Avg speeds in TdF

Amazing. Proof positive.

In article said:

In another thread there was a discussion of the editorial in Le Monde about the average speed in
this year's TdF. Inspired by the effort Heather made in sharing data on double and triple GT
winners (thanks, Heather), I've put together a little graph that shows the average speed of the
winner in each of the TdF's since WWII.

I have not taken into account anything about the hilliness, or the number of stages, or the
weather, or anything other than the total distance of each tour. Each data point is labeled by the
year, so you can track things over time. The graph is at:
mywebpage.netscape.comtdf.pngOpen ↗

It's linear, as I would expect.

Yes, the average speed has increased but the distance has decreased.

KP

--
Remove _me_ for e-mail address

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In another thread there was a discussion of the editorial in Le Monde

about

Quoted message said:

the average speed in this year's TdF. Inspired by the effort Heather made

in

Quoted message said:

sharing data on double and triple GT winners (thanks, Heather), I've put together a little graph
that shows the average speed of the winner in each of the TdF's since WWII.

I have not taken into account anything about the hilliness, or the number

of

Quoted message said:

stages, or the weather, or anything other than the total distance of each tour.

Isn't that a large part of the futility of these discussions of using the average speed as an
indication of anything other that the nominal velocity? I would love it if we could see real data
like watts produced by the winner. Too bad Lance does not use his SRM full time. I predict that when
competition bike regularly weigh well below the UCI minimum you will see much more useful equipment
to increase the weight instead of the drama of the brass weights as balast. Maybe they will start to
mount their radios on the bike and ride with power meters year 'round.

Back to the point. Why not include total meters climbed and descended, tempurature, wind tunnel
figures from those athletes that have been tested etc. Even then, what is the threory behind this
creeping of speed? Dope gets incrementally better each year? Wouldn't we see large jumps
associated with the availability of each new wonder followed by tightly predictable average speed
until the next big drug? Or is the theory that the drugs are spreding literally like cancer and as
each new batch of riders get the dope, these new dope riders contribute to the steadily increasing
average speed?

I honestly think someone needs to explain all of these variables or at the a reasonable theory to
actually have any reasonable connection of average speed as an indicator of *anything at all*.

Robert, you seem too smart for this.

Quoted message said:

Each data point is labeled by the year, so you can track things over time. The graph is at:
mywebpage.netscape.comtdf.pngOpen ↗

"Nick Burns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Robert, you seem too smart for this.

Appearances can be deceiving.

Nick Burns said:

Back to the point. Why not include total meters climbed and descended, tempurature, wind tunnel
figures from those athletes that have been tested etc. Even then, what is the threory behind this
creeping of speed? Dope gets incrementally better each year? Wouldn't we see large jumps
associated with the availability of each new wonder followed by tightly predictable average speed
until the next big drug? Or is the theory that the drugs are spreding literally like cancer and as
each new batch of riders get the dope, these new dope riders contribute to the steadily increasing
average speed?

Performance improves over time in every sport I can think of. Sports medicine, societal conditions
(nutrition & lifestyle) and technology improve over time. If the Tour was designed the same as it
was in 1903, no doubt we would see gradually improving averages.

--
--
Lynn Wallace xmission.com~lawallOpen ↗ "I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we
could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security." --Microsoft VP in
charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

What about percentage of finishers? This might be a better relative gauge of how tough the tour is. Then speed vs # of finishers?

It would also be interesting to do a std dev on how homogeneous the riders have become in both height and weight.

Long time observers will remember the footage when the biggest rider at the end of the tour switched bikes with the smallest rider about 10 years ago on the stage into Paris. You no longer see anyone that far out of the norm anymore.

The style of racing has evolved almost parallel with live coverage (sinde the 50's, before that it
was purely Epic). When I was a kid they covered the last 40 kms. That's when the race started.
Except in those stages that got legendary.

The growing attention, fueled by the broadening of quality in the field, have created this utter
nervousness with racing from the start in most stages.

"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

Back to the point. Why not include total meters climbed and descended, tempurature, wind tunnel
figures from those athletes that have been

tested

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

etc. Even then, what is the threory behind this creeping of speed? Dope

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

incrementally better each year? Wouldn't we see large jumps associated

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the availability of each new wonder followed by tightly predictable

average

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed until the next big drug? Or is the theory that the drugs are

spreding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

literally like cancer and as each new batch of riders get the dope,

these

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

new dope riders contribute to the steadily increasing average speed?

Performance improves over time in every sport I can think of. Sports medicine, societal conditions
(nutrition & lifestyle) and technology improve over time. If the Tour was designed the same as it
was in 1903, no doubt we would see gradually improving averages.

Not to mention that the road surface up the many of the mountains seems to have improved

Mack Mad said:

"Raptor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

Back to the point. Why not include total meters climbed and descended, tempurature, wind tunnel
figures from those athletes that have been

tested

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

etc. Even then, what is the threory behind this creeping of speed? Dope

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

incrementally better each year? Wouldn't we see large jumps associated

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the availability of each new wonder followed by tightly predictable

average

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed until the next big drug? Or is the theory that the drugs are

spreding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

literally like cancer and as each new batch of riders get the dope,

these

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

new dope riders contribute to the steadily increasing average speed?

Performance improves over time in every sport I can think of. Sports medicine, societal
conditions (nutrition & lifestyle) and technology improve over time. If the Tour was designed the
same as it was in 1903, no doubt we would see gradually improving averages.

Not to mention that the road surface up the many of the mountains seems to have improved

I think it's mostly that the tour has gotten steadily shorter the last 10-15 years. 4k km vs 3.2k
km, 2 rest days.... From 100hrs to 80-85hrs-that's 3-4 days less riding.