Peleton speeds

A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

Harry Travis
Washington, DC

DemostiX wrote:
A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

Harry Travis
Washington, DC

It's peloton. One e two o's.

On Jul 18, 9:47*pm, DemostiX wrote:
A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?


1. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a018ac017d9bf7

Click on the "message from discussion" if you want
to see the context. The dominant effect on the average
speed in the Tour is that the distance has been
getting shorter over time. In the year 3000, it will
presumably be run as a 100 yard dash by genetically
modified athletes for the entertainment of
pod-people couch potatoes with very short
attention spans.

2. No, nobody has ever scrutinized domestiques,
because the only time July People ever think
about domestiques is when they have an
accusation to throw around.

Ben

On Jul 18, 9:47*pm, DemostiX wrote:
A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Peloton, not peleton.

Here're the average speeds of the winner since 1947. Not quite the
speed of the peloton, but this may give you an idea:
http://tinyurl.com/63hvaf

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

In combination with weather, yes.

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

Because the people doing the testing aren't interested in no-name
domestiques.

On Jul 18, 10:28*pm, "
wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a018ac017d9bf7

Yeah, I remember that. Nice presentation.

Here's another nice presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JYIJPjpCFc

On Jul 18, 11:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:47*pm, DemostiX wrote:

A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

1. *http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a018ac017d9bf7

Click on the "message from discussion" if you want
to see the context. *The dominant effect on the average
speed in the Tour is that the distance has been
getting shorter over time. *In the year 3000, it will
presumably be run as a 100 yard dash by genetically
modified athletes for the entertainment of
pod-people couch potatoes with very short
attention spans.

2. No, nobody has ever scrutinized domestiques,
because the only time July People ever think
about domestiques is when they have an
accusation to throw around.

Ben

Dear Ben,

From what I've been hearing, I would have expected the dominant effect
to be the steady weight reduction of the bicycles.

:-)

Or paving. Many post-war passes weren't paved.

Or lower rolling resistance. I hear tires have improved.

Or more gears. Wonder what the 5-6-7-8-9-10 chronology looks like?

Or improved training. Many pros in the early part of that graph
smoked.

Or increasing prize money. Economists talk about incentives.

Or better drugs--EPO, for example, was approved for medical use in
1989. Draw a horizontal line from the 1989 data point--interesting,
isn't it?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article
,
" wrote:

On Jul 18, 11:28*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:47*pm, DemostiX wrote:

A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

1. *http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a018ac017d9bf7

Click on the "message from discussion" if you want
to see the context. *The dominant effect on the average
speed in the Tour is that the distance has been
getting shorter over time. *In the year 3000, it will
presumably be run as a 100 yard dash by genetically
modified athletes for the entertainment of
pod-people couch potatoes with very short
attention spans.

2. No, nobody has ever scrutinized domestiques,
because the only time July People ever think
about domestiques is when they have an
accusation to throw around.

Ben

Dear Ben,

From what I've been hearing, I would have expected the dominant effect
to be the steady weight reduction of the bicycles.

:-)

Or paving. Many post-war passes weren't paved.

Or lower rolling resistance. I hear tires have improved.

Or more gears. Wonder what the 5-6-7-8-9-10 chronology looks like?

Or improved training. Many pros in the early part of that graph
smoked.

Or increasing prize money. Economists talk about incentives.

Or better drugs--EPO, for example, was approved for medical use in
1989. Draw a horizontal line from the 1989 data point--interesting,
isn't it?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel


Or better TV coverage. Riders notoriously used to start riding hard for
each stage around the beginning of the daily broadcast.

jyh.

" a écrit profondement:

|
| Or lower rolling resistance. I hear tires have improved.

The sealed bearing has had a dramatic effect on speed.

Not to downplay the other factors though.

In reality it's a combination of factors that permits Davey to ride a
"25" almost a minute faster than he did 50 years ago.

--
Davey Crockett

On Jul 19, 10:29 am, "
wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:28 pm, "
wrote:



On Jul 18, 9:47 pm, DemostiX wrote:

A couple of naive questions:

1. Where are there comparisons of peleton speeds? Now and then it is
the speed of the peleton that is commented on by critics of doping

Do racing strategies affect peleton speed so much that speed
comparisons have not and cannot be made across years for the same
extended segments of races?

2. Why are the domestiques for stage winners not subject to greater
scrutiny. Aren't they the ones who have done the heavy lifting?

1. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...a018ac017d9bf7

Click on the "message from discussion" if you want
to see the context. The dominant effect on the average
speed in the Tour is that the distance has been
getting shorter over time. In the year 3000, it will
presumably be run as a 100 yard dash by genetically
modified athletes for the entertainment of
pod-people couch potatoes with very short
attention spans.

2. No, nobody has ever scrutinized domestiques,
because the only time July People ever think
about domestiques is when they have an
accusation to throw around.

Ben

Dear Ben,

From what I've been hearing, I would have expected the dominant effect
to be the steady weight reduction of the bicycles.

:-)

Or paving. Many post-war passes weren't paved.

Or lower rolling resistance. I hear tires have improved.

Or more gears. Wonder what the 5-6-7-8-9-10 chronology looks like?

Or improved training. Many pros in the early part of that graph
smoked.

Or increasing prize money. Economists talk about incentives.

Or better drugs--EPO, for example, was approved for medical use in
1989. Draw a horizontal line from the 1989 data point--interesting,
isn't it?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In the 1990's the bikes themselves were doped with clip on's such as
Spinacchi which increased speeds by a couple of kph. Another increase
in speed around that time was the introduction of world cup points
determining salary, so that there was more motivation for lesser
riders to finish well and the influx of new riders from the US, East
Block, etc., who were not interested in old peloton traditions of
going slow except for the last 2 hours. Finally, Hinault's retirement
meant the end of big bosses who would severely punish any attempt to
speed up the tempo, Indurain basically let everyone do what they
liked, including winning stage from him, as long as he won the GC.

-ilan

Davey Crockett wrote:
In reality it's a combination of factors that permits Davey to ride a "25"
almost a minute faster than he did 50 years ago.

Davey must be a doper according to French gym teachers.