Maybe there's a chance that some are riding clean

On Aug 25, 11:13*am, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Susan Walker wrote:
MagillaGorilla wrote:
Sure they should...they should allow EPO to be used by athletes so everyone
can start a race with the same VO2 max. *That would be fair. *At least NASCAR
forces all teams to use a car with the same horsepower.

"No doc, I *really* couldn't go any harder on that test. I guess I need
more EPO!"

That's why you would use power data from races to make sure riders aren't faking.
According to you, you can be drunk and still pass a breathylizer test simply by
not blowing hard enough.

Magilla

Magilla, I highly doubt you've ever not blown hard enough. You pretty
much blow all of the time.

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Susan Walker wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Sure they should...they should allow EPO to be used by athletes so
everyone
can start a race with the same VO2 max. That would be fair. At
least NASCAR
forces all teams to use a car with the same horsepower.

"No doc, I *really* couldn't go any harder on that test. I guess I
need
more EPO!"

That's why you would use power data from races to make sure riders
aren't faking.
According to you, you can be drunk and still pass a breathylizer test
simply by
not blowing hard enough.

Magilla

Just use a motorcycle then, and make the relevant changes to engine
horsepower based upon rider weight.

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

On Aug 25, 6:07*am, Scott wrote:
On Aug 25, 3:17*am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT



wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Scott

wrote:
Recently read (skimmed, actually) an article comparing a current
racing bike to an 80's era bike. *Part of the comparison included
mounting SRMs on both bikes. *The conclusions showed that virtually
all of the speed increases seen in racing over the past 2+ decades can
be attributed to greater efficiency of the current day bikes. *The
human part of the equation hasn't changed all that much and apparently
what changes have occurred aren't so significant as to account for the
speed increases alone.

Lance was wrong, it IS about the bike.

Where was this article?

50/50 it was in Buycycling.

nope. *It was, as I recall, in one of the ridiculously overpriced
British cycling mags you can read for free at the local Barnes and
Noble. *Don't recall which one.

FWIW, I'm not saying the article is correct (or not), merely pointing
out their conclusions. *However, there is something to be said for the
idea. *For example, when the top time trialists of the last decade or
so have tried their hand at the hour record, they (with rare
exception) pale in comparison to the Merckx standard. *Put 'em on a
fresh new aero pursuit bike and they crush it. *hmmmm.....

An aero position is definitely better for TTs, no one
disagrees with this. Ask Fignon, virtual winner of
the 1989 TdF. However, that doesn't have much to
do with efficiency of the bike (dunno what words the
original article used). For mass start stages, I can't
believe that the bike makes such a huge difference.
My guess at the most significant difference is that
they now ride wheels that are more aero than 1980s
wheels in mass start stages.

As I have posted about a jillion times, the biggest
effect on overall speed of the TdF is that the total
distance has gotten shorter over the years:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...ance_speed.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...esid.names.png

Ben

On Aug 25, 11:35*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 25, 6:07*am, Scott wrote:





On Aug 25, 3:17*am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Scott

wrote:
Recently read (skimmed, actually) an article comparing a current
racing bike to an 80's era bike. *Part of the comparison included
mounting SRMs on both bikes. *The conclusions showed that virtually
all of the speed increases seen in racing over the past 2+ decades can
be attributed to greater efficiency of the current day bikes. *The
human part of the equation hasn't changed all that much and apparently
what changes have occurred aren't so significant as to account for the
speed increases alone.

Lance was wrong, it IS about the bike.

Where was this article?

50/50 it was in Buycycling.

nope. *It was, as I recall, in one of the ridiculously overpriced
British cycling mags you can read for free at the local Barnes and
Noble. *Don't recall which one.

FWIW, I'm not saying the article is correct (or not), merely pointing
out their conclusions. *However, there is something to be said for the
idea. *For example, when the top time trialists of the last decade or
so have tried their hand at the hour record, they (with rare
exception) pale in comparison to the Merckx standard. *Put 'em on a
fresh new aero pursuit bike and they crush it. *hmmmm.....

An aero position is definitely better for TTs, no one
disagrees with this. *Ask Fignon, virtual winner of
the 1989 TdF. *However, that doesn't have much to
do with efficiency of the bike (dunno what words the
original article used). *For mass start stages, I can't
believe that the bike makes such a huge difference.
My guess at the most significant difference is that
they now ride wheels that are more aero than 1980s
wheels in mass start stages.

As I have posted about a jillion times, the biggest
effect on overall speed of the TdF is that the total
distance has gotten shorter over the years:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...ance_speed.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...esid.names.png

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll see if I can find the mag that contained the article, but as I
recall one of the primary findings, aside from advancement in wheel-
related aerodynamics, was the energy losses associated with a noodly
frame. The SRM findings were pretty clear that a noodly steel frame
(noodly by today's standards, anyway) did not act as a spring and
return energy into propulsion, but rather dissipated the energy rather
inefficiently. It took significantly greater power to maintain the
same speeds on the 80's era Puegot (or whatever it was) than it did on
a new and improved CF rocketship.

Scott wrote:
On Aug 25, 11:35 am, "
wrote:
On Aug 25, 6:07 am, Scott wrote:





On Aug 25, 3:17 am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Scott
wrote:
Recently read (skimmed, actually) an article comparing a current
racing bike to an 80's era bike. Part of the comparison included
mounting SRMs on both bikes. The conclusions showed that virtually
all of the speed increases seen in racing over the past 2+ decades can
be attributed to greater efficiency of the current day bikes. The
human part of the equation hasn't changed all that much and apparently
what changes have occurred aren't so significant as to account for the
speed increases alone.
Lance was wrong, it IS about the bike.
Where was this article?
50/50 it was in Buycycling.
nope. It was, as I recall, in one of the ridiculously overpriced
British cycling mags you can read for free at the local Barnes and
Noble. Don't recall which one.
FWIW, I'm not saying the article is correct (or not), merely pointing
out their conclusions. However, there is something to be said for the
idea. For example, when the top time trialists of the last decade or
so have tried their hand at the hour record, they (with rare
exception) pale in comparison to the Merckx standard. Put 'em on a
fresh new aero pursuit bike and they crush it. hmmmm.....
An aero position is definitely better for TTs, no one
disagrees with this. Ask Fignon, virtual winner of
the 1989 TdF. However, that doesn't have much to
do with efficiency of the bike (dunno what words the
original article used). For mass start stages, I can't
believe that the bike makes such a huge difference.
My guess at the most significant difference is that
they now ride wheels that are more aero than 1980s
wheels in mass start stages.

As I have posted about a jillion times, the biggest
effect on overall speed of the TdF is that the total
distance has gotten shorter over the years:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...ance_speed.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...esid.names.png

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll see if I can find the mag that contained the article, but as I
recall one of the primary findings, aside from advancement in wheel-
related aerodynamics, was the energy losses associated with a noodly
frame. The SRM findings were pretty clear that a noodly steel frame
(noodly by today's standards, anyway) did not act as a spring and
return energy into propulsion, but rather dissipated the energy rather
inefficiently. It took significantly greater power to maintain the
same speeds on the 80's era Puegot (or whatever it was) than it did on
a new and improved CF rocketship.

So Sean Kelly is even more of a badass than we realized.

On Aug 25, 12:18*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message

...





Susan Walker wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Sure they should...they should allow EPO to be used by athletes so
everyone
can start a race with the same VO2 max. *That would be fair. *At
least NASCAR
forces all teams to use a car with the same horsepower.

"No doc, I *really* couldn't go any harder on that test. I guess I
need
more EPO!"

That's why you would use power data from races to make sure riders
aren't faking.
According to you, you can be drunk and still pass a breathylizer test
simply by
not blowing hard enough.

Magilla

Just use a motorcycle then, and make the relevant changes to engine
horsepower based upon rider weight.

--Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now that's a fatty master idea if therfe ever was one!!!!

On Aug 25, 12:41*pm, Scott wrote:
On Aug 25, 11:35*am, "
wrote:





On Aug 25, 6:07*am, Scott wrote:

On Aug 25, 3:17*am, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Scott

wrote:
Recently read (skimmed, actually) an article comparing a current
racing bike to an 80's era bike. *Part of the comparison included
mounting SRMs on both bikes. *The conclusions showed that virtually
all of the speed increases seen in racing over the past 2+ decades can
be attributed to greater efficiency of the current day bikes. *The
human part of the equation hasn't changed all that much and apparently
what changes have occurred aren't so significant as to account for the
speed increases alone.

Lance was wrong, it IS about the bike.

Where was this article?

50/50 it was in Buycycling.

nope. *It was, as I recall, in one of the ridiculously overpriced
British cycling mags you can read for free at the local Barnes and
Noble. *Don't recall which one.

FWIW, I'm not saying the article is correct (or not), merely pointing
out their conclusions. *However, there is something to be said for the
idea. *For example, when the top time trialists of the last decade or
so have tried their hand at the hour record, they (with rare
exception) pale in comparison to the Merckx standard. *Put 'em on a
fresh new aero pursuit bike and they crush it. *hmmmm.....

An aero position is definitely better for TTs, no one
disagrees with this. *Ask Fignon, virtual winner of
the 1989 TdF. *However, that doesn't have much to
do with efficiency of the bike (dunno what words the
original article used). *For mass start stages, I can't
believe that the bike makes such a huge difference.
My guess at the most significant difference is that
they now ride wheels that are more aero than 1980s
wheels in mass start stages.

As I have posted about a jillion times, the biggest
effect on overall speed of the TdF is that the total
distance has gotten shorter over the years:

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...ance_speed.png

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~bjw/misc/r...esid.names.png

Ben- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll see if I can find the mag that contained the article, but as I
recall one of the primary findings, aside from advancement in wheel-
related aerodynamics, was the energy losses associated with a noodly
frame. *The SRM findings were pretty clear that a noodly steel frame
(noodly by today's standards, anyway) did not act as a spring and
return energy into propulsion, but rather dissipated the energy rather
inefficiently. *It took significantly greater power to maintain the
same speeds on the 80's era Puegot (or whatever it was) than it did on
a new and improved CF rocketship.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You guys are totally discounting major forces like road surface
irregularities and margin of error for braking with a modern bike vs
the bikes in 62.

Watch some of the footage from the 62 tour that was posted here.

Don't forget the difficulties in reliable shifting and how that would
affect a climb. Losses in frame deflection are minor compared to
these 3 items

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Susan Walker wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Sure they should...they should allow EPO to be used by athletes so
everyone
can start a race with the same VO2 max. That would be fair. At
least NASCAR
forces all teams to use a car with the same horsepower.

"No doc, I *really* couldn't go any harder on that test. I guess I
need
more EPO!"

That's why you would use power data from races to make sure riders
aren't faking.
According to you, you can be drunk and still pass a breathylizer test
simply by
not blowing hard enough.

Magilla

Just use a motorcycle then, and make the relevant changes to engine
horsepower based upon rider weight.

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

Don't be a smart-ass. My suggestion is only a rebuttal to the fact that
WADA and all the federations consider ANY athlete who dopes to be
cheating, yet those same federations don't give a **** if some guy is born
with a Vo2 max of 90 and another guy is born with a Vo2 max of 67. How is
that in compliance to "sporting fairness" in ANY way?

Having unequal genetic advantage if far more significant than taking PED's
as far as performance goes. If it weren't then any Cat 4 could win the
Tour de France simply by training hard.

Thanks,

Magilla

P.S. Do you know what the only difference is between the men and the women
in all professional sports? Answer: Genetics.

On Aug 25, 10:41*am, Scott wrote:

I'll see if I can find the mag that contained the article, but as I
recall one of the primary findings, aside from advancement in wheel-
related aerodynamics, was the energy losses associated with a noodly
frame. *The SRM findings were pretty clear that a noodly steel frame
(noodly by today's standards, anyway) did not act as a spring and
return energy into propulsion, but rather dissipated the energy rather
inefficiently. *It took significantly greater power to maintain the
same speeds on the 80's era Puegot (or whatever it was) than it did on
a new and improved CF rocketship.

OK. I would be interested to hear what the article said.
I don't want to seem like I am picking an argument
with you (I understand you're reporting what someone
else wrote), but from the point of view of engineering
or frame design or thinking about frame stiffness,
that's crazy talk.

Frames, even old skinny tube steel frames, are extremely
stiff compared to the forces you can exert by pedaling.
That means the amount of energy that can be stored in
the frame-as-spring is quite small. The amount of
energy that can actually be lost to dissipation is only
some fraction of that, as most of the energy will be
elastically returned when the frame springs back.

Cycling magazines like to tell anecdotes about
equipment stuff but they rarely do an full-blown analysis
to see if what they're talking about is even possible.
It sells magazines and gives gearheads something
to obsess over rather than training.

FWIW, I used to time myself up a big climb on one of
our group rides and I never noticed a difference between
skinny tube steel and a big old Cannondale (very laterally
stiff). This would only be good to about 2% difference
because my times were consistent at about that level.
2% would make a difference at the pro level, of course,
but I doubt any difference is actually that large.

Ben

ps.
Physics behind this: F = -kx, F is force, k is spring constant,
x is displacement. Energy stored in a spring is E=0.5 kx^2.
That means for a given force F, a stiff spring stores less
energy. One might think this means a stiff frame is more
efficient, but I think it also means that the stored energy in
any frame is very small, so the amount of improvement that
could be made is very small.

On Aug 25, 3:01*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Susan Walker wrote:

MagillaGorilla wrote:
Sure they should...they should allow EPO to be used by athletes so
everyone
can start a race with the same VO2 max. *That would be fair. *At
least NASCAR
forces all teams to use a car with the same horsepower.

"No doc, I *really* couldn't go any harder on that test. I guess I
need
more EPO!"

That's why you would use power data from races to make sure riders
aren't faking.
According to you, you can be drunk and still pass a breathylizer test
simply by
not blowing hard enough.

Magilla

Just use a motorcycle then, and make the relevant changes to engine
horsepower based upon rider weight.

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

Don't be a smart-ass. *My suggestion is only a rebuttal to the fact that
WADA and all the federations consider ANY athlete who dopes to be
cheating, yet those same federations don't give a **** if some guy is born
with a Vo2 max of 90 and another guy is born with a Vo2 max of 67. *How is
that in compliance to "sporting fairness" in ANY way?

Having unequal genetic advantage if far more significant than taking PED's
as far as performance goes. *If it weren't then any Cat 4 could win the
Tour de France simply by training hard.

Thanks,

Magilla

P.S. Do you know what the only difference is between the men and the women
in all professional sports? *Answer: Genetics.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Athletic competition can't be all based on social loafing. If
everyone was handicapped to the same equivalent VO2 then the best
'cheater' would be those that did the least amount of work until the
finish line. Then we would be granting rewards the same the way the
government bails out losing finiancial institutions and car
manufacturers. And that would be more disgusting than the current
state of affairs.