponsoring teams
--far more TV and radio coverage as an incentive not to take it easy
--much better travel between stages
--much better travel to reach the Tour itself
--much more emphasis and discipline on team drafting
--all sorts of vastly improved support during and between stages
--radio communication to reduce confusion and make tactics easier
--EPO and blood doping instead of cocaine and amphetamines

The only modern speed disadvantage that I can think of is the helmet
requirement, which adds a little weight and a little wind drag.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Lou Holtman

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 1:04:18 PM8/21/10
to
Op 21-8-2010 18:33, Frank Krygowski schreef:

>
> But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
> way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


We are talking about Pro riders. Every second counts here something you
never seem to understand 'azijnpisser'. Like Marten said 'it is about
crossing the finish line first.

Lou

Jobst Brandt

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 1:13:00 PM8/21/10
to
Lou Holtman wrote:

>> But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
>> way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.

> We are talking about Pro riders. Every second counts here something
> you never seem to understand 'azijnpisser'. As Marten said, "It's


> about crossing the finish line first."

Paying professional riders to use this stuff is how it reaches the
equipment geeks. Besides, most professional racers aren't technically
astute enough to judge whether these "advancements" are valid or not,
and whether they had any positive influence on their race results.

Jobst Brandt

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 1:33:32 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:57 am, "carlfo...@comcast.net" <carlfo...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Nit-pickin':

The first TdF's were comprised of long stages followed by rest days.
The first, in 1903 as you know, was I believe 6 stages of approx. 400k
each, spread over 19 days.
Fewer flats must also include fewer tacks etc. spread by competitors
and others to sabotage riders' hopes of winning (an uofficially
expected practice in the early days).
I don't think all the rooms have actually been air-conditioned <g>.
There's a Bob Roll story IMS.
Lotta deep-section wheels out there, some of which are also pretty
light.

Oh yeah, remember this?
<http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf>
Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to state-of-
the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster riding.
--D-y

Lou Holtman

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 1:57:57 PM8/21/10
to
Op 21-8-2010 19:13, Jobst Brandt schreef:


If their sponsor told them to put 32 spoke wheels in their TT or normal
stage bike they wouldn't do it. I don't put my 32 spoke wheels in my
bike when I do a time trial.

Lou

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 2:06:42 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> > > Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> > > inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> > > speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> > > show.

> The OP must have meant 1900s.

Well, there you go, another engineer trying to write! <g>

> I'm sure aero technologies have increased time trial speeds.

Quite a lot.


>  I'm sure
> that removing even a full pound from a 175 pound bike+rider increases
> uphill speed by something less than 1/175, which is not much.

Again, many bikes at the end of The Age of Steel weighed 22 lbs. and
more. Now the UCI minimum weight is 6.8kg, just under 15lbs., and
they'd weigh less if the rules permitted. That's 7 pounds and it
"matters", especially when you have to drag it up a long, steep hill.

> I'd bet
> that devices like STI, while perhaps helpful in a few finishing
> sprints, have not affected overall speeds in any detectable manner.

The implementation of handlebar shifting changed the nature of
sprinting, from common city limit sign sprints to the TdF final on the
Champs-Élysées. And not by making it slower, either.

> But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
> way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.

Only a deluded few at very most.

Ride what you like, Frank. Don't disparage others, especially the many
high-functioning (usually also highly non-delusional) individuals who
can, through success in life, afford to buy and use the latest-
greatest.
--D-y

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 2:35:14 PM8/21/10
to
In article <knjv6617645ftbcos...@4ax.com>,
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

I don't recall seeing TdF bikes with fenders at any point in the history
of the race. Does anyone else know differently?

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 2:38:34 PM8/21/10
to

At least a few of them have spent time in wind tunnels. These results
have been, to some extent, discussed publicly.
A simpler matter: wheel aerodynamics have been measured, in some cases
by non-biased agency, and the results published widely.

Life's a bitch sometimes: you don't have to be an engineer, and you
don't even have to be a "professional"! You just have to be able to
read. Dang! Well, be able to read, and maybe know how to look stuff up
on the internet along with the reading thing:

<http://www.rouesartisanales.over-blog.com/article-15505311.html>

Lessee here, I'l clean my glasses and look...
Highest power loss = 31.9W.
Lowest = 16.7W

Call it 15W difference, at only 25k/hr, about 15.5 mph.

Actual race-speed number crunching left for those who find it fun &
entertaining <g>.

Seat of the pants estimate that was tossed around back in the days
when "aero" came into widespread use (mid 1980's or so) was, local
amateur racer dudes went about 2-1/2 minutes faster in a 25mi/40k ITT
when they switched from no-aero to all-aero, on what equipment was
available at the time. I'd guess there's been some good progress since
then.

"Equipment geeks"? What I see around here is a competitive racing
scene from Jr. up through walkin'-with-a-cane age groups.
Hardly the old "bike bum" scene of the late 70's when I started paying
attention. Lots of professional people who are competitive in their
hobbies/avocations as they are at work, who can afford to buy nice
"toys" and use them.

Why be an old grouch about it?
--D-y

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 2:48:21 PM8/21/10
to
In article
<1bd3bc11-044f-419d...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:

> Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to state-of-
> the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster riding.

Not necessarily. TdF average speeds increased and decreased fairly
dramatically in the 25 years of basically no advancements in technology
between ~1950 and ~1980. Since the tightening of doping control a few
years back, average speeds at the Tour have dropped. (I think that was
one of the things that lulled Armstrong into believing he could make a
comeback, but he had to race on very different doping than he was used
to- sorry, a bit cynical there, I don't believe there are any pro bike
racers who don't dope).

There are too many other factors that can affect the average speed:
changes in training, competitive factors, differences in route, drugs
and doping, weather, etc.

The BQ article did two interesting things. FIrst, it compared TdF
average speeds with runners (middle distance, I think) over the same
years and found that the rate of increase in average speed was very
similar despite there being few technological improvements in running.
The conclusion was that changes in human factors (e.g., training,
doping, etc.) weighed much more heavily than changes in bike technology.
I haven't decided if I agree or not.

The other interesting thing was using Milan-San Remo as a comparison,
since there have been very few course changes in the entire history of
the race. This reduces the effects of differences in terrain, resulting
in very similar results as comparing the TdF to running.

It's an interesting article. I am not sure how valid comparing
increases in the speed of runners versus cyclists is. It would be
interesting to compare a third endurance sport- Nordic skiing, although
that has had a watershed technological change from traditional diagonal
stride to skating so perhaps not a good comparison.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 2:55:19 PM8/21/10
to

Are we talking about winning a sprint, or are we talking about
increasing the overall average speed? I thought it was the latter.

As one example: STI added weight, so it probably slowed average speed
microscopically. But that didn't matter, because it increased chances
of winning the sprint. Racers accepted the weight penalty, even
though they were winning after riding a tiny bit slower, on average.

I should add, that's all true assuming racers were thinking that
deeply. There are certainly enough racers that are credulous
equipment geeks themselves. Don't we all know members of the "one
less spoke" crowd?

- Frank Krygowski

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:28:12 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 1:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1bd3bc11-044f-419d-86be-8b74a2903...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to state-of-
> > the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster riding.
>
> Not necessarily.  TdF average speeds increased and decreased fairly
> dramatically in the 25 years of basically no advancements in technology
> between ~1950 and ~1980.

I was referring only to the article I linked to, where test riders
went faster on modern bikes.
Too many variables in Tour speed.

>  Since the tightening of doping control a few
> years back, average speeds at the Tour have dropped.  (I think that was
> one of the things that lulled Armstrong into believing he could make a
> comeback, but he had to race on very different doping than he was used
> to- sorry, a bit cynical there, I don't believe there are any pro bike
> racers who don't dope).

My reading is Lance was doing OK (actually pretty well) until he fell
and hurt his hip.
Old age sneaked up and got him-- lacking some of the old abilities and
confidence that used to be in his favor, not that he never fell or got
hit by a car and hurt in the glory days.
The playing field would seem to be fairly level, dope-wise, except for
Contador, of course <g>.

> The BQ article did two interesting things.  FIrst, it compared TdF
> average speeds with runners (middle distance, I think) over the same
> years and found that the rate of increase in average speed was very
> similar despite there being few technological improvements in running.  
> The conclusion was that changes in human factors (e.g., training,
> doping, etc.) weighed much more heavily than changes in bike technology.  
> I haven't decided if I agree or not.

I understand they've done a lot with shoes, those runner-supplying
companies.
Including "one-event" shoes my neighbor the marathon runner lady was
telling me about.
--D-y

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:29:14 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> > > > Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> > > > inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> > > > speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> > > > show.
> > The OP must have meant 1900s.
>
> Well, there you go, another engineer trying to write! <g>

Hey, he made a typo, that's all.

>
> > I'm sure aero technologies have increased time trial speeds.
>
> Quite a lot.

Agreed. But the discussion in both Ron's blog and the Bicycle
Quarterly article is about _average_ speeds. Quite a lot of
improvement (say, 5%?) in a small fraction (what? about 2%?) of the
riding miles doesn't amount to much overall. It's apparently not
detectable in the race data.

> >  I'm sure
> > that removing even a full pound from a 175 pound bike+rider increases
> > uphill speed by something less than 1/175, which is not much.
>
> Again, many bikes at the end of The Age of Steel weighed 22 lbs. and
> more. Now the UCI minimum weight is 6.8kg, just under 15lbs., and
> they'd weigh less if the rules permitted. That's 7 pounds and it
> "matters", especially when you have to drag it up a long, steep hill.

Agreed. But there's never been a time a person could take what was
regarded as a good racing bike and remove seven pounds from it. It's
usually impossible - at any reasonable cost - to remove even one pound
from such a bike.

What's common is for the owner of - say - a 19 pound bike to buy a new
saddle because it's two ounces lighter. And pretend to feel the
difference in a climb or a sprint.

>
> > I'd bet
> > that devices like STI, while perhaps helpful in a few finishing
> > sprints, have not affected overall speeds in any detectable manner.
>
> The implementation of handlebar shifting changed the nature of
> sprinting, from common city limit sign sprints to the TdF final on the
> Champs-Élysées. And not by making it slower, either.

Yep, that's what I was referring to. I don't think that changed the
average speed by any measurable amount, though, and average speed is
what we're talking about.

> > But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
> > way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.
>
> Only a deluded few at very most.

OK, my statement was a little hyperbolic. But only a little. I
mostly ride with recreational riders, not racers. Yet I know guys who
spent thousands on new bikes because they were three pounds lighter
than their old bikes, and were astonished that they still huffed
slowly up the hills. (That's guys who weighed maybe 160 lbs, and one
guy that weighed 250 lbs.) I know one guy who drilled a hole in the
middle of his seat bolt to save weight. (That was the bolt that broke
in the middle of a ride in the boonies.) I have friends who asked me
to carry their jackets, because they couldn't stand the weight of a
seat bag on their bike. I knew a young racer who swore he could feel
the few ounces saved by aluminum rear cogs in every sprint.

This is my sample from (mostly) moderate paced recreational riders.
There are probably many more among the "performance" crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn29DvMITu4

> Ride what you like, Frank. Don't disparage others, especially the many
> high-functioning (usually also highly non-delusional) individuals who
> can, through success in life, afford to buy and use the latest-
> greatest.

D-y, don't pretend that every disagreement is a disparagement. Except
for two that moved out of state, all the guys in my example are guys
that still ride with me and enjoy my company. If not, they wouldn't
invite me to ride with them. (I did razz the "carry my jacket" guy
into buying a seat bag, though. He's perhaps my best friend.)

If the subject came up during a ride, I'd be happy to talk numbers
with them. The conversation would be amicable whether or not they
agreed. They might continue to pursue their hobby of building light
bikes. But the hole-in-the-seat-bolt guy, who's now on a 15 pound
all-carbon bike, admits that a solid bolt makes more sense.

- Frank Krygowski

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:52:44 PM8/21/10
to

At the lower levels of the sport reliability is paramount.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:56:03 PM8/21/10
to

I guess they can tell when it has a positive influence on their
contract fee.

AMuzi

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 3:59:20 PM8/21/10
to

Yes, Paramounts were nice, albeit on the heavy side.
For me, reliability was Pogliaghi. YMMV.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 4:07:48 PM8/21/10
to
On 21 Aug, 19:35, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <knjv6617645ftbcos6h5qhi3kqm6ra1...@4ax.com>,

Mudguards are an uneccesary danger in racing and are not permitted.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 4:25:03 PM8/21/10
to
On 21 Aug, 20:28, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1bd3bc11-044f-419d-86be-8b74a2903...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >  "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to state-of-
> > > the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster riding.
>
> > Not necessarily.  TdF average speeds increased and decreased fairly
> > dramatically in the 25 years of basically no advancements in technology
> > between ~1950 and ~1980.
>
> I was referring only to the article I linked to, where test riders
> went faster on modern bikes.

I think it would take about four months to become accustomed to a
1980's racing bike from riding with brifters. It is difficult to take
such a test seriously.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 4:45:56 PM8/21/10
to

Just checked out Pogliaghi's Youtube channel, a Dane who likes leather
and rubber.

Ben C

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:10:35 PM8/21/10
to
On 2010-08-21, dusto...@mac.com <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
[...]

>>  Since the tightening of doping control a few years back, average
>> speeds at the Tour have dropped.  (I think that was one of the things
>> that lulled Armstrong into believing he could make a comeback, but he
>> had to race on very different doping than he was used to- sorry, a
>> bit cynical there, I don't believe there are any pro bike racers who
>> don't dope).
>
> My reading is Lance was doing OK (actually pretty well) until he fell
> and hurt his hip. Old age sneaked up and got him-- lacking some of the
> old abilities and confidence that used to be in his favor, not that he
> never fell or got hit by a car and hurt in the glory days.

I wish I could find the link and give you the exact numbers but Lemond
was pointing out that while it took Andy and Bertie something like 56
minutes to scamper up the Tourmalet this year leaving everyone else for
dead, Armstrong and Ullrich did that same climb back in about 2003 in
more like 44 minutes.

I also wish I could believe Armstrong didn't dope.

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:11:58 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 3:25 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:

> I think it would take about four months to become accustomed to a
> 1980's racing bike from riding with brifters.  It is difficult to take
> such a test seriously.

Improved handling and brake performance were the salient factors as I
read the piece, stressed by the riders as chief go-faster factors.

I don't know about regressing from brifters to DT shifters, but I do
know that I still have reached for a DT lever that has long since gone
away when riding on certain well-used routes from the past.
--D-y

Ben C

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:14:52 PM8/21/10
to

Good call. The 8 extra spokes don't add much drag or weight, and at
least you can still ride home if you break a few.

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:21:15 PM8/21/10
to
Per Tim McNamara:

>I don't recall seeing TdF bikes with fenders at any point in the history
>of the race. Does anyone else know differently?

I thought I saw fenders on the B/W photo on the cover of one of
the books referred to on the web page; but now I think I was
mistaken.
--
PeteCresswell

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:32:29 PM8/21/10
to
On 21 Aug, 22:11, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:25 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think it would take about four months to become accustomed to a
> > 1980's racing bike from riding with brifters.  It is difficult to take
> > such a test seriously.
>
> Improved handling and brake performance were the salient factors as I
> read the piece, stressed by the riders as chief go-faster factors.

I've got the Chorus 'monoplaner' brakes, never failed to perform in
any condition or rim. Handling is down to rider perception, with good
application most bikes can be made to 'handle'. I prefer my
clubman's type frame with it's more stable and lazy feel than I do my
criterium styled frame/fit. The clubman's will turn in just as quick
and corner just as hard when correct application is used. The
criterium bike is naturally quick turning (still benefiitting from
good application) but can be unecessarily tiring after a long day and
I imagine a modern bike will show just these same 'qualities'.

m-gineering

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 5:35:33 PM8/21/10
to

wasn't the first casualty in the TDF a rider drowning on a rest day?


> --pavement
> --bikes that weigh ~17 pounds instead of ~25 pounds
> --better shoes and clothes
> --multiple-speed gearing instead of flip-flop hubs (no walking up some
> passes)
> --fewer flats (darned few horseshoe nails, common even after WW2)
> --much better tires with lower rolling resistance
> --no daily water-bottle restriction
> --no stopping to fill water bottles from local fountains
> --no need to carry pumps, inflators, and two spare tires
> --no stopping to fix your own flats
> --no stopping to scribble at check-in stations
> --air-conditioned rooms for the French summer

Airco, they are lucky if the lift works (The TdF is in France after all)

> --far better nutrition and training
> --far more prize money as an incentive

Tours are now won by highly paid professionals with a nice contract and
deals on the side. I doubt the prize money is now more important


> --much more corporate investment in sponsoring teams
> --far more TV and radio coverage as an incentive not to take it easy
> --much better travel between stages
> --much better travel to reach the Tour itself
> --much more emphasis and discipline on team drafting
> --all sorts of vastly improved support during and between stages
> --radio communication to reduce confusion and make tactics easier
> --EPO and blood doping instead of cocaine and amphetamines
>
> The only modern speed disadvantage that I can think of is the helmet
> requirement, which adds a little weight and a little wind drag.


how about roundabouts, commissionairs preventing pushing in the mountain
stages, crossing closed railway barriers is prohibited and taking the
train during the race is now impossible

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 8:03:21 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 4:32 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:

> I've got the Chorus 'monoplaner' brakes, never failed to perform in
> any condition or rim.

Better than the old Campy (and other) sidepulls, I take it <g>.

I like those and have bid on a set or two on ebay, but haven't ever
used a set.

> Handling is down to rider perception,

The testers' perception was the new bikes handled better. Carved lines
around corners in a more controllable manner.

> with good
> application most bikes can be made to 'handle'.   I prefer my
> clubman's type frame with it's more stable and lazy feel than I do my
> criterium styled frame/fit.  The clubman's will turn in just as quick
> and corner just as hard when correct application is used.  The
> criterium bike is naturally quick turning (still benefiitting from
> good application) but can be unecessarily tiring after a long day and
> I imagine a modern bike will show just these same 'qualities'.

I had a Roberts Club frame and an Eddy Merckx Corsa back in the day
when I rode long days (often 140 miles or so) which included
significant amounts of dirt/gravel roads, ridden at speed. "Faster on
the dirts".
My experience was the Merckx, a road pattern bike with actually quite
short chainstays, I believe a 73.3 deg head angle (that from memory)
rode better, handled better and was in fact less fatiguing to ride
than the Roberts, which was 72 deg parallel angles, 17-1/8"
chainstays, 2-1/8" fork rake (the Merckx was probably around 43mm,
1.7"), and a long top tube-- 54 seat, 57 tt, on centers.

FWIW, those old Merckx's (mine was ca. 1984 mfg.) were "known" to be
flexible riders. Whatever, it took to dirt roads like a Labrador
Retriever to water. Had steering precision and rear end "stick" a
dimension better than the Roberts or a the few other bikes I owned in
those days-- Viner, Trek, Zullo, Gios Compact (all "road" pattern),
Holdsworth Super Mistral (similar to the Roberts).

Yes, I probably could have ridden crits on the Roberts, as I used to
speed down Colorado mountain passes with a moderate touring load,
playing amongst the WInnebago's (camping coach vehicles) and the like
on that bike with good confidence, but I never liked the feel of that
geometry as much as my road and crit bikes-- or especially my sprinter-
pattern track bike. BTW, that Roberts (blue with white letters, gold
lug lining and gold lines in the lug cutouts, too-- a really pretty
bike) was set up the same as the Merckx, except with a Campy triple
crank. Same wheels, tires, shifters, handlebars, everything identical
Campy/Cinelli, etc.

In short, my experience differs. It's an individual thing...

My feeling is, the less weight the better, as there is less pound/feet
(so to speak) of energy coming up off the pavement to smack your hands
and seat. I do have a couple of Ti bikes and they seem to have a
gentler ride than my old Tommasini SLX Prestige frame, which I
nevertheless very much enjoy riding due to the way it carves corners,
and its general responsiveness. But it definitely thumps harder,
again, with identical or very close outfitting as to components.

I can see where a light cf bike, made rigid, could do some of that
"stiff but compliant" thing the magazine tester (aka prostitutes <g>)
scribble about. Not because the frame really is more "compliant", but
because it's a smaller hammer.
--D-y

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 9:18:24 PM8/21/10
to
On 22 Aug, 01:03, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 4:32 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I've got the Chorus 'monoplaner' brakes, never failed to perform in
> > any condition or rim.
>
> Better than the old Campy (and other) sidepulls, I take it <g>.
>
> I like those and have bid on a set or two on ebay, but haven't ever
> used a set.
>
> > Handling is down to rider perception,
>
> The testers' perception was the new bikes handled better. Carved lines
> around corners in a more controllable manner.

And the wheel stability. Wheels built with complete stability corner
like on rails. The extra loading during cornering frequently upsets
poorly constructed wheels which damage bike control through corners
and is contributary to falling.


>
> > with good
> > application most bikes can be made to 'handle'.   I prefer my
> > clubman's type frame with it's more stable and lazy feel than I do my
> > criterium styled frame/fit.  The clubman's will turn in just as quick
> > and corner just as hard when correct application is used.  

A good pair of wheels.

The
> > criterium bike is naturally quick turning (still benefiitting from
> > good application) but can be unecessarily tiring after a long day and
> > I imagine a modern bike will show just these same 'qualities'.
>
> I had a Roberts Club frame and an Eddy Merckx Corsa back in the day
> when I rode long days (often 140 miles or so) which included
> significant amounts of dirt/gravel roads, ridden at speed. "Faster on
> the dirts".
> My experience was the Merckx, a road pattern bike with actually quite
> short chainstays, I believe a 73.3 deg head angle (that from memory)
> rode better, handled better and was in fact less fatiguing to ride
> than the Roberts, which was 72 deg parallel angles, 17-1/8"
> chainstays, 2-1/8" fork rake (the Merckx was probably around 43mm,
> 1.7"), and a long top tube-- 54 seat, 57 tt, on centers.

Now that you mention it, there is 2deg difference in head angles on my
bikes and the trail is nearly the same as far as I can recall. The
bars/stem are essentially the same (diff patt and extension but all
Cinelli's) but there is a difference, the all out racing bike has a
Stronglight needle bearing headset which is stiff making it necessary
for me to continually steer the bike. Steering control was necessary
with the original ball headset but only to prevent wandering on high
pressure tyres. I think I'll probably be better back on a ball
headset now I'm predominantly using tubs.


>
> FWIW, those old Merckx's (mine was ca. 1984 mfg.) were "known" to be
> flexible riders. Whatever, it took to dirt roads like a Labrador
> Retriever to water. Had steering precision and rear end "stick" a
> dimension better than the Roberts or a the few other bikes I owned in
> those days-- Viner, Trek, Zullo, Gios Compact (all "road" pattern),
> Holdsworth Super Mistral (similar to the Roberts).

Sometimes is the quality of the wheelbuild. Difficult to quantify
without measuring displacement under load.


>
> Yes, I probably could have ridden crits on the Roberts, as I used to
> speed down Colorado mountain passes with a moderate touring load,
> playing amongst the WInnebago's (camping coach vehicles) and the like
> on that bike with good confidence, but I never liked the feel of that
> geometry as much as my road and crit bikes-- or especially my sprinter-
> pattern track bike.

You said the same wheels, but a bigger load. The same wheels will
become more unstable as the load rises. Faulty wheel construction
makes this transition zone shorter (pronounced).

> BTW, that Roberts (blue with white letters, gold
> lug lining and gold lines in the lug cutouts, too-- a really pretty
> bike) was set up the same as the Merckx, except with a Campy triple

Yeah, but, blue aint red, is it?

> crank. Same wheels, tires, shifters, handlebars, everything identical
> Campy/Cinelli, etc.

Not just a different head angle, but the tourer's fork blades will be
a heavier gauge and you were carrying a heavier load, the front end
will be totally different because of the difference in fork tube
gauge. I swapped out to some lighter SL blades and the racing bike
was transformed.


>
> In short, my experience differs. It's an individual thing...

As should the wheels be. Each tailored to match the load they support
with stability.


>
> My feeling is, the less weight the better, as there is less pound/feet
> (so to speak) of energy coming up off the pavement to smack your hands
> and seat. I do have a couple of Ti bikes and they seem to have a
> gentler ride than my old Tommasini SLX Prestige frame,

SLX does not look like an appropriate choice given the frame size of
your Mercx, but are you sure it's not the wheels?

> which I
> nevertheless very much enjoy riding due to the way it carves corners,

Sounds like the wheels to me.

> and its general responsiveness. But it definitely thumps harder,
> again, with identical or very close outfitting as to components.

Did I mention that the detail in the wheel construction is important?

>
> I can see where a light cf bike, made rigid, could do some of that
> "stiff but compliant" thing the magazine tester (aka prostitutes <g>)
> scribble about. Not because the frame really is more "compliant", but
> because it's a smaller hammer.

A good pair of wheels will reduce the shock that a frame receives.
Dont confuse reports on frames with those on bicycles. Frames can
only be tested with wheels so the wheels are an important part of the
subjective feel of the bicycle, but not necessarily the frame.

Michael Press

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 10:54:06 PM8/21/10
to
In article <slrni70g19....@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:

They are doping today, and could do it in 44 minutes,
but they do not dare.

--
Michael Press

dusto...@mac.com

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:02:07 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 8:18 pm, thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:

> Now that you mention it, there is 2deg difference in head angles on my
> bikes and the trail is nearly the same as far as I can recall.   The
> bars/stem are essentially the same (diff patt and extension but all
> Cinelli's) but there is a difference, the all out racing bike has a
> Stronglight needle bearing headset which is stiff making it necessary
> for me to continually steer the bike.  Steering control was necessary
> with the original ball headset but only to prevent wandering on high
> pressure tyres.  I think I'll probably be better back on a ball
> headset now I'm predominantly using tubs.

Trail might be the same. Feel isn't, IME. Both bikes had N. Record
Strada headsets.

> Sometimes is the quality of the wheelbuild.  Difficult to quantify
> without measuring displacement under load.

I had four or five bikes in the rotation. Front wheels swapped freely,
all built by experienced builders except one front, which was a
tubular anyhow.

> You said the same wheels, but a bigger load.  The same wheels will
> become more unstable as the load rises.  Faulty wheel construction
> makes this transition zone shorter (pronounced).

I rode the Roberts unladen on a couple of the long rides w/dirt roads,
same front wheel or another of identical build.

> > BTW, that Roberts (blue with white letters, gold
> > lug lining and gold lines in the lug cutouts, too-- a really pretty
> > bike) was set up the same as the Merckx, except with a Campy triple
>
> Yeah, but, blue aint red, is it?

Red couldn't touch this blue, my friend.

> Not just a different head angle, but the tourer's fork blades will be
> a heavier gauge and you were carrying a heavier load, the front end
> will be totally different because of the difference in fork tube
> gauge.  I swapped out to some lighter SL blades and the racing bike
> was transformed.

Hmmm... ridden not loaded, as far as comparing with the Merckx on the
dirt road rides of yore. The Roberts Club was "light touring", not a
heavy bike, full 531. I'm guessing normal 531 fork blades, actually.
The only real "handling problem" I ever had with that bike, and it was
a bad wobble going fast down mountains, was traced to pannier "shock
cords" that had deteriorated over the previous Winter/Spring, and went
on at the beginning of the tour looking good, but failed quickly once
stretched. Spare bungee cords wrapped the bags tight and no more
problems.

> As should the wheels be.  Each tailored to match the load they support
> with stability.

I won't argue with that ideal but those were Ambrosio box-section
clinchers of the day (ca. 1980), 36h on Campy lowflange Record hubs,
DB DT spokes, 3x, a fine set of wheels that I swapped around the
fleet.

> SLX does not look like an appropriate choice given the frame size of
> your Mercx, but are you sure it's not the wheels?

Merckx was SL. Tommasini is SLX. "Go talk to Irio" <g>.

> Sounds like the wheels to me.

I think it's the geometry, given same or identical wheels/tires.

> Did I mention that the detail in the wheel construction is important?

Why yes, I believe you did. I don't disagree, either.

> A good pair of wheels will reduce the shock that a frame receives.
> Dont confuse reports on frames with those on bicycles.  Frames can
> only be tested with wheels so the wheels are an important part of the
> subjective feel of the bicycle, but not necessarily the frame.

I think wheel construction has been largely eliminated as a variable
in my end of things.
Among three bikes (at least), run at one time or another with the
exact same wheels, the frame geometry seemed to hold sway, if you
will, IRT feel and handling. To back that up, I had a "soft" rear
wheel that saw me climbing off yet another bike, in later days, to see
if something was broke or at least cracked. Replaced with a more
laterally supportive rear, which seemed to otherwise ride the same, no
more Whoa Nellie when carving a corner.

Hey, whaddya think of a pair of Velocity Deep V's, 16 front, 24 rear,
on some Dura Ace hubs?
I really like the front D-A hub I found for the wife, 24 spokes on a
Deep V 650 wheel is a bank vault.
Preparing to go scrounging here...
--D-y

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:07:57 PM8/21/10
to
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:35:14 -0500, Tim McNamara
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <knjv6617645ftbcos...@4ax.com>,
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>> Per Ron:
>> >Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>>
>> Paved vs un-paved roads have got to account for some of it.
>>
>> Dunno about fenders vs no fenders... Would the added drag be
>> significant?
>
>I don't recall seeing TdF bikes with fenders at any point in the history
>of the race. Does anyone else know differently?

Dear Tim,

Shorty front fenders were fairly common in the '30s and '40s in the
TDF, Giro, Paris-Roubaix, and other distance races:

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/fontenay35.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Tanneveau.JPG.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/castell5/39+tour/Tour1939-1.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Vietto_brake_1938.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/magniPR48jpg.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/David_P_Beck/scans/Olympio.jpg.html

More detailed views of a shorty front fender:
http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/Gloria/Road_bike_1937.htm

Like thorn-catchers, short front fenders were used according to the
individual rider's taste.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ron

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:17:51 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:03 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:

> 55%...?  Since the 90's...?  Ummm - no.http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>

> If you're about the change since the early 1900's, then the answer is


> two fold - paved roads and it's a markedly shorter race than the early
> days.  Not smoking and drinking hallucinogens during the off season
> also helped.http://www.vintage-poster-market.com/configurations/www.vintage-poste...
>

> R

Pardon me. I meant 55% since 1903. The average speeds of the Tour have
been tending towards 40 kph for the last decade or so.

-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:19:52 PM8/21/10
to
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:33:32 -0700 (PDT), "dusto...@mac.com"
<dusto...@mac.com> wrote:

>On Aug 21, 11:57 am, "carlfo...@comcast.net" <carlfo...@comcast.net>


>wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Aug 21, 11:03 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > On Aug 21, 3:08 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> > > > Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>>

>> > > > Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
>> > > > Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
>> > > > inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
>> > > > speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
>> > > > show.
>>
>> > > > But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
>> > > > from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
>> > > > contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
>> > > > tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
>> > > > does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
>> > > > significant to be appreciated?
>>

>> > > 55%...?  Since the 90's...?  Ummm - no.http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>>

>> > > If you're about the change since the early 1900's...
>>
>> > The OP must have meant 1900s.
>>

>> > > ... then the answer is


>> > > two fold - paved roads and it's a markedly shorter race than the early
>> > > days.  Not smoking and drinking hallucinogens during the off season
>> > > also helped.http://www.vintage-poster-market.com/configurations/www.vintage-poste...
>>

>> > And in the early days of the race, there was no support.  Recall the
>> > story of one competitor breaking his fork and building a new one
>> > almost by himself in a blacksmith shop?  ("Almost" because someone
>> > pumped the bellows as he hammered, and for that he was penalized!)
>>
>> > I'm sure aero technologies have increased time trial speeds.  I'm sure
>> > that removing even a full pound from a 175 pound bike+rider increases
>> > uphill speed by something less than 1/175, which is not much.  I'd bet
>> > that devices like STI, while perhaps helpful in a few finishing
>> > sprints, have not affected overall speeds in any detectable manner.
>>
>> > But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
>> > way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.
>>
>> > - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> Dear Frank,
>>
>> For the Tour de France, the modern speed advantages include:
>>
>> --shortened distances, well under 3,000 miles instead of over 3,000
>> --rest days

>> --pavement
>> --bikes that weigh ~17 pounds instead of ~25 pounds
>> --better shoes and clothes
>> --multiple-speed gearing instead of flip-flop hubs (no walking up some
>> passes)
>> --fewer flats (darned few horseshoe nails, common even after WW2)
>> --much better tires with lower rolling resistance
>> --no daily water-bottle restriction
>> --no stopping to fill water bottles from local fountains
>> --no need to carry pumps, inflators, and two spare tires
>> --no stopping to fix your own flats
>> --no stopping to scribble at check-in stations
>> --air-conditioned rooms for the French summer

>> --far better nutrition and training
>> --far more prize money as an incentive

>> --much more corporate investment in sponsoring teams
>> --far more TV and radio coverage as an incentive not to take it easy
>> --much better travel between stages
>> --much better travel to reach the Tour itself
>> --much more emphasis and discipline on team drafting
>> --all sorts of vastly improved support during and between stages
>> --radio communication to reduce confusion and make tactics easier
>> --EPO and blood doping instead of cocaine and amphetamines
>>
>> The only modern speed disadvantage that I can think of is the helmet
>> requirement, which adds a little weight and a little wind drag.
>

>Nit-pickin':
>
>The first TdF's were comprised of long stages followed by rest days.
>The first, in 1903 as you know, was I believe 6 stages of approx. 400k
>each, spread over 19 days.
>Fewer flats must also include fewer tacks etc. spread by competitors
>and others to sabotage riders' hopes of winning (an uofficially
>expected practice in the early days).
>I don't think all the rooms have actually been air-conditioned <g>.
>There's a Bob Roll story IMS.
>Lotta deep-section wheels out there, some of which are also pretty
>light.
>
>Oh yeah, remember this?
><http://www.fredericgrappe.com/media/revues/manipvelo.pdf>


>Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to state-of-
>the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster riding.

>--D-y

Dear D,

To pick the nits a bit further, the rest days varied wildly in the
early TDF before settling down to two when the riders protested.

Similarly, there were wild swings in the makeup of the field, with a
field of roughly pro teams and individual "tourists" turning into
nothing but national teams (Italy versus France versus Belgium and so
on) and then into nothing but teams sponsored by corporations.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Ron

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:33:56 PM8/21/10
to
On Aug 21, 10:26 am, m-gineering <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote:

> Ron wrote:
> > Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> > Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> > Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> > inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> > speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> > show.
>
> > But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> > from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> > contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> > tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> > does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> > significant to be appreciated?
>
> > More here, with an analysis of the article written in Bicycle
> > Quarterly (summer edition) -http://bit.ly/ag2SOR
>
> stageracing isn't about being fastests, it's about crossing the line
> first. With the variance in team dominance, stagelenght, road surface,
> and how far in the race the television starts reporting this sort of
> analysis is pretty useless. Comparing time trial resulst would have made
> more sense
>
> --
> /Marten
>
> info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Given the amount of testing and analysis that the authors in BQ
frequently do, I wouldn't be surprised if there was an article in
their mag in the past that had a head to head comparison of a vintage
and a modern race bike in a TT. Any frequent readers of BQ here that
can look into this?


-Ron

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 21, 2010, 11:42:53 PM8/21/10
to

Dear Lou,

To clarify, the rest days varied wildly until they settled down to two
after rider protests:

"The 1958 Tour was a bit shorter at 4,319 kilometers going
counter-clockwise (Pyrenees first). It had 23 stages with no rest
days, a schedule that would not be allowed under current rules."
http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfhistory.html

To simplify, far more money--prize money, sponsorship money,
endorsement advertising money, and so on.

Roundabouts existed in the early Tours, pushing has always been a
vague area, particularly after flatting, the railway problems were
actually more frequent back when trains were more important, and the
famous train-trick was pretty much just a single case in the earliest
Tour.

As for air-conditioning, it can break down, of course, but the riders
are no longer sharing the same bath-tubs:
http://i38.tinypic.com/2i8kd8y.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2mqvm74.jpg

Or soaking their sore feet like Coppi in this luxurious fashion:
http://i35.tinypic.com/30saxaq.jpg

Or putting cabbage-leaves under their caps:
http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/cabbagesjpg.jpg.html

Some delays that have vanished:

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Wearing_Tubulars_2_001.jpg.html
http://bicycle-gifts.com/jpg/q37.jpg
http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Ravit1935TdF.jpg.html
http://i37.tinypic.com/vie3ki.jpg

This is hardly how Armstrong travels:
http://i33.tinypic.com/sf8175.jpg

That's Bahamontes heading home after quitting in 1957.

An earlier post on roughly the same topic of the hardships of the
early Tour:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/563dd956f3322fee

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 1:26:40 AM8/22/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:19 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> Similarly, there were wild swings in the makeup of the field, with a
> field of roughly pro teams and individual "tourists" turning into
> nothing but national teams (Italy versus France versus Belgium and so
> on) and then into nothing but teams sponsored by corporations.

Sport imitates life. Once, nations were more important than
corporations. Now that's reversed.

Pledge allegiance to Microsoft, or your computer won't work. And you
can't do anything without your computer.

- Frank Krygowski

Ron

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 1:30:37 AM8/22/10
to
On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:35:33 +0200, m-gineering
>
>
>
>
>
> <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
> http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Wearing_Tubulars_2_00...

>  http://bicycle-gifts.com/jpg/q37.jpg
>  http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Ravit1935TdF.jpg.html
>  http://i37.tinypic.com/vie3ki.jpg
>
> This is hardly how Armstrong travels:
>  http://i33.tinypic.com/sf8175.jpg
>
> That's Bahamontes heading home after quitting in 1957.
>
> An earlier post on roughly the same topic of the hardships of the
> early Tour:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/563dd956f3322fee
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Carl,

How much do you think dominant champions "pace control" strategies
would have affected average Tour speeds? For example, Hinault was
known to be a temperamental rider and would bark at anyone would
didn't follow what he wanted. This could be a significant factor when
considering those "unexplained" speed variations between 1978 and
1985.

-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:04:49 AM8/22/10
to
On 22 Aug, 04:02, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:

> I think it's the geometry, given same or identical wheels/tires.
>
> > Did I mention that the detail in the wheel construction is important?
>
> Why yes, I believe you did. I don't disagree, either.
>
> > A good pair of wheels will reduce the shock that a frame receives.
> > Dont confuse reports on frames with those on bicycles.  Frames can
> > only be tested with wheels so the wheels are an important part of the
> > subjective feel of the bicycle, but not necessarily the frame.
>
> I think wheel construction has been largely eliminated as a variable
> in my end of things.

I wasn't making comment on your bikes here.

> Among three bikes (at least), run at one time or another with the
> exact same wheels, the frame geometry seemed to hold sway, if you
> will, IRT feel and handling. To back that up, I had a "soft" rear
> wheel that saw me climbing off yet another bike, in later days, to see
> if something was broke or at least cracked.

I was amused by that feeling of "Where's by back wheel going, there's
no sand here!", I'd started a ride with the intention to corner
briskly to provoke lateral instability. It was my first right hand
turn, which I rode exagerrated, and I pedalled hard through with the
pedals just clearing with off camber and the bike cranked up. It felt
as if the wheel had slipped about eight inches, but I felt it spring
back as well. I knew then that there was error within the factory
production technique generally applied to bicycle wheels and no matter
how tight the spokes could be made it could not improve wheel
stability. It was obvious that spoke failure is an erroneous tennet
to base wheeel construction around, I'd already sufered multiple spoke
failures before and still able to ride the wheels without recourse to
truing or emergency spoke replacements. The unstable wheel would
affect every hard cornering opportunity and possibly result in poor
control leading to falls. I corrected the build of that rear wheel
(elbowing the spokes at the crossing) and went out and tried to force
the instability on the same corner, it was not possible. Further off-
road riding proved the wheel also very capable here due to the
improved stability.

> Replaced with a more
> laterally supportive rear, which seemed to otherwise ride the same, no
> more Whoa Nellie when carving a corner.

It's rather nice when the beast just whips round the corner.


>
> Hey, whaddya think of a pair of Velocity Deep V's, 16 front, 24 rear,
> on some Dura Ace hubs?

I do much riding off-road and would have no desire for deep section
rims. At 24 spokes and less I would not consider any thing but tied
and soldered. A good job should get away with 15swg. Not sure about
the 16 spoke front, can't double tie it, which means weaving and
introducing the bends. I found that double tying a front wheel gave a
lightning fast turn-in with pinpoint accuracy with a 23mm section
tyre. It enhances the on-the-rails feel. Feels like I'm getting a
shove out of the corner as well, instead of the feeling of a dragging
brake.

Ben C

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:20:43 AM8/22/10
to
On 2010-08-22, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:19 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> Similarly, there were wild swings in the makeup of the field, with a
>> field of roughly pro teams and individual "tourists" turning into
>> nothing but national teams (Italy versus France versus Belgium and so
>> on) and then into nothing but teams sponsored by corporations.
>
> Sport imitates life. Once, nations were more important than
> corporations. Now that's reversed.

It seems to be swinging back a bit with Sky trying to bag all the
British riders and the new Luxembourg team with the Schlecks in it.

I prefer it international myself-- don't want it to get all jingoistic
like soccer.

> Pledge allegiance to Microsoft, or your computer won't work. And you
> can't do anything without your computer.

Pledge alliance to Microsoft and your computer is guaranteed not to
work.

bjw

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 6:52:57 AM8/22/10
to
On Aug 21, 12:08 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
> speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> show.
>
> But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> significant to be appreciated?
>
> More here, with an analysis of the article written in Bicycle
> Quarterly (summer edition) -http://bit.ly/ag2SOR

Dumbass,
[this is an RBR topic, hence the RBR salutation]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/5f0f6c746943840f/6d07f1be5d5909bb?hl=en#6d07f1be5d5909bb

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.distance_speed.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.year_speedresid.names.png

The vastly predominant effect is that the race has gotten
shorter over time and the average speed has gone up,
a cause-and-effect link which is obvious to everyone except
Certain Dear People in rbr threads on this subject. Because the
dependence of race distance on time is so strong, it is going
to be quite difficult to pull out any other dependence on a quantity
that changes monotonically with time (for example,
bicycle technology).

Similar plots for the Giro and Vuelta:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/giro.distance_speed.png
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/giro.year_speedresid.names.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/vuelta.distance_speed.png
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/vuelta.year_speedresid.names.png

Multiple regression is a bit like a bottom bracket thread
tap. It's a very useful tool, but dangerous when used
overly aggressively.

Ben

Ron

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 12:10:26 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 6:52 am, bjw <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dumbass,
> [this is an RBR topic, hence the RBR salutation]
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...


>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.distance_speed.png
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.year_speedresid.names.png
>
> The vastly predominant effect is that the race has gotten
> shorter over time and the average speed has gone up,
> a cause-and-effect  link which is obvious to everyone except
> Certain Dear People in rbr threads on this subject.  Because the
> dependence of race distance on time is so strong, it is going
> to be quite difficult to pull out any other dependence on a quantity
> that changes monotonically with time (for example,
> bicycle technology).
>
> Similar plots for the Giro and Vuelta:
>
> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/giro.distance_speed.pnghttp://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/giro.year_speedresid.names.png
>

> http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/vuelta.distance_speed.pnghttp://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/vuelta.year_speedresid.names.png


>
> Multiple regression is a bit like a bottom bracket thread
> tap.  It's a very useful tool, but dangerous when used
> overly aggressively.
>
> Ben


I did not appreciate your "salutation". My name is Ron George. If you
can address me like that, do so , or else sod off.

The point of the BQ article and my post was not finding what the
predominant effect was. The predominant effect seems to be
physiological factors. The point was how much of a dependance bicycle
technology had on average speeds. Its a good question and deserves
some attention, specifically on how to design a good experiment to
capture the effect of technology.


-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee


Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 12:48:36 PM8/22/10
to
In article
<bf1a66ed-c4f8-45cc...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 12:13 pm, Jobst Brandt <jbra...@sonic.net> wrote:


> > Lou Holtman wrote:
> > >> But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that
> > >> finding a way to remove just one more spoke will make them a
> > >> champion.

> > > We are talking about Pro riders. Every second counts here
> > > something you never seem to understand 'azijnpisser'.  As Marten
> > > said, "It's about crossing the finish line first."
> >
> > Paying professional riders to use this stuff is how it reaches the
> > equipment geeks.  Besides, most professional racers aren't
> > technically astute enough to judge whether these "advancements" are
> > valid or not, and whether they had any positive influence on their
> > race results.
>

> At least a few of them have spent time in wind tunnels. These results
> have been, to some extent, discussed publicly. A simpler matter:
> wheel aerodynamics have been measured, in some cases by non-biased
> agency, and the results published widely.

<snip>

> Seat of the pants estimate that was tossed around back in the days
> when "aero" came into widespread use (mid 1980's or so) was, local
> amateur racer dudes went about 2-1/2 minutes faster in a 25mi/40k ITT
> when they switched from no-aero to all-aero, on what equipment was
> available at the time. I'd guess there's been some good progress
> since then.

The wind tunnel testing shows that, by far, the biggest aerodynamic
factor is the rider's position. Just getting the bars 2 cm lower shows
a big difference, for example. The number of spokes you have is lost in
the noise of a whole bike-rider system. But the bike wheel marketers
are having none of that and riders will try to buy rather than train for
speed at all levels. Fools and their money...

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 12:58:39 PM8/22/10
to
In article
<78a68265-e890-4c84...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"dusto...@mac.com" <dusto...@mac.com> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 1:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article

> > > Stiffer, better-handling frames, better brakes compared to
> > > state-of- the-art of only 20 or so years ago, means faster
> > > riding.
> >

> > Not necessarily.  TdF average speeds increased and decreased fairly
> > dramatically in the 25 years of basically no advancements in
> > technology between ~1950 and ~1980.
>
> I was referring only to the article I linked to, where test riders

> went faster on modern bikes. Too many variables in Tour speed.

There are a tremendous number of variables, the biggest being that the
winner only has to ride a little faster than the next guy, so it's the
losers who control the average speed... running has the same effect, of
course. The only sustained maximum effort in the Tour is in the time
trials; there is also the place where technology might show the biggest
differences (ditto the Hour Record).

> >  Since the tightening of doping control a few years back, average
> > speeds at the Tour have dropped.  (I think that was one of the
> > things that lulled Armstrong into believing he could make a
> > comeback, but he had to race on very different doping than he was
> > used to- sorry, a bit cynical there, I don't believe there are any
> > pro bike racers who don't dope).
>
> My reading is Lance was doing OK (actually pretty well) until he fell
> and hurt his hip. Old age sneaked up and got him-- lacking some of
> the old abilities and confidence that used to be in his favor, not
> that he never fell or got hit by a car and hurt in the glory days.

> The playing field would seem to be fairly level, dope-wise, except
> for Contador, of course <g>.

Well, the doping playing field might very well be pretty level these
days, with the biological passport and all. The way it's set up, it's
pretty easy to fiddle the thing though.

> > The BQ article did two interesting things.  FIrst, it compared TdF
> > average speeds with runners (middle distance, I think) over the
> > same years and found that the rate of increase in average speed was
> > very similar despite there being few technological improvements in
> > running.   The conclusion was that changes in human factors (e.g.,
> > training, doping, etc.) weighed much more heavily than changes in
> > bike technology.   I haven't decided if I agree or not.
>
> I understand they've done a lot with shoes, those runner-supplying
> companies. Including "one-event" shoes my neighbor the marathon
> runner lady was telling me about.

That was one of the things I wondered about, although there are runners
competing at the highest levels barefoot so shoes may not matter that
much.

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 1:06:37 PM8/22/10
to
In article
<786844d9-1f5b-4520...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Ron <cozy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

No TT comparisons but many climbing and descending comparisons (given
that the publisher lives in Seattle, he seems to be preoccupied with
climbing performance. Might also explain his apparent dislike for bikes
without fenders).

Mike Jacoubowsky

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 1:15:10 PM8/22/10
to
"Ben C" <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote in message
news:slrni70g19....@bowser.marioworld...

Comparing year-to-year is difficult due to varying conditions, not just
road & weather, but also the competitive forces in play at the time. And
2003... if you're comparing that to stage 17 this year (the one where
you say they left "everyone else for dead"), that was climbing the
mountain from the other side. Also, 2003 saw the Tourmalet as the
penultimate climb, not the final. They still had Luz Ardiden to go.

This year, stage 17 was nothing short of bizarre. The weather was awful
for much of the race, the Tourmalet itself shrouded in fog when it was
being belted by lightning & rain. And the race itself? With 3 or 4
kilometers to go, Andy & Alberto called a truce and stopped attacking
each other. Further, there was no sustained effort to keep the pace
high. Instead, just a series of short attacks, repeated a number of
times, essentially intervals while climbing. That is never the fastest
way to get to the top. Even world-class cyclists are going to be more
efficient by staying out of the red zone on a long effort. That's why
some cyclists are so boring to watch... when an attack hits, they remain
patient and slowly claw their way back when the attackers inevitably
slow down to recover (Levi is a good example of this).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


Tad McClellan

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 1:51:26 PM8/22/10
to
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pledge allegiance to Microsoft, or your computer won't work. And you
> can't do anything without your computer.


I have made my living off of computers for over 20 years.

None of them used stuff from Microsoft...


--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:01:43 PM8/22/10
to
On 22 Aug, 17:48, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <bf1a66ed-c4f8-45cc-9494-6e431354b...@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,


It does not matter at professional level, they can use 24 and 20 spoke
wheels without penalty. If they go down in a crash and a spoke gets
snapped then it is likely that by the time they are ready and fit to
remount their bike, there is already a wheel change being made.

Fred on a stick

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:14:40 PM8/22/10
to
On 8/22/2010 9:10 AM, Ron wrote:

> I did not appreciate your "salutation". My name is Ron George. If you
> can address me like that, do so , or else sod off.

Hmmm. OK, as you wish but that seems a rather odd request.

Dumbass Ron George, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I'd claimed "the Tour

de France has seen its winner's average speed increase some 55% from the

early 90's onward as this site will show" since that site didn't show it
at all. I looked at your blog a couple of times but I found your level
of analysis rather shallow and not particularly insightful. I'm guessing
others came to the same conclusion else you wouldn't be shilling for
hits on rbt.

bfd

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:23:55 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 21, 2:10 pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:

> On 2010-08-21, dustoyev...@mac.com <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 1:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >>  Since the tightening of doping control a few years back, average
> >> speeds at the Tour have dropped.  (I think that was one of the things
> >> that lulled Armstrong into believing he could make a comeback, but he
> >> had to race on very different doping than he was used to- sorry, a
> >> bit cynical there, I don't believe there are any pro bike racers who
> >> don't dope).
>
> > My reading is Lance was doing OK (actually pretty well) until he fell
> > and hurt his hip. Old age sneaked up and got him-- lacking some of the
> > old abilities and confidence that used to be in his favor, not that he
> > never fell or got hit by a car and hurt in the glory days.
>
> I wish I could find the link and give you the exact numbers but Lemond
> was pointing out that while it took Andy and Bertie something like 56
> minutes to scamper up the Tourmalet this year leaving everyone else for
> dead, Armstrong and Ullrich did that same climb back in about 2003 in
> more like 44 minutes.
>
Don't have any data on the Tourmalet speed, but up Alpe d'huez, the 4
or 5 fastest time were by Marco Pantani, a known doper. In fact, if
you look at the following, Pantani has the 1, 3 and 5 fastest time;
Lance 2 and 4; Jan Ullrich, the 6th fastest; and Floyd Landis, the 7th
fastest. All, except Lance, whom we all know doesn't dope, have been
found to be dopers.

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents

Interestingly, Miguel Indurain only had the 14th fastest time; Greg
Lemond 29th; and Bernard Hinault 30th.

> I also wish I could believe Armstrong didn't dope.

Come on, Lance says he never doped ;) Who ya gonna believe? Good Luck!

Ron

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:26:19 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 2:14 pm, Fred on a stick <anonymous.cow...@address.invalid>
wrote:

> On 8/22/2010 9:10 AM, Ron wrote:
>
> > I did not appreciate your "salutation". My name is Ron George. If you
> > can address me like that, do so , or else sod off.
>
> Hmmm. OK, as you wish but that seems a rather odd request.
>
> Ron George, I'd be pretty embarrassed if I'd claimed "the Tour
> de France has seen its winner's average speed increase some 55% from the
> early 90's onward as this site will show" since that site didn't show it
> at all. I looked at your blog a couple of times but I found your level
> of analysis rather shallow and not particularly insightful. I'm guessing
> others came to the same conclusion else you wouldn't be shilling for
> hits on rbt.

This was corrected yesterday morning as it was a slight
misinterpretation, and I blame it on my writing. I did not mean to say
it increased 55% from the 90's. The speeds increased to 50-55% since
1903. Get out a calculator.

Also, I have no interest to converse with you. Either you can show
some netiquette or don't bother to comment here. Moreover, I don't
wish to boast but plenty of people like my analysis and admire the
time I put forth into bringing out such topics. The blog has been
running into its 4th year and has been referenced even in the NYTimes.

Without RBT's "hits", I get 1500 readers on my blog everyday. Now if
you can show a similar amount of aptitude, please do or else you can
take a seat and keep mum. Its a pity that discussions on RBT always
has to come to a show of "oh i know more than you" syndrome. Mostly,
this nuisance is caused by a minority of folks who are always a bit
displeased about the length of their male members.

-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee

bjw

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 2:56:45 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 9:10 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:52 am, bjw <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dumbass,
> > [this is an RBR topic, hence the RBR salutation]
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.distance_speed.png
>
> >http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.year_speedresid.names.png
>
> > The vastly predominant effect is that the race has gotten
> > shorter over time and the average speed has gone up,
> > a cause-and-effect  link which is obvious to everyone except
> > Certain Dear People in rbr threads on this subject.  Because the
> > dependence of race distance on time is so strong, it is going
> > to be quite difficult to pull out any other dependence on a quantity
> > that changes monotonically with time (for example,
> > bicycle technology).
>
> > Similar plots for the Giro and Vuelta:
>
> >http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/giro.distance_speed.pnghttp://...
>
> >http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/vuelta.distance_speed.pnghttp:...

>
> > Multiple regression is a bit like a bottom bracket thread
> > tap.  It's a very useful tool, but dangerous when used
> > overly aggressively.
>
> > Ben
>
> I did not appreciate your "salutation". My name is Ron George. If you
> can address me like that, do so , or else sod off.
>
> The point of the BQ article and my post was not finding what the
> predominant effect was. The predominant effect seems to be
> physiological factors. The point was how much of a dependance bicycle
> technology had on average speeds. Its a good question and deserves
> some attention, specifically on how to design a good experiment to
> capture the effect of technology.

Dude,

I do not care how many NY Times citations your blog
has. It does not make your analysis correct.

You didn't address the point I made about the regression
plots. When you have such a strong secular (time-dependent)
trend on the total distance, it is very difficult to design an
experiment that pulls out any other factors. In fact, it's
not clear to me that their experiment was designed at
all. Throwing variables into a multiple regression is not
an experimental design.

There are several long threads on rec.bicycles.racing
about the Tour speed dependence on time. I pointed you
to one of them. If you are interested in the subject and in
thinking critically about data analysis you might want
to read it.

"Dumbass" is a traditional rbr salutation, which you may see
if you read in the rbr archives (this is a subject about a bicycle
race, after all). It is harmless but has the side-effect of revealing
thin-skinned people who blow up when someone disagrees
with them. "Dude" is different. I say "dude" when I think there
is a possibility one might actually be a dumbass.

Ben

Fred on a stick

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 3:17:07 PM8/22/10
to
On 8/22/2010 11:26 AM, Ron wrote:

> This was corrected yesterday morning as it was a slight
> misinterpretation, and I blame it on my writing.

Dumbass Ron George, I blame it on your lack of quality control.

> Also, I have no interest to converse with you. Either you can
> show some netiquette or don't bother to comment here.

Umm, Dumbass Ron George? First, you appear to be conversing with me.
Second, neither Usenet isn't your blog so you really can't enjoin me
from commenting here. Third, it doesn't matter that you get 1500 hits
per day -- I know some of those hits are from people who occasionally
check in so we can laugh at you.

> -Ron
> www.twitter.com/dumbassrongeorge

David Scheidt

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:01:15 PM8/22/10
to
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
:>
:> I understand they've done a lot with shoes, those runner-supplying
:> companies. Including "one-event" shoes my neighbor the marathon
:> runner lady was telling me about.

:That was one of the things I wondered about, although there are runners
:competing at the highest levels barefoot so shoes may not matter that
:much.

The bio-mechanics of running barefoot are very different from running
with running shoes. Shod runners tend to strike with with their
heels, which generates fairly large impact loads (a couple times body
weight). Barefoot runners land on the balls of their feet, which
allows the load to be absorbed by the arch over a longer period. The
pattern of muscle recruitment is different because of this. It's well
within the realm of possiblity that shoes are disadvantage. (maybe
just because they weigh something, but maybe because they're reducing
the maount of energy returned from the natural spring in the arch of
the foot. Jury is still out.)

--
sig 48

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:40:23 PM8/22/10
to
In article
<681b73bf-a6b8-46db...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
bjw <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is r.b.t, not r.b.r., which became basically a toilet years ago.
Different conventions apply. Please don't drag the bullshit that
pollutes r.b.r into r.b.t. If you enjoy swimming in crap, by all means
stick with r.b.r.

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:42:59 PM8/22/10
to
In article <i4rvmb$are$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:

My understanding- not being a runner- is that there is a trend towards
shoes which mimic the mechanics of running barefoot. I've never tried
'em, since I find running about as enjoyable as endodontistry.

Tim McNamara

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:44:53 PM8/22/10
to
In article <i4rt3k$23g$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Maybe you two should get out the ruler and be done with it. Then we can
stop with the pissiness.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 4:45:27 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 1:51 pm, Tad McClellan <ta...@seesig.invalid> wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pledge allegiance to Microsoft, or your computer won't work. And you
> > can't do anything without your computer.
>
> I have made my living off of computers for over 20 years.
>
> None of them used stuff from Microsoft..

I'm jealous. At work, I've got no choice but to use Windows.

I've got Linux on one little netbook at home, and I'm very satisfied
with it.

- Frank Krygowski

David Scheidt

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 6:30:15 PM8/22/10
to
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
:In article <i4rvmb$are$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
: David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:

I don't know how much of a trend it is. There are a number of
so-called barefoot shoes available (which, of course, ignores that a
pair of moccosains or sandles did just fine for thousands of years,
but hey! got to sell stuff!), but Nike et al aren't exactly pushing
the market. They're selling a number of shoes that they claim mimic
barefoot movement, but still include massive heel cushions, which
strikes me as selling safer cigarette. They do tend to be more
flexible than traditional running shoes, but that's about it.

--
sig 119

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 6:39:52 PM8/22/10
to
On 22 Aug, 23:30, David Scheidt <dsche...@panix.com> wrote:
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> :In article <i4rvmb$ar...@reader1.panix.com>,

If they got rid of the heel pad, they'd be competing with plimsols.
There would be no Nike advantage, except the logo and maybe the
sponsorship if you are at the top.

Ron

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 6:42:59 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 4:40 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <681b73bf-a6b8-46db-bbc2-bc5b82b4a...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Thanks for the support. I can't believe some people have their heads
up their bottoms. It is quite certain the guy who accuses me of
"incorrect analysis" did not read the entire post. It was summarizing
what another magazine wrote.

-Ron
www.twitter.com/cyclingbee

pastor...@lanaifaith.com

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 10:06:36 PM8/22/10
to

"Ron" <ron.r....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc9856d9-d6aa-4f4f...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>
> Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
> Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
> inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average

> speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
> show.
>
> But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
> from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
> contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
> tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
> does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
> significant to be appreciated?
>
> More here, with an analysis of the article written in Bicycle
> Quarterly (summer edition) - http://bit.ly/ag2SOR

interesting article here:
"I don't like the word 'doping'. Let's talk of stimulants. It's normal that
a rider takes stimulants: it's the doctors who recommend them. There are
products which, far from being dangerous, re-establish the body's
equilibrium.
"Raphael Geminiani"

Dan O

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 10:39:49 PM8/22/10
to
On Aug 22, 7:06 pm, <pastorgreg...@lanaifaith.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> interesting article here:
> "I don't like the word 'doping'. Let's talk of stimulants. It's normal that
> a rider takes stimulants: it's the doctors who recommend them. There are
> products which, far from being dangerous, re-establish the body's
> equilibrium.
> "Raphael Geminiani"

It's unhealthy. It's unfair to racers who want to remain healthy.

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 10:42:02 PM8/22/10
to
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 22:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Ron <cozy.b...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 21, 11:42 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:35:33 +0200, m-gineering
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ikmotgeens...@m-gineering.nl> wrote:
>> >carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Aug 21, 10:33 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 21, 11:03 am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:


>>
>> >>>> On Aug 21, 3:08 am, Ron <ron.r.geo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> Its not about the bike. Or is it?
>> >>>>> Without a shadow of doubt, most of us will say that today's Grand
>> >>>>> Tours are faster than those of the past. True. For instance, since its
>> >>>>> inception in 1903, the Tour de France has seen its winner's average
>> >>>>> speed increase some 55% from the early 90's onward as this site will
>> >>>>> show.
>> >>>>> But here's the big question - how much of that speed increase came
>> >>>>> from bicycle improvements alone? If you don't factor in the
>> >>>>> contributions from all other things- temperature, course, race
>> >>>>> tactics, improved training methods, nutrition and doping - what role
>> >>>>> does bicycle technology alone have to play in higher speeds? Is it
>> >>>>> significant to be appreciated?

>> >>>> 55%...?  Since the 90's...?  Ummm - no.http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html
>> >>>> If you're about the change since the early 1900's...
>> >>> The OP must have meant 1900s.
>>
>> >>>> ... then the answer is
>> >>>> two fold - paved roads and it's a markedly shorter race than the early
>> >>>> days.  Not smoking and drinking hallucinogens during the off season
>> >>>> also helped.http://www.vintage-poster-market.com/configurations/www.vintage-poste...
>> >>> And in the early days of the race, there was no support.  Recall the
>> >>> story of one competitor breaking his fork and building a new one
>> >>> almost by himself in a blacksmith shop?  ("Almost" because someone
>> >>> pumped the bellows as he hammered, and for that he was penalized!)
>>
>> >>> I'm sure aero technologies have increased time trial speeds.  I'm sure
>> >>> that removing even a full pound from a 175 pound bike+rider increases
>> >>> uphill speed by something less than 1/175, which is not much.  I'd bet
>> >>> that devices like STI, while perhaps helpful in a few finishing
>> >>> sprints, have not affected overall speeds in any detectable manner.


>>
>> >>> But I'm sure that many equipment geeks still believe that finding a
>> >>> way to remove just one more spoke will make them a champion.
>>

>> >>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> >> Dear Frank,
>>
>> >> For the Tour de France, the modern speed advantages include:
>>
>> >> --shortened distances, well under 3,000 miles instead of over 3,000
>> >> --rest days
>>
>> >wasn't the first casualty in the TDF a rider drowning on a rest day?
>> >> --pavement
>> >> --bikes that weigh ~17 pounds instead of ~25 pounds
>> >> --better shoes and clothes
>> >> --multiple-speed gearing instead of flip-flop hubs (no walking up some
>> >> passes)
>> >> --fewer flats (darned few horseshoe nails, common even after WW2)
>> >> --much better tires with lower rolling resistance
>> >> --no daily water-bottle restriction
>> >> --no stopping to fill water bottles from local fountains
>> >> --no need to carry pumps, inflators, and two spare tires
>> >> --no stopping to fix your own flats
>> >> --no stopping to scribble at check-in stations
>> >> --air-conditioned rooms for the French summer
>>
>> >Airco, they are lucky if the lift works (The TdF is in France after all)
>>
>> >> --far better nutrition and training
>> >> --far more prize money as an incentive
>>
>> >Tours are now won by highly paid professionals with a nice contract and
>> >deals on the side. I doubt the prize money is now more important
>>
>> >> --much more corporate investment in sponsoring teams
>> >> --far more TV and radio coverage as an incentive not to take it easy
>> >> --much better travel between stages
>> >> --much better travel to reach the Tour itself
>> >> --much more emphasis and discipline on team drafting
>> >> --all sorts of vastly improved support during and between stages
>> >> --radio communication to reduce confusion and make tactics easier
>> >> --EPO and blood doping instead of cocaine and amphetamines
>>
>> >> The only modern speed disadvantage that I can think of is the helmet
>> >> requirement, which adds a little weight and a little wind drag.
>>
>> >how about roundabouts, commissionairs preventing pushing in the mountain
>> >stages, crossing closed railway barriers is prohibited and taking the
>> >train during the race is now impossible
>>
>> Dear Lou,
>>
>> To clarify, the rest days varied wildly until they settled down to two
>> after rider protests:
>>
>> "The 1958 Tour was a bit shorter at 4,319 kilometers going
>> counter-clockwise (Pyrenees first). It had 23 stages with no rest
>> days, a schedule that would not be allowed under current rules."
>>  http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfhistory.html
>>
>> To simplify, far more money--prize money, sponsorship money,
>> endorsement advertising money, and so on.
>>
>> Roundabouts existed in the early Tours, pushing has always been a
>> vague area, particularly after flatting, the railway problems were
>> actually more frequent back when trains were more important, and the
>> famous train-trick was pretty much just a single case in the earliest
>> Tour.
>>
>> As for air-conditioning, it can break down, of course, but the riders
>> are no longer sharing the same bath-tubs:
>>  http://i38.tinypic.com/2i8kd8y.jpg
>>  http://i35.tinypic.com/2mqvm74.jpg
>>
>> Or soaking their sore feet like Coppi in this luxurious fashion:
>>  http://i35.tinypic.com/30saxaq.jpg
>>
>> Or putting cabbage-leaves under their caps:
>>  http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/cabbagesjpg.jpg.html
>>
>> Some delays that have vanished:
>>
>> http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Wearing_Tubulars_2_00...
>>  http://bicycle-gifts.com/jpg/q37.jpg
>>  http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/aldoross/pd/Ravit1935TdF.jpg.html
>>  http://i37.tinypic.com/vie3ki.jpg
>>
>> This is hardly how Armstrong travels:
>>  http://i33.tinypic.com/sf8175.jpg
>>
>> That's Bahamontes heading home after quitting in 1957.
>>
>> An earlier post on roughly the same topic of the hardships of the
>> early Tour:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/563dd956f3322fee
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Carl,
>
>How much do you think dominant champions "pace control" strategies
>would have affected average Tour speeds? For example, Hinault was
>known to be a temperamental rider and would bark at anyone would
>didn't follow what he wanted. This could be a significant factor when
>considering those "unexplained" speed variations between 1978 and
>1985.
>
>-Ron
>www.twitter.com/cyclingbee

Dear Ron,

I seem to recall Armstrong chasing down some fellow a few years ago,
supposedly to teach him some lesson about respect.

All sorts of freaks and oddities confuse things throughout the history
of the Tour.

In stage 8 of the 2001 TDF, Armstrong and the rest of the peloton
would have been disqualified after they fell 35 minutes behind the
breakaway group that wanted to get out of the rain instead of taking
it easy--except for the rule that says never mind if too many riders
would be disqualified for lollygagging:

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/tour01/results/results_stage_8.shtml

Obviously, Armstrong and the rest of the 2001 peloton could have cut
quite a bit off their time that day.

But 35 minutes is nowhere near the maximum.

In 1978, all the riders slowed to about 90 minutes behind the expected
time for stage 12 and then walked their bikes across the finish line
as a protest about travel time to the stage and lack of sleep:
http://tinyurl.com/245429c

The stage was annulled, so it didn't count in the official time. In
fact, the riders enjoyed what was really almost a rest day. See
McGann, "The Story of the Tour de France," v2, p. 114 for details.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

John Dacey

unread,
Aug 22, 2010, 11:00:21 PM8/22/10
to
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT), "carl...@comcast.net"
<carl...@comcast.net> wrote:


>For the Tour de France, the modern speed advantages include:
>

>--much better travel between stages

Just imagine if Maurice Garin had a ticket for the TGV!
-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Since 1983
Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
http://businesscycles.com
-------------------------------

Michael Press

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 12:01:48 AM8/23/10
to

> Throwing variables into a multiple regression is not
> an experimental design.

Oh, no! I think I've been doing it wrong all this time.

--
Michael Press

Dan O

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 12:05:57 AM8/23/10
to
On Aug 22, 10:51 am, Tad McClellan <ta...@seesig.invalid> wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pledge allegiance to Microsoft, or your computer won't work. And you
> > can't do anything without your computer.
>
> I have made my living off of computers for over 20 years.
>
> None of them used stuff from Microsoft...
>

Shameless plug:

http://shop.ebay.com/aunt_edna/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p4340

James

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 12:11:49 AM8/23/10
to

Keh? Tea and coffee are a cyclists best friend. C'mon, get with the
program.

James "I like donuts too" S.

Dan O

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 12:18:01 AM8/23/10
to

Alrighty then - WTF, anything goes.

bjw

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 1:36:30 AM8/23/10
to
On Aug 22, 1:40 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article
> <681b73bf-a6b8-46db-bbc2-bc5b82b4a...@m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>

Have you read r.b.t lately? You guys just had three
pointless helmet threads in a row.

r.b.r is like trash talking on a training ride. It has a
significant amount of juvenile name calling (although,
not significantly more than r.b.tech on a bad day).
However, when it comes to quantitative analysis of
cycling performance, which was the original subject
of this topic, r.b.r typically has a well-informed discussion
leavened by a small amount of "dumbass" salutation.
r.b.t, on the other hand, when it comes to analysis
of performance and physiology, typically features
prominent members of the group repeating their
dearly held prejudices.

Look at this thread. Have the r.b.t regulars in this
thread really contributed any significant technical
discussion on the subject of speeds in the Tour?
No. There's been some uninformed speculation
about doping, and so on. Marten is the only person
who noted the importance of time trials -
probably the biggest technological change in the Tour
has been the introduction of aero equipment in
time trials.

The road bikes used in mass start stages are a lot
like the road bikes of the 1950s, but the TT bikes are
very different and we know that aero equipment makes
a big difference in TTs. Noted cycling blogger Ron George
has barely made an attempt to discuss this issue,
and Heine doesn't seem to have felt that analyzing TTs
separately would make sense (this is one reason I say
his "experiment" wasn't designed.)

So you can complain about the "Dumbass" honorific
all you want, but it's a refusal to engage with the substance
of an argument. People get very upset at Jobst being abrupt
and seemingly patronizing when he corrects them. Typically
the people who are most upset are the ones who are wrong.

Ben

carl...@comcast.net

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 1:53:52 AM8/23/10
to

Dear John,

Completely irrelevant reply:

http://actinglikeanimals.com/2010/08/15/funny-animal-photos-pandagators/

Presumably red would be faster.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

(PeteCresswell)

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 9:07:35 AM8/23/10
to
Per <pastor...@lanaifaith.com>:

>interesting article here:
>"I don't like the word 'doping'. Let's talk of stimulants. It's normal that
>a rider takes stimulants: it's the doctors who recommend them. There are
>products which, far from being dangerous, re-establish the body's
>equilibrium.
>"Raphael Geminiani"

Long time ago somebody told me they heard an interview with one
of the pros where the interviewer asked "Do you use drugs?"

Pro's reply was something like
"Climb the Mont-De-SomethingOrOther without drugs? Are you mad?
I would ruin my health!"
--
PeteCresswell

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 9:20:43 AM8/23/10
to
On Aug 23, 1:36 am, bjw <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Marten is the only person
> who noted the importance of time trials -
> probably the biggest technological change in the Tour
> has been the introduction of aero equipment in
> time trials.
>
> The road bikes used in mass start  stages are a lot
> like the road bikes of the 1950s, but the TT bikes are
> very different and we know that aero equipment makes
> a big difference in TTs.  Noted cycling blogger Ron George
> has barely made an attempt to discuss this issue,
>  and Heine doesn't seem to have felt that analyzing TTs
> separately would make sense (this is one reason I say
> his "experiment" wasn't designed.)

OK, Ben, let's talk about time trial bikes and their effect on the
overall average speeds of the major stage races.

I don't think anyone doubts that technology (primarily aero
technology) has speeded up the time trial stages. Can we subtract
that effect to find the effect of technology on the race as a whole?
You probably have information I don't, so:

a) What percentage of the total distance in the major stage races is
spent in time trials?

b) Between, oh, 1950 and 2010 or so, what has been the average
increase in speed of the time trial stages of the major stage races?

c) Can you work out approximately how much the time trial increase
would affect the overall average speed for the entire race?

Tour de France, Giro, Vuelta - any one of them will do, but it would
be nice to see it for all three.

Actually, if you've got the relevant data, we can probably take a
crack at the calculations here.

- Frank Krygowski

bjw

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 2:17:25 PM8/23/10
to
On Aug 23, 6:20 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:36 am, bjw <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   Marten is the only person
> > who noted the importance of time trials -
> > probably the biggest technological change in the Tour
> > has been the introduction of aero equipment in
> > time trials.
>
> > The road bikes used in mass start  stages are a lot
> > like the road bikes of the 1950s, but the TT bikes are
> > very different and we know that aero equipment makes
> > a big difference in TTs.  Noted cycling blogger Ron George
> > has barely made an attempt to discuss this issue,
> >  and Heine doesn't seem to have felt that analyzing TTs
> > separately would make sense (this is one reason I say
> > his "experiment" wasn't designed.)
>
> OK, Ben, let's talk about time trial bikes and their effect on the
> overall average speeds of the major stage races.
>
> I don't think anyone doubts that technology (primarily aero
> technology) has speeded up the time trial stages.  Can we subtract
> that effect to find the effect of technology on the race as a whole?
> You probably have information I don't, so:

Before we embark on a research project, it would
be nice to know what question we are trying to
answer. For example, I thought that Jan Heine
was trying to address the question
"Are Modern Bicycles Faster?"
since that is the title of the article.

However, if we want to ask "How much of the
increase in Tour average speed is due to modern
bicycle technology?" that's a different question.
Maybe we want to know that to figure out how much
of the increase in average speed is due to technology,
or we're trying to make an ideological point in an
argument about doping (which much of the rest of
this thread seems to have become), etc. Anyway,
these are two different questions and one would address
them by analysing different datasets. This is one of
the things I was talking about as a facet of
experimental design.

Anyway, I think the first question is at least partly
addressable by looking at historical speeds in
time trials, although I don't have the data to hand
and one would have to deal with two confounding
factors:
1. Tours were longer in the past so each individual
stage was slower for physiological reasons, and
the effect might be different on mass start stages
and TTs.
2. TT stages were longer on average in the past.
This could probably be controlled for by looking at
speed vs. stage distance.

For the second question, time trials are typically a
small percentage of the total race time, but the time
gaps in TTs contribute significantly to the overall gap.
So I don't know that subtracting TTs is going to make
much difference to the overall analysis.

I'm not really interested in spending time on the
overall analysis because I think it's doomed to failure.
For why, you can see here:

http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.distance_speed.png

http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.year_speedresid.names.png

The data I used is at

http://mingus.as.arizona.edu/~bjw/misc/rbr/tdf.speed.txt

What I note from these plots is that:

1. There is a strong trend for speed to depend on total distance.
2. The total distance decreases strongly with time.
3. The residual from the fit of speed on total distance is about
rms 1.5 kph, or about 4% of the average speed (~36 kph)
4. The residual from the fit exhibits a strong fluctuating time
dependence, which you can see from the 5-year moving average
in the second plot. This is not monotonic with time, so it is
unlikely to be due to something like technology or doping.
It might have something to do with either course design or
team tactics (national vs. trade teams?) but without data on
the total climbing meters each year in the TdF, I can't say
anything about it. The peak to peak of this secular fluctuation
is about 1.5 kph.
5. The RMS variation about the 5-year moving average is still
about 0.9 kph.

The issue now is how much statistical power one has to identify
any development such as an improvement in technology.
I think you have to subtract off the time dependent fluctuating
trend since that's not a signal that you expect from technology.
It's coherent over say 10-15 year periods. So you could
attempt to look at the remaining residual, but the problem is
that you had to subtract a time trend and you're looking for
a smaller time trend.

We have about an 0.9 kph RMS residual
around that trend, so if you try to compare any two given
5-year periods (say before and after the introduction of some
item), you only measure the mean speed in a 5-year period
to 0.9/sqrt(5) kph, or about 0.4 kph, which is about 1% of the
average speed. Given there's a 1.5 kph fluctuation whose
source we cannot identify, how much are we going to believe
any answer that we come up with? Not very much I suspect.

Basically I think a technological effect on TTs is likely to be
strong, possibly hard to measure but we have good models
of aerodynamics that could be used to infer it, and the
technological effect on mass start stages is fairly small
and very difficult to measure with such crude data. However,
that is what I thought going in. It is a repetition of my
prejudgements, not an experiment. The point of the plots
I made is that the experiment is hard and unlikely to succeed,
and one should spend one's time elsewhere. This is
something you have to do before embarking on an experiment.

Ben

bfd

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 2:43:09 PM8/23/10
to
Another issue is making sure you time the same distance. This should
be a "no-brainer," but when we were looking up the fastest time up
alpe d-huez this summer for a friend who had planned a trip, it
appears that the distance measured wasn't always the same. According
to Wikipedia - its the internet, so you know it is authoritative -
some of the times have different starting points:

"The climb has been timed since 1994 so earlier times are subject to
discussion. From 1994 to 1997 the climb was timed from 14.5 km from
the finish. Since 1999 photo-finish has been used from 14 km. Other
times have been taken 13.8 km from the summit, which is the start of
the climb. Others have been taken from the junction 700m from the
start."

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Fastest_Alpe_d.27Huez_ascents

Also, doping appeared to have been a major part because of the top ten
fastest times by six different riders, five of them are known dopers!
Of course, we all know that Lance has never doped, so he may have the
two fastest times up.

Doped or not, Pantani had the 1st, 3rd and 5th fastest times, Lance
the 2nd and 4th and Jan Ullrich the 5th, 9th and 20th.

In contrast, Miguel Indurain only had the 14th and 19th fastest time;
Greg Lemond had the 29th fastest; Bernard Hinault the 30th fastest and
for you old times Fausto Coppi had the 28th fastest time. Good Luck!

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 6:01:15 PM8/23/10
to
On Aug 23, 2:17 pm, bjw <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Before we embark on a research project, it would
> be nice to know what question we are trying to
> answer.  For example, I thought that Jan Heine
> was trying to address the question
>   "Are Modern Bicycles Faster?"
> since that is the title of the article.
>
> However, if we want to ask "How much of the
> increase in Tour average speed is due to modern
> bicycle technology?" that's a different question.

You can phrase the question several ways, I suppose. But I doubt
anyone is claiming that aero differences and lighter weight don't help
_somewhat_, at least in some circumstances. So proving the existence
of _some_ speed benefit is not very productive.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question is to ask "How much
increase in speed does a modern bike provide," and then follow with
details such as a) "in a time trial," b) "in a xxx day stage race,"
c) "in a typical century ride," d) "in a typical commute to work,"
or whatever.

> ... time trials are typically a


> small percentage of the total race time, but the time
> gaps in TTs contribute significantly to the overall gap.

And many claim that STI contributes significantly to the gaps in
finishing sprints. Yet for a 100 mile stage, the difference in times
between (say) the first guy who won a sprint because of STI and the
guy who didn't have it and lost would be fractions of a second over
hours of riding. These gaps may be important to overall
classification, but not to the question we're addressing.

> So I don't know that subtracting TTs is going to make
> much difference to the overall analysis.

Also, these days a serious time trial bike is way different than a
regular road (racing) bike. Obviously, comparing a 1960 (or whatever)
all-rounder road bike with a 2010 TT bike isn't comparing apples to
apples. But as just explained, analysis of overall race speeds won't
be harmed much by leaving time trials in the mix. They must have very
little effect on overall average speed, just because they're such a
small part of the race.

> I'm not really interested in spending time on the
> overall analysis because I think it's doomed to failure.

Hmm. Suddenly sounds like the gurus at r.b.r. aren't much better than
those at r.b.tech!

This could be interpreted as a complex way of saying "We can't detect
a benefit to bike technology." That's even more true if, as Heine has
done, we accept distance running speeds as a sort of control or
standard for comparison.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time people swore they experienced
fantastic benefit based on their anecdotal judgment, but better data
showed the benefit to be illusory.

(I'm talking about lucky socks, of course!)

- Frank Krygowski

James

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 6:16:04 PM8/23/10
to

That was good, Ben, thanks.

Certainly there have been improvements in many areas of cycling.
Training and physiological understanding. Nutrition and supplements,
which includes those supplements banned. Bicycles are just a part of
what makes a cyclist.

In secondary school I studied the progress of the world hour record
average speed. The data points basically follow a logarithmic curve.
There were some technological enhancements to the bicycle, however in
later years these were tamed so to keep the old efforts more
comparable to the new. The main influence then must be improved
cyclists, not their machines, in this environment.

Given that the major influence to speed is wind resistance, and that
hasn't changed, only a cyclists body position, we can conclude that
average speeds may not be improved substantially by modern bicycle
design. However, when the winning margin may be only 60 seconds in
288000 seconds (80h), a 0.021% improvement is all that's needed.

Cheers,
James.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 7:45:14 PM8/23/10
to

That's his lookout.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 7:58:44 PM8/23/10
to
On 23 Aug, 23:01, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:

> (I'm talking about lucky socks, of course!)

Washed in a mother's milk.

>
> - Frank Krygowski

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 8:04:49 PM8/23/10
to

Cut off your shoelace ends, no loops allowed.

thirty-six

unread,
Aug 23, 2010, 8:06:27 PM8/23/10
to

pardon, should be ginger cake.

0 new messages