Fanini Speaks Out

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothing to
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

Mr. Lafferty,

I've been racing a particular training race for twenty years on the
same course. Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events. Oh, and maybe a little boost
from improved technology (the mechanical kind.) These increased speeds
are similar in percentage to that seen at the pro level. Certainly,
there are dopers, but there is also the march of physical and
techological improvement.

So, in the spirit of RBR, shut up.

Quoted message said:

Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events.

All of which does not apply to pros... at least not the ones in the
Tour between 1996 and now.

On the flat you could attribute some benefit to the deep dish carbon
wheels... but that is about it, equipment-wise. It would be interesting
to compare the speed on mountain stages only.

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events.

All of which does not apply to pros... at least not the ones in the
Tour between 1996 and now.

On the flat you could attribute some benefit to the deep dish carbon
wheels... but that is about it, equipment-wise. It would be interesting
to compare the speed on mountain stages only.

I would argue that deeper fields and better training techniques apply
at all levels of the sport.

B. Lafferty a écrit :

Quoted message said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothingto
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

Yes, the TDF never went faster than 41 kph, except that
Johann Bruyneel won a stage in 1993 at over 49 kph and he managed
to transmit this secret ability to Lance Armstrong. It is true
that the average speed of the race so far is far above 41 kph,
but only Armstrong's speed is given, but if you make the computation
you will see that everyone else is going below 41kph.

-ilan

[email hidden] a écrit :

Quoted message said:

I've been racing a particular training race for twenty years on the
same course. Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

No, all you need is a couple of dopers at the front hammering, and
everyone
else staying on their wheels.

Quoted message said:

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events. Oh, and maybe a little boost
from improved technology (the mechanical kind.) These increased speeds
are similar in percentage to that seen at the pro level. Certainly,
there are dopers, but there is also the march of physical and
techological improvement.

Actually, the banning of handlebar extensions like Spinacci, which
were in use in 1996, slowed the peloton down by one or two kph.

-ilan

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events.

All of which does not apply to pros... at least not the ones in the
Tour between 1996 and now.

On the flat you could attribute some benefit to the deep dish carbon
wheels... but that is about it, equipment-wise. It would be interesting
to compare the speed on mountain stages only.

Some other possible factors:

1) Top riders nowadays seem to require longer between races
for recovery in order to have a chance of competing at the
top level. If wonder drugs were playing a big role, they
would help with fast recovery. What rather seems to be
the case is that the winners are pushing their bodies harder
in the high level races.

2) Increased use of long periods of fast tempo riding as
an attack tactic - in TdF of the last few years at least,
this seems to be the #1 tactic of Discovery, resulting in
stages with difficult mountain endings sometimes having
higher overall speeds than flat stages where such tactics
don't set things up for a winning attack.

3) It seems like the pool of "domestiques" that can implement
tactics like 2) may well be stronger and deeper now than 10 or
20 years ago.

Quoted message said:

I would argue that deeper fields and better training techniques apply
at all levels of the sport.

I don't see how. Is cycling more popular in Europe now than it was 10
years ago? What training innovations have occured?

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

I would argue that deeper fields and better training techniques apply
at all levels of the sport.

I don't see how. Is cycling more popular in Europe now than it was 10
years ago? What training innovations have occured?

hasn't anyone been paying attention?

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf.png

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical

Couldn't this be attributed to the prevailing winds west to east
direction in the beginning stages?

Nah, it's got to be the dope.

MT

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical

Couldn't this be attributed to the prevailing winds west to east
direction in the beginning stages?

ROTFL!

Quoted message said:

Nah, it's got to be the dope.

MT

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothing to
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

It's total BS. I just looked up the average speed in every Tour, and
did a linear regression on the data (which is a pretty good fit, BTW).

Years Rate of Increase (km/hr per year)

1903-2004 .154

1970-2004 .166

1990-2004 .143

1996-2004 .168

So... there has been a very slow but steady increase since it all
started... nothing at all funny about the last 9 years.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:31:41 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical

Couldn't this be attributed to the prevailing winds west to east
direction in the beginning stages?

ROTFL!

Laugh all you want, [censored].

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005//tour05/?id=results/tour056

...." With 100km to go at the feed zone in Suzannecourt, the sprinters
teams took up the chase, as Quick.Step and Davitamon-Lotto were now on
the front with the break over 8 minutes up the road. After two hours,
the average speed was well over 48 km/h, with 45.9 km raced in hour
two. The riders have had tailwinds for most of these early stages,
which has helped push the average up a bit. With 15 degree
temperatures, cold rain and a 22 km/h tailwind, it's not much of a day
for a race."

If they had started in Karlsrhue and ridden to Fromentine, you'd be
saying they were all clean.

MT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nah, it's got to be the dope.

MT

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

I would argue that deeper fields and better training techniques apply
at all levels of the sport.

I don't see how. Is cycling more popular in Europe now than it was 10
years ago? What training innovations have occured?

Greater use of heart rate monitors and other electronic gadgetry, the
tents that mimic altitude, greater use of wind tunnels, to name a few.
Popularity isn't the issue, it's the number professional riders
competing for places on the top level teams which has increased.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Based on average lap times (which I've logged over the
years), the races are 8-10% faster now than they were than they were
10-15 years ago. Does this mean we're all dopers?

One can certainly attribute the change to deeper fields, better
training and the trickle down from area riders competing with stronger
fields in regional and national events.

All of which does not apply to pros... at least not the ones in the
Tour between 1996 and now.

On the flat you could attribute some benefit to the deep dish carbon
wheels... but that is about it, equipment-wise. It would be interesting
to compare the speed on mountain stages only.

In the mountains the bike weight a lot less than 10 years ago. Way back no
one had a bike near 6.8 Kg. Now everyone does.

Ron Ruff said:

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothing to
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

It's total BS. I just looked up the average speed in every Tour, and
did a linear regression on the data (which is a pretty good fit, BTW).

Years Rate of Increase (km/hr per year)

1903-2004 .154

1970-2004 .166

1990-2004 .143

1996-2004 .168

So... there has been a very slow but steady increase since it all
started... nothing at all funny about the last 9 years.

Because the Tour is getting shorter. (and they paved the roads, etc,
so you really only want to look at the postwar era).

Chung Chart:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf.png

Proof that Anquetil had better [censored] That Will Kill Them
than anyone else:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/c566fc45168a0e60/a8a018ac017d9bf7?hl=en#a8a018ac017d9bf7

Still waiting to see gym teacher Antoine Vayer take this
into account.

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothing to
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

This sounds like something Greg Lemond has been quoted saying. And
IIRC, he still holds the record for fastest TT in the tour.

How much have average TT speeds increased over the years, compensating
for improvements in aero equipment? That would be a more objective
measure of improvements in fitness, as opposed to road stages.

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

From ProCycling:

..........."The current average speed in the Tour is astronomical and
it's
inexplicable that in 1996, when there were still no EPO tests and it was
easy to dope, the top speed was never more than 41 or 42 kilometres an
hour
[.] Can it possibly be that such a quantum leap is merely the fruit of
technical progress? If the people in charge of teams do little or nothing
to
eradicate the use of banned substances in their own teams, then we'd all
be
better off staying at home for the good of cycling."

This sounds like something Greg Lemond has been quoted saying. And
IIRC, he still holds the record for fastest TT in the tour.

IIRC, what Lemond said was that the speed of the peloton on the flat stages
leading to the Pyrenees in 1991 wad dramatically higher than in previous
years. At the time, he didn't know what the cause might have been.

Lemond's time trial was with a tailwind. The tailwind was a major reason
most people didn't think he could make up enough time on Fignon. France is
a great place to cycle. There are tailwinds everywhere.

Quoted message said:

How much have average TT speeds increased over the years, compensating
for improvements in aero equipment? That would be a more objective
measure of improvements in fitness, as opposed to road stages.

B. Lafferty a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Lemond's time trial was with a tailwind. The tailwind was a major reason
most people didn't think he could make up enough time on Fignon. France is
a great place to cycle. There are tailwinds everywhere.

It was also mostly downhill. France is a great place to cycle. There
are downhills everywhere.

-ilan

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Lemond's time trial was with a tailwind. The tailwind was a major reason
most people didn't think he could make up enough time on Fignon. France is
a great place to cycle. There are tailwinds everywhere.

It was also mostly downhill. France is a great place to cycle. There
are downhills everywhere.

-ilan

So is that why the Germans have had so much success in the early stages
before the French regrouped? The Germans go downhill real well due to
the diet, but have no staying power and when it comes time to defend
uphill they just don't have the stamina?
I need a place that's definitely all downhill. I love to try and
climb, but being passed by lame snails really sucks.
Bill C