**** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Mountain stages, for the most part, are not mostly mountains. Most of it is flat. If you're going to compare mountain times, you need to remove the time on the flats. The rest will be mountain times.

Pantani still has the record up l'Alpe d'Huez, and his was 1998. This was only 3 years later than Indurain. If they were going so much faster now, why didn't they break his record. They didn't this year.

Mountain stages have always had flat parts. I guess that you are arguing that after riding faster on the flat stages, the peloton goes a bit faster between the mountains and then goes slightly slower or the same pace on the mountains. I just don't believe that natural recuperative powers of athletes would allow this.

As for Pantani, I think we have to view his Tour de France performances with a great deal of suspicion. However, let me show you the statistics of Pantani's and Armstrong's wins at Plateau de Beille in 1998 and 2004. Whilst not conclusive, I'd be interested in your views - apart from training and the speed of the peloton which you have already mentioned. We are only talking 6 years here.

1998 Luchon-Plateau de Beille 170 km

5 Climbs

Col de Mente (1 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
Col de la Core (2 cat)
Col de Port (2-cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

Pantani's time 5hrs 15 mins and 25 seconds at an average speed of 32.33kmh


2004 Lannemazan - Plateau de Beille - 205.5 km

I think it is difficult to disagree that this is a much harder course

7 climbs

Les Ares (3 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
La Core (1 cat compared with 2 cat in 1998)
Col de La Trape (2 cat)
Col d'Agnes ( 1 cat)
Port de Lers (3 cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

This stage was won by Lance Armstrong in 6hrs 4 mins and 38 seconds at an average speed of 33.8 kmh.

Armstrong rides faster than a highly suspect cyclist, over a longer and harder course by 1.5 kmh. This is a big margin. Do you really think that the TDF cyclists, when facing a 7 mountain pass stage over 200km ride harder between the individual mountains?. How do you explain this difference in just 6 years, particulalry when 1998 was perceived by many to be the "Epo tour"

The average speed of Pantani's tour win in 1998 was 39.98kmh versus Armstrong's of 40.553 kmh in 2004.

Mountain stages have always had flat parts. I guess that you are arguing that after riding faster on the flat stages, the peloton goes a bit faster between the mountains and then goes slightly slower or the same pace on the mountains. I just don't believe that natural recuperative powers of athletes would allow this.

As for Pantani, I think we have to view his Tour de France performances with a great deal of suspicion. However, let me show you the statistics of Pantani's and Armstrong's wins at Plateau de Beille in 1998 and 2004. Whilst not conclusive, I'd be interested in your views - apart from training and the speed of the peloton which you have already mentioned. We are only talking 6 years here.

1998 Luchon-Plateau de Beille 170 km

5 Climbs

Col de Mente (1 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
Col de la Core (2 cat)
Col de Port (2-cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

Pantani's time 5hrs 15 mins and 25 seconds at an average speed of 32.33kmh


2004 Lannemazan - Plateau de Beille - 205.5 km

I think it is difficult to disagree that this is a much harder course

7 climbs

Les Ares (3 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
La Core (1 cat compared with 2 cat in 1998)
Col de La Trape (2 cat)
Col d'Agnes ( 1 cat)
Port de Lers (3 cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

This stage was won by Lance Armstrong in 6hrs 4 mins and 38 seconds at an average speed of 33.8 kmh.

Armstrong rides faster than a highly suspect cyclist, over a longer and harder course by 1.5 kmh. This is a big margin. Do you really think that the TDF cyclists, when facing a 7 mountain pass stage over 200km ride harder between the individual mountains?. How do you explain this difference in just 6 years, particulalry when 1998 was perceived by many to be the "Epo tour"

The average speed of Pantani's tour win in 1998 was 39.98kmh versus Armstrong's of 40.553 kmh in 2004.

Well I guess this had to turn into a "let's bash Lance post" sooner or later. Who is this guy who is currently caught up in a turmoil... oh right it's Tyler Hamilton.

I posted the thread below earlier in the season examining the physics of just weight difference alone on climbs. I would say from the mid 80's until now bikes+equipment are probably 2 lbs lighter easily. The biggest difference being in wheelsets. You can easily explain the changes we have seen through weight differences and equipment improvements. I can attest from personal experience that the advent of the integrated brake and shifter is a huge improvement, and for me was the difference of being dropped or being able to stay with a group.

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 231 Lance's Weight - The Big Difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been a lot of talk here on the forum about Lance and whether his come back after cancer could possibly be realistic without the aid of dope. The Lance bashers point to his so called lack of ability before cancer compared to his incredible performances now over the last 6 tours. The Lance supporters point to his change in riding style, nutrition, weight, discipline for year round training, acquiring the best equipment, best team, better endurance and power as he got into his late 20s early 30s, etc.

With this such a hot topic I thought I would do some research to quantify just what his weight loss alone would do. His weight before cancer has been published at 175 lbs and from what I can gather on the net his weight during his tour wins has been around 156-158 lbs. I found a great paper on the power required to climb hills and started to do some calculations. What I wanted to quantify was the difference in power required to climb a hill based on 2 riders of different weight.

The mass is for rider+bike+equipment all up. For Lance pre-cancer this would be 175lb + his bike and equipment which would probably be around 18.5 lbs. This is equivalent to 88 kg. For Lance post cancer we can go with 157 lbs + around 17.5 lbs for the rest or 79 kg.

The difference in power required to climb the same grade at the same speed for these 2 weight differences is about 11.4%. At the elite pro level in cycling that is an absolutely huge number and could more than explain Lance's transformation to the 6 time tour winner and dominator. When you combine this with all the rest of the changes since his cancer recovery its clear that he doesn't need dope to do what he has achieved.

As a side note Miguel Indurain like Lance had a hard time finishing tours on his first few attempts as well. Yes in their early tour years Miguel was a domestique and Lance stricly was in it for stage victories, but I do not believe Miguel could have won a tour prior to his own weight loss. Prior to his first of 5 successive wins, Indurain lost 28lbs. Doing the calculations on a rider losing that much weight, Indurain was climbing with 16.5% less power requirement.

Here is the link to the very interesting articel on climbing:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html

Well I guess this had to turn into a "let's bash Lance post" sooner or later. Who is this guy who is currently caught up in a turmoil... oh right it's Tyler Hamilton.

I posted the thread below earlier in the season examining the physics of just weight difference alone on climbs. I would say from the mid 80's until now bikes+equipment are probably 2 lbs lighter easily. The biggest difference being in wheelsets. You can easily explain the changes we have seen through weight differences and equipment improvements. I can attest from personal experience that the advent of the integrated brake and shifter is a huge improvement, and for me was the difference of being dropped or being able to stay with a group.

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 231 Lance's Weight - The Big Difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been a lot of talk here on the forum about Lance and whether his come back after cancer could possibly be realistic without the aid of dope. The Lance bashers point to his so called lack of ability before cancer compared to his incredible performances now over the last 6 tours. The Lance supporters point to his change in riding style, nutrition, weight, discipline for year round training, acquiring the best equipment, best team, better endurance and power as he got into his late 20s early 30s, etc.

With this such a hot topic I thought I would do some research to quantify just what his weight loss alone would do. His weight before cancer has been published at 175 lbs and from what I can gather on the net his weight during his tour wins has been around 156-158 lbs. I found a great paper on the power required to climb hills and started to do some calculations. What I wanted to quantify was the difference in power required to climb a hill based on 2 riders of different weight.

The mass is for rider+bike+equipment all up. For Lance pre-cancer this would be 175lb + his bike and equipment which would probably be around 18.5 lbs. This is equivalent to 88 kg. For Lance post cancer we can go with 157 lbs + around 17.5 lbs for the rest or 79 kg.

The difference in power required to climb the same grade at the same speed for these 2 weight differences is about 11.4%. At the elite pro level in cycling that is an absolutely huge number and could more than explain Lance's transformation to the 6 time tour winner and dominator. When you combine this with all the rest of the changes since his cancer recovery its clear that he doesn't need dope to do what he has achieved.

As a side note Miguel Indurain like Lance had a hard time finishing tours on his first few attempts as well. Yes in their early tour years Miguel was a domestique and Lance stricly was in it for stage victories, but I do not believe Miguel could have won a tour prior to his own weight loss. Prior to his first of 5 successive wins, Indurain lost 28lbs. Doing the calculations on a rider losing that much weight, Indurain was climbing with 16.5% less power requirement.

Here is the link to the very interesting articel on climbing:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/dps.html


I agree with you entirely that Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong's weight loss can explain a great deal of their respective improvements in the mountains. Thanks for the web link. It is an excellent article.

Where I disagree with you is on the impact of equipment which you say can easily explain the changes in performances that we have seen. Of the quoted 11.4% power requirement difference, only 1% of this comes from the lighter bike. Also the equation is for a rider to maintain the same speed on the mountain. I estimate that the top riders in the peloton are riding around 1kmh faster on the hills than in the early 1990's. Therefore, given that Armstrong and others do not have superior V02 max and power compared with Indurain and Lemond at their peaks, I am sceptical as to why the peloton is going significantly faster both on the flat stages and in the mountains. As I have said before, I suspect it has something to do with improved recovery between stages which may be due to performance enhancing drugs.

I have no difficulties in accepting that Lance Armstrong's weight loss and high cadence pedalling style have brought his mountain capabilities to the level (possibly slightly better) of the previous Tour champions and that this factor alone can explain 6 victories in the TDF.

My issue is with the magnitude of the improvements in average speeds, particularly in the mountains after faster flat stages in a short period of time. 1kmh on a mountain stage makes a big difference. Training and equipment still leave a large part of this unanswered.

I do not want to turn this into a Lance bashing issue. This is an issue for the whole peloton to answer which unfortunately has become a unwarranted witch hunt against one man.

Mountain stages have always had flat parts. I guess that you are arguing that after riding faster on the flat stages, the peloton goes a bit faster between the mountains and then goes slightly slower or the same pace on the mountains. I just don't believe that natural recuperative powers of athletes would allow this.

As for Pantani, I think we have to view his Tour de France performances with a great deal of suspicion. However, let me show you the statistics of Pantani's and Armstrong's wins at Plateau de Beille in 1998 and 2004. Whilst not conclusive, I'd be interested in your views - apart from training and the speed of the peloton which you have already mentioned. We are only talking 6 years here.

1998 Luchon-Plateau de Beille 170 km

5 Climbs

Col de Mente (1 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
Col de la Core (2 cat)
Col de Port (2-cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

Pantani's time 5hrs 15 mins and 25 seconds at an average speed of 32.33kmh


2004 Lannemazan - Plateau de Beille - 205.5 km

I think it is difficult to disagree that this is a much harder course

7 climbs

Les Ares (3 cat)
Portet d'Aspet (2 cat)
La Core (1 cat compared with 2 cat in 1998)
Col de La Trape (2 cat)
Col d'Agnes ( 1 cat)
Port de Lers (3 cat)
Plateau de Beille (HC)

This stage was won by Lance Armstrong in 6hrs 4 mins and 38 seconds at an average speed of 33.8 kmh.

Armstrong rides faster than a highly suspect cyclist, over a longer and harder course by 1.5 kmh. This is a big margin. Do you really think that the TDF cyclists, when facing a 7 mountain pass stage over 200km ride harder between the individual mountains?. How do you explain this difference in just 6 years, particulalry when 1998 was perceived by many to be the "Epo tour"

The average speed of Pantani's tour win in 1998 was 39.98kmh versus Armstrong's of 40.553 kmh in 2004.

I can't believe you are still comparing times of entire stages from year to year. They aren't even comparable from stage to stage, let alone year to year. You cannot compare the time of the winner one year with the winner next year, not when you have a peloton. Do you understand about drafting and wind resistance? Until you do, we can keep debating this for years. You will never understand why they are not comparable until you do this.

Armstrong is right when he says you cannot compare times from year to year. If you want to compare athletes in stage races, you have to get them in the same race and let them race against each other. It's not only the peloton. Other factors are the wind, the air temperature, the road surfaces, the nature of the attacks, the frequency of attacks, who is attacking. There are many, many factors, and you disregard all of that, the greatest of which is the peloton itself, which I repeat, does not race. It only exerts influence on the placings.

I agree with you entirely that Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong's weight loss can explain a great deal of their respective improvements in the mountains. Thanks for the web link. It is an excellent article.

Where I disagree with you is on the impact of equipment which you say can easily explain the changes in performances that we have seen. Of the quoted 11.4% power requirement difference, only 1% of this comes from the lighter bike. Also the equation is for a rider to maintain the same speed on the mountain. I estimate that the top riders in the peloton are riding around 1kmh faster on the hills than in the early 1990's. Therefore, given that Armstrong and others do not have superior V02 max and power compared with Indurain and Lemond at their peaks, I am sceptical as to why the peloton is going significantly faster both on the flat stages and in the mountains. As I have said before, I suspect it has something to do with improved recovery between stages which may be due to performance enhancing drugs.

I have no difficulties in accepting that Lance Armstrong's weight loss and high cadence pedalling style have brought his mountain capabilities to the level (possibly slightly better) of the previous Tour champions and that this factor alone can explain 6 victories in the TDF.

My issue is with the magnitude of the improvements in average speeds, particularly in the mountains after faster flat stages in a short period of time. 1kmh on a mountain stage makes a big difference. Training and equipment still leave a large part of this unanswered.

I do not want to turn this into a Lance bashing issue. This is an issue for the whole peloton to answer which unfortunately has become a unwarranted witch hunt against one man.

Yes I didn't go back and calcualte what a 1 or 2 lb difference in weight would mean, but if it is 1% at the level we are talking about and with the effort that the riders go through to improve their times, 1% is huge. Gntlmn makes good points as well, as do many people here. There are numerous factors which contribute to improved times. Out of all of these factors to say that 1, just one, doping is the entire net effect of improved times is reaching. doping may be a sifnificant contributing factor in some riders, but I do not beleive it is in most riders.

Don't you wish you had a crystal ball.

Yes I didn't go back and calcualte what a 1 or 2 lb difference in weight would mean, but if it is 1% at the level we are talking about and with the effort that the riders go through to improve their times, 1% is huge. Gntlmn makes good points as well, as do many people here. There are numerous factors which contribute to improved times. Out of all of these factors to say that 1, just one, doping is the entire net effect of improved times is reaching. doping may be a sifnificant contributing factor in some riders, but I do not beleive it is in most riders.

Don't you wish you had a crystal ball.

It would be different if everyone averaged around 40 kph this year, and then next year, they averaged 50 kph. Clearly, this would not be explainable. There's no way everyone would get a tailwind trailing him the entire course.

I can't believe you are still comparing times of entire stages from year to year. They aren't even comparable from stage to stage, let alone year to year. You cannot compare the time of the winner one year with the winner next year, not when you have a peloton. Do you understand about drafting and wind resistance? Until you do, we can keep debating this for years. You will never understand why they are not comparable until you do this.

Armstrong is right when he says you cannot compare times from year to year. If you want to compare athletes in stage races, you have to get them in the same race and let them race against each other. It's not only the peloton. Other factors are the wind, the air temperature, the road surfaces, the nature of the attacks, the frequency of attacks, who is attacking. There are many, many factors, and you disregard all of that, the greatest of which is the peloton itself, which I repeat, does not race. It only exerts influence on the placings.

Contrary to what you may think, I do understand about drafting and wind resistance. I do not disregard this, I juat say, I don't believe it can account for the improvements. Yes, you are right that we cannot make direct comparisons from year to year, but we can make general observations. Do you understand the concept of recovery? This is the big part of my argument. You talk about the forces in the peloton but do not seem to ask why things are happening. In my opinion the peloton does race - it is the race. Certainly, training and technology have helped but you completely ignore how the riders recover from the faster speeds. Drafting saves 25% of the rider's energy but at 45 kmh on a flat stage this is not a walk in the park.

I look at the increases in speeds, listen to the comments of past riders (Lemond, Hampsten) and see increasing number of top riders fall foul of doping offences - Hamilton, Camenzind, Rumsas, Millar (who never tested positive) - and say that the doping issue is not a 1-5% problem. Add in Pantani's rumoured 60% haematocrit after the Milan-Turin race in 1995, Riis's rumoured 60% level, Pantani being thrown out the 1999 Giro for a 52% reading and the Festina affair. Yet the speed of the major Tours has moved on since then. Why is this? I hear what you are saying about the peloton but it is not that simple in my view. This issue is about the physical ability and recuperative powers of athletes - a subject that you have said little about. Training methods and V02 max levels are virtually unchanged during the last 15 years.

Like you, I am tired of having the same debate. You have made some good points which has made for a very interesting debate. I think we should agree to disagree.

This issue is about the physical ability and recuperative powers of athletes - a subject that you have said little about. Training methods and V02 max levels are virtually unchanged during the last 15 years.

Like you, I am tired of having the same debate. You have made some good points which has made for a very interesting debate. I think we should agree to disagree.

The easiest way to understand this is to imagine if the entire peloton were told to race from beginning to end with the objective of getting there fastest. You wouldn't have a certain team "controlling" the peloton as they often do. They would simply shift riders around within the peloton and ride faster the whole way. They don't ride to capacity unless they are in a chase mode to reel in a critical breakaway. They never have, and they never will. So when you say the average speeds are increasing, which is not at all an obvious conclusion from the data we have seen, what this means is that they may not be loafing as much as they were in the past while they are in the peloton. Riding on your own outside of the peloton on a breakaway is anything but loafing, but that they seldom do this is because it is so much harder than riding in the pack.

If you look at heart rate data for the peloton, you see that the riders often have heart rates in the 90's. I can ride all day, every day for a year at that heart rate. It's not fatiguing. In fact, that's what you would call sub recovery ride pace. If they up the tempo at the front, there is not much more energy expenditure within the pack. The energy savings is not a static percentage. The energy savings of a faster moving peloton is far greater versus the front riders when the speed increases. This is because it is a non linear relationship. Energy expenditure to wind resistance is an exponential function. Correspondingly, when you break the wind at higher speeds, you save a far higher proportion of energy than you do at lower speeds. The peloton is capable of going far faster than it does during the tour. Because of its running to undercapacity, now and in the past, comparison of increases in its speed and then saying that is doping is not logical.

The easiest way to understand this is to imagine if the entire peloton were told to race from beginning to end with the objective of getting there fastest. You wouldn't have a certain team "controlling" the peloton as they often do. They would simply shift riders around within the peloton and ride faster the whole way. They don't ride to capacity unless they are in a chase mode to reel in a critical breakaway. They never have, and they never will. So when you say the average speeds are increasing, which is not at all an obvious conclusion from the data we have seen, what this means is that they may not be loafing as much as they were in the past while they are in the peloton. Riding on your own outside of the peloton on a breakaway is anything but loafing, but that they seldom do this is because it is so much harder than riding in the pack.

If you look at heart rate data for the peloton, you see that the riders often have heart rates in the 90's. I can ride all day, every day for a year at that heart rate. It's not fatiguing. In fact, that's what you would call sub recovery ride pace. If they up the tempo at the front, there is not much more energy expenditure within the pack. The energy savings is not a static percentage. The energy savings of a faster moving peloton is far greater versus the front riders when the speed increases. This is because it is a non linear relationship. Energy expenditure to wind resistance is an exponential function. Correspondingly, when you break the wind at higher speeds, you save a far higher proportion of energy than you do at lower speeds. The peloton is capable of going far faster than it does during the tour. Because of its running to undercapacity, now and in the past, comparison of increases in its speed and then saying that is doping is not logical.

Here are some statistics to show you that the average speed of the peloton has been increasing: Sorry For the slightly disjointed table.

Km Avg Time Stages Av Lngth St Avg Winner Sp
1969 1438 39.03 36.85 8 179.8 130 35.41
1970 2138 40.09 53.32 12 178.2 150 35.59
1971 1502 38.95 38.56 10 150.2 130 38.08
1972 1177.5 40.26 29.25 6 196.3 132 35.51
1973 1318.5 37.31 35.34 8 164.8 132 33.41
1974 1595.7 37.74 42.29 9 177.3 130 35.24
1975 1439.5 40.49 35.55 9 159.9 140 34.91
1976 1446.5 36.26 39.89 7 206.6 130 34.52
1977 2218.5 36.86 60.18 12 184.9 100 35.42
1978 1754.2 36.40 48.19 9 194.9 110 36.08
1979 1308.6 39.09 33.48 8 163.6 150 36.51
1980 2015.5 36.62 55.04 10 201.6 130 35.14
1981 2331.6 39.79 58.59 12 194.3 150 38.96
1982 1763.5 39.63 44.50 9 195.9 169 38.06
1983 1517 37.25 40.72 7 216.7 140 36.23
1984 1618 38.54 41.98 8 202.3 170 35.88
1985 1400.5 36.47 38.40 6 233.4 180 36.23
1986 1712.8 39.89 42.94 9 190.3 210 37.02
1987 1673.5 39.03 42.88 9 185.9 207 36.64
1988 1365 42.66 32.00 8 170.6 198 38.91
1989 1304 37.82 34.48 6 217.3 198 37.49
1990 1455.5 39.21 37.12 7 207.9 198 38.26
1991 1786 40.68 43.90 9 198.4 198 38.78
1992 1387.5 42.70 32.50 7 198.2 198 39.5
1993 1399 42.98 32.55 7 199.9 180 38.71
1994 1738 41.31 42.07 8 217.3 189 38.38
1995 1297 43.04 30.13 6 216.2 189 39.19
1996 1332.5 38.28 34.81 6 222.1 189 39.22
1997 1733.5 41.58 41.69 8 216.7 198 39.23
1998 1640.5 40.80 40.21 8 205.1 189 39.98
1999 1401.5 43.40 32.29 7 200.2 180 40.27
2000 1346 42.31 31.81 7 192.3 180 38.57
2001 1608 42.34 37.97 8 201.0 189 40.02
2002 1483 43.74 33.90 8 185.4 189 39.93
2003 965.5 44.66 21.62 5 193.1 189 40.94
2004 1703 43.13 39.48 9 189.2 188 40.55


What I have attempted to do is analyse the speed of the peloton since the days of Merckx (1969) to 2004 on the opening flat stages on the Tour (ie before the big mountains) . The following assumptions have been made:

All time trials have been excluded.
All breakaways have been excluded. The time of the bunch with the eventual yellow jersey is the time taken. This is used to calculate the average speed of the peloton.

Any mountain stages that occured in the first week have been excluded. note the 1992 and 1982 Tours went over the Pyrenees in the first few days.

The third column is the important one. As a general rule, the speed of the peloton on the flat stages between 1969 and 1990 only exceed 40 kph on three occasions. I can't explain the high reading in 1988. The typical average is somewhere between 38-39 kmh.

Look at the 1990's, we suddenly get a significant and consistent jump in the speed of the peloton (1996 was a slow year. I seem to remember that the first week's weather was terrible. And. yes the weather does cause distortions but should average out over this sort of sample size) with average speeds up to 42 kmh quite regulalrly. Then we get to the last 6 tours with 42-43 kmh being the norm with even a 44.7 kmh in 2003.

I hear what you say about the peloton, but I think this data shows substantial increases in the average speed of the Tour peloton in a short period of time. Based on this, I do not think that is surprising that people are suspicious as to how this has been achieved.

Avg (kmh)
1969 39.03
1970 40.09
1971 38.95
1972 40.26
1973 37.31
1974 37.74
1975 40.49
1976 36.26
1977 36.86
1978 36.40
1979 39.09
1980 36.62
1981 39.79
1982 39.63
1983 37.25
1984 38.54
1985 36.47
1986 39.89
1987 39.03
1988 42.66
1989 37.82
1990 39.21
1991 40.68
1992 42.70
1993 42.98
1994 41.31
1995 43.04
1996 38.28
1997 41.58
1998 40.80
1999 43.40
2000 42.31
2001 42.34
2002 43.74
2003 44.66
2004 43.13

What this means is that the AVERAGE tour rider may be riding faster. It doesn't mean he is better than he used to be, although that may be true. But to increase the speed of the average rider is not all that remarkable. It may be that more gifted athletes are being attracted to the Tour de France because of the winnings. These would contribute to more depth of the peloton. Before, these athletes may not even have considered a riding career because of the dubious payoff. There is a considerable lag time between when a young rider makes this decision and when that same rider appears in the Tour de France.

Increasing the speed of the peloton is an exercise in crowd psychology more than a requirement of an improved physiology. The pelotons of old could have gone as fast as they do now if that were their goal. But it wasn't. It doesn't and didn't have a goal. Only the teams within the peloton and their riders have the goal of winning. And winning is not to go faster than last year. Winning is to finish ahead of the other guy. The peloton does not have the goal of winning. How fast the peloton rides is an interaction of the psychology of the individuals and the teams within it--crowd psychology. If all teams adopted a different mentality, a stall in the peloton mentality, then the final race times for all would be slower. It's hard to quantify these subtle shifts in attitude and psychology. But they happen nonetheless. Why do we have bull markets for a long period of time followed then by bear markets? Because of much the same phenomena, the psychology of the crowd.

What this means is that the AVERAGE tour rider may be riding faster. It doesn't mean he is better than he used to be, although that may be true. But to increase the speed of the average rider is not all that remarkable. It may be that more gifted athletes are being attracted to the Tour de France because of the winnings. These would contribute to more depth of the peloton. Before, these athletes may not even have considered a riding career because of the dubious payoff. There is a considerable lag time between when a young rider makes this decision and when that same rider appears in the Tour de France.

Increasing the speed of the peloton is an exercise in crowd psychology more than a requirement of an improved physiology. The pelotons of old could have gone as fast as they do now if that were their goal. But it wasn't. It doesn't and didn't have a goal. Only the teams within the peloton and their riders have the goal of winning. And winning is not to go faster than last year. Winning is to finish ahead of the other guy. The peloton does not have the goal of winning. How fast the peloton rides is an interaction of the psychology of the individuals and the teams within it--crowd psychology. If all teams adopted a different mentality, a stall in the peloton mentality, then the final race times for all would be slower. It's hard to quantify these subtle shifts in attitude and psychology. But they happen nonetheless. Why do we have bull markets for a long period of time followed then by bear markets? Because of much the same phenomena, the psychology of the crowd.

There is no may be about it. The average tour rider (the peloton) is riding faster. Taking your theory,are you saying that the psychology of the crowd did not exist before the 1990's?. I find that difficult to believe.It has always contained riders that want to win, that want to attack.

I have to disagree with you. I think that the mentality of the riders has been the same for some considerable time. This, in my opinion is a physiological issue and we are dealing with very material increases in speed that cannot be explained by the collective mindset of the peloton alone. 3kmh on the flat stages is a huge increase!

Isn't this thread supposed to be about Tyler Hamilton? Seems to me the last several pages on this thread are entirely unrelated to the thread title. I keep coming here thinking there are new developments in this story not a dreary off-topic debate between two people.

There is no may be about it. The average tour rider (the peloton) is riding faster. Taking your theory,are you saying that the psychology of the crowd did not exist before the 1990's?. I find that difficult to believe.It has always contained riders that want to win, that want to attack.

I have to disagree with you. I think that the mentality of the riders has been the same for some considerable time. This, in my opinion is a physiological issue and we are dealing with very material increases in speed that cannot be explained by the collective mindset of the peloton alone. 3kmh on the flat stages is a huge increase!

The psychology of the crowd is there all the time. That's my point. The psychology changes but always exerts a great influence on the pack speed. Back then, it was more inclined to ride at slower speeds. Now, it is more inclined to ride faster. Neither then nor now is it running at capacity. That the undercapacity in current race speed is not as pronounced as it was then is not a function of an improvement in physiology. How could it be? The peloton is running at undercapacity. The improvement is mostly due to a change in psychology. The average rider feels more compelled to keep a higher pace in the peloton now than he did then.

If you take the average American in 1930, and asked him if he thought it would be a good idea to invest in the stock market, he would say absolutely not. Yet, just a year before, he was mortgaging everything and going on the margin to put more into the market, thinking it was such a great deal. Well, the prices were better in 1930 than early 1929 by a great margin for a buyer, but very few wanted to buy. The psychology had changed. Greed had been replaced by fear. Fear is a far more powerful motivator than greed, but it has to be activated. How does it get activated? That's hard to say.

Similarly, it's hard to say why the group chooses to ride faster today than they did then. But it does choose to ride faster in the last few years. That they could not ride this fast just a decade ago is not at all a conclusion that can be drawn from anything we see on this thread. Remember that the rider rides within the peloton and is mostly subject to its pace. How it increases its pace is a function of the interplay of psychology of its teams and riders. Fear and greed are certainly part of the emotions to interact.

But [the peloton] does choose to ride faster in the last few years.gntlmn, all this talk about "the peleton" is sort of obfuscating the real issue, which is "is there an increase in speed that might be attributable to doping?"

Since you are apparently adamant that the peleton is choosing to ride faster now, I have two questions:

1) How fast does the peleton go when they choose to ride at their maximum pace for a Grand Tour? If they are not going as fast as they can now, what winner's pace or breakaway pace would max them out?
2) What do you have to say about the average pace of individual time trials for GC contenders?

The increased peloton speed can be explained with or without doping. There are many factors that could lead to increased peloton speed, including:
- more / better training/preparation
- better nutrition based on scientific advancements in understanding the human body
- more people trying to compete = more talented pool of riders
- better equipment
- better road surfaces
- greater use of teamwork
- increased cooperation among all the teams / riders in the peloton

Doping is just one factor that might be added to the list. I don't think the speeds tell us a whole lot about doping.

Just to get back on track-

I Have mixed emotions about this case-One I hope Tyler is innocence and can prove it (maybe a little unrealistic given the facts). On the other hand I would like a test in place that can catch those that are doping.
If Tyler was truly doping I would think less of him than those who have been caught but fessed up.

Regaurding the speed in the peleton- why doesn't anyone check the speed of the top guys in the time trials? I know the courses change but it would be interesting none theless. Nobody has also mentioned that the overall length of the tour (average per stage took a big drop over the past few years)

gntlmn, all this talk about "the peleton" is sort of obfuscating the real issue, which is "is there an increase in speed that might be attributable to doping?"

Since you are apparently adamant that the peleton is choosing to ride faster now, I have two questions:

1) How fast does the peleton go when they choose to ride at their maximum pace for a Grand Tour? If they are not going as fast as they can now, what winner's pace or breakaway pace would max them out?
2) What do you have to say about the average pace of individual time trials for GC contenders?

That's the intrigue about the Tour de France. A champion who chooses to ride ahead of the peloton all the time instead of within it will not be champion because there is not a rider on Earth who can beat the peloton. This all has to do with the advantage of the draft for the riders in the peloton that they have to give up if they break away. The more riders are in a breakaway, the greater is their own draft advantage. If you have a big enough breakaway, what is the peloton? It is broken then. How many does it take to have a broken peloton rather than a breakaway? Well, that's not an easy answer. If there is one in the breakaway, clearly the peloton is intact. But if you have 100 riders in the breakaway and the rest of the riders behind in the so called peloton, that would probably be called a broken peloton. The variations between create guessing games. That's what makes the Tour so interesting to watch because you find yourself trying to be a tactician just like the commentators.

We have not been talking about the average pace of TT's for GC contenders. That is an entirely different issue which I would be very interested in examining. What we have been doing is to debate the idea that the peloton speed is or is not their maximum rate for the Tour. The other party says it is, and I say it is not at maximum pace. I contend that just because the peloton speed is increasing is not all that extraordinary because the peloton does not ride at maximum speed.

If the entire Tour de France were ridden as ITT's, then we could compare more easily from year to year the differences. For example, if one year were a lot slower than the last, we might say, well, it was very hot this year or well, it was very windy this year or well, a lot of the roads were in disrepair this year or well, the stages were tougher this year. But as we are doing, we cannot even begin to explain why the peloton is riding faster because there are too many variable, the biggest of which is crowd psychology.

If we are going to talk about ITT's, that would be more productive as far as coming to relevant conclusions than to talk about the peloton. If you have some facts and analysis on TT times for GC contenders, let's look at them and try to understand what is happening. That sounds like fun to me.

The increased peloton speed can be explained with or without doping. There are many factors that could lead to increased peloton speed, including:
- more / better training/preparation
- better nutrition based on scientific advancements in understanding the human body
- more people trying to compete = more talented pool of riders
- better equipment
- better road surfaces
- greater use of teamwork
- increased cooperation among all the teams / riders in the peloton

Doping is just one factor that might be added to the list. I don't think the speeds tell us a whole lot about doping.

Yes, that summarizes it very well.

Just to get back on track-

I Have mixed emotions about this case-One I hope Tyler is innocence and can prove it (maybe a little unrealistic given the facts). On the other hand I would like a test in place that can catch those that are doping.
If Tyler was truly doping I would think less of him than those who have been caught but fessed up.

Regaurding the speed in the peleton- why doesn't anyone check the speed of the top guys in the time trials? I know the courses change but it would be interesting none theless. Nobody has also mentioned that the overall length of the tour (average per stage took a big drop over the past few years)

It did? When? Do you have the numbers?

Also, yes, someone else mentioned about checking TT speeds. But those speeds too would go up a bit if the riders are not riding as far each day. You couldn't check just one TT. You would have to be very careful about that. Like for example, if you might compare the total of the last 5 years of TT's with the the total of the 5 years of TT's before that and see if the average speed for like say the top 10 has gone up or down. If more talented riders are making careers out of cycling than there used to be before salaries went very high recently then you would expect the top ten average to be significantly higher now than it was then. I think Lemond is credited with drawing salaries to higher levels because he attracted a lot of attention in America, and that attracted more advertisers. So salaries have risen a lot since 1990 or so.

It did? When? Do you have the numbers?

Also, yes, someone else mentioned about checking TT speeds. But those speeds too would go up a bit if the riders are not riding as far each day. You couldn't check just one TT. You would have to be very careful about that. Like for example, if you might compare the total of the last 5 years of TT's with the the total of the 5 years of TT's before that and see if the average speed for like say the top 10 has gone up or down. If more talented riders are making careers out of cycling than there used to be before salaries went very high recently then you would expect the top ten average to be significantly higher now than it was then. I think Lemond is credited with drawing salaries to higher levels because he attracted a lot of attention in America, and that attracted more advertisers. So salaries have risen a lot since 1990 or so.

YEAR KM AVG SP WINNER
1986 61.5 48.84 Hinault
1986 58 46.03 Hinault
1987 87.5 44.42 Roche
1987 38 47.21 Bernard
1988 52 49.24 Yates
1989 73 44.6 Lemond
1989 24.5 54.54 Lemond
1990 61.5 47.87 Alcala
1990 45.5 44.27 Breukink
1991 73 45.75 Indurain
1991 57 47.66 Indurain
1992 65 49.04 Indurain
1992 64 52.35 Indurain
1993 59 48.6 Indurain
1993 48 50.49 Rominger
1994 64 50.55 Indurain
1995 54 50.41 Indurain
1995 46.5 48.46 Indurain
1996 63.5 50.54 Ulrich
1997 55.5 43.19 Ulrich
1997 63 49.76 Olano
1998 58 46.143 Ulrich
1998 52 48.85 Ulrich
1999 56.5 49.41 Armstrong
1999 57 50.085 Armstrong
2000 59 53.986 Armstrong
2001 61 49.28 Armstrong
2002 52 47.13 Botero
2002 50 46.99 Armstrong
2003 47 48.17 Ulrich
2003 49 54.36 Millar
2004 55 49.388 Armstrong