[font=Arial]It is interesting to note that Ulrich climbed faster on a road stage in 1997 when he won the TdF than this year 2004 in the ITT. He was certainly in better shape back then. [/font]
It is tough to compare times, in detail, from year to year since atmospheric conditions can affect times.
Is the time correct for Lemond/Hinault? If so, then WTF? EPO or no the gap to today is huge.
Yes the time for Lemond/Hinault is correct; 48 minutes. However we must take into consideration that they began the climb alone with too much time over the other riders and climbed at a "very slow pace" also Hinault knee was hurting him and told Lemmond to take it easy. At the end both arrived on top shacking hands. Still, if I am not mistaken, the 45 minute barrier had not yet been beaten by then. Coppi's record was there unbeaten for more than 30 years!!! From 1990 and on, riders began doing it in less than 40 minutes.
You are also right atmospheric conditions can affect times, however I think my comparison of Ullrich 97 and Ullrich 2004 is relevant enough since it was a sunny day with no wind at all on those both occasions. Am I right?
He is only 13 second slower and by the same standarads , Lance was only 25 seconds quicker.So net net , a 38 second swing. I wouldnt say thats an obvious loss of form for that climb over the years.
He is only 13 second slower and by the same standarads , Lance was only 25 seconds quicker.So net net , a 38 second swing. I wouldnt say thats an obvious loss of form for that climb over the years.
Well actually I don't think that the 13 second difference of Ulrich in 97 compared wity 2004 represents an abvious loss or form. But what I do think that shows an obvious loss of form is the fact that in 2004 the stage was a short ITT were riders give their 100% from the start, besides having a different bike, helmet etc. However in 1997 the climb to L'Alpe d'huez was part of a long stage and before they started climbing the riders had already done more than 100 kilometers. So I think it is very relevant to see how Ullrich climbed faster in 97 on a long stage than in 2004 on a ITT. In 2004, Ullrich was certainly far from the shape shown in 97.
By the same criteria , Lance was only 25 seconds faster in the ITT than when he road it a few years earlier at the end of a long stage. See what i am saying? Its quite a small difference.
But you are right , Ulrich isnt the rider he was in 1997.But i think thats as much mental as it is physical.
By the same criteria , Lance was only 25 seconds faster in the ITT than when he road it a few years earlier at the end of a long stage. See what i am saying? Its quite a small difference.
But you are right , Ulrich isnt the rider he was in 1997.But i think thats as much mental as it is physical.
[font=Times New Roman]I agree with you that many factors must be taken into consideration when comparing times over different years. Specially if they attacked at the beginning of the climb or later since we all assume they go at 100% in the ITT. Armstrong climbing in 2001 was absolutely incredible, did he attack from the bottom? I don't remember, and what about Ulrich in 97? did the German attack from the bottom?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I think this is very important. Just look at Indurain/Zulle time in 1995 (time 39:28). Indurain did not chase Pantani from the bottom but only later on the climb, but once he put pressure the gap with Pantani did no increase anymore (in fact it was reduced from 1:30 to 1:24!!). So I think it is fair to say that if Indurain had not let Pantani go at first his time would have been better.[/font]
I must agree with you Sopas, that Ullrich is not in quite the form he showed in 97. The individual time trial should certainly allow for better climb times compared to a full stage, all else equal. I also agree that with Meeh about the impressiveness of Fausto Coppi's climb. Pantani's record will certainly be broken in the coming years, but I would hope not as a result of an individual time trial, as it seems that would not be fair.
Noted that Kaiser Jan did not have a particularly briliant tour, or time trial this year. But could the fact that it was a 'ready, set, go' kind of ride affected a 'diesel' type rider like Ullrich?
[font=Times New Roman]I agree with you that many factors must be taken into consideration when comparing times over different years. Specially if they attacked at the beginning of the climb or later since we all assume they go at 100% in the ITT. Armstrong climbing in 2001 was absolutely incredible, did he attack from the bottom? I don't remember, and what about Ulrich in 97? did the German attack from the bottom?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I think this is very important. Just look at Indurain/Zulle time in 1995 (time 39:28). Indurain did not chase Pantani from the bottom but only later on the climb, but once he put pressure the gap with Pantani did no increase anymore (in fact it was reduced from 1:30 to 1:24!!). So I think it is fair to say that if Indurain had not let Pantani go at first his time would have been better.[/font]
For me - 1995 D'Huez stage was the stage of all stages. I was there that day and I say BigMig put the power on to try to minimise Marco's escape. Marco flew by - literally. I couldn't believe the speed that he was going at. The BigMig came blasting up there - not as fast as MP but still a lot of faster than anyone else.
You are right Sopas, BigMig probably wouldn't have been able to catch Marco but for the big man to claw back time on him, was a sight to behold. As Indurain passed by, you could see his lungs expanding and contracting as he climbed and he was breathing heavily (who wouldn't ??). Superb stuff.
I am not sure about the statement that Coppi was using a fixed wheel back in 1952. Certainly the derailleur had been in use in the TDF since 1937 - so I would expect that he did have some gear selections. But nothing like the range of gears that they have today. Also remember Coppi would have been using a heavier bike and the road surface would have been terrible in comparison to today. This makes Coppi's performance all the greater. 48 mins.
Myfriend climbed D'Huez in August - he cannot cycle at all but fancied having a go. It took him 2hrs 3mins to climb the 14 kms.
I must say that the supposition that Indurain's time in 95 would have been better if he hadn't waited so long, is rather silly. Perhaps we need to take time measurements starting from halfway up? In any event the rider who takes off in a breakaway attempt takes all the risk, and that anaerobic initial stress he will eventually pay for. But he needs to assure he has surprised his adversaries so that no one is on his wheel benifiting. Thus the great champion Indurain shows his greatness in limiting damage, but to say more is; as i say silly.
sopas said:
[font=Times New Roman]I agree with you that many factors must be taken into consideration when comparing times over different years. Specially if they attacked at the beginning of the climb or later since we all assume they go at 100% in the ITT. Armstrong climbing in 2001 was absolutely incredible, did he attack from the bottom? I don't remember, and what about Ulrich in 97? did the German attack from the bottom?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman]I think this is very important. Just look at Indurain/Zulle time in 1995 (time 39:28). Indurain did not chase Pantani from the bottom but only later on the climb, but once he put pressure the gap with Pantani did no increase anymore (in fact it was reduced from 1:30 to 1:24!!). So I think it is fair to say that if Indurain had not let Pantani go at first his time would have been better.[/font]
I must say that the supposition that Indurain's time in 95 would have been better if he hadn't waited so long, is rather silly. Perhaps we need to take time measurements starting from halfway up? In any event the rider who takes off in a breakaway attempt takes all the risk, and that anaerobic initial stress he will eventually pay for. But he needs to assure he has surprised his adversaries so that no one is on his wheel benifiting. Thus the great champion Indurain shows his greatness in limiting damage, but to say more is; as i say silly.
Yes, but we have to remember that Pantani was not an overall contender for the General classification that year and he was many minutes back on Indurain. Actually Indurain did not need to attack that day. The reality is that even if Pantani had tanken 3 minutes on Indurain that day he wouln't have won the 95 TdF. Indurain's real enemies that year were Zulle and Riis, and both were having a hard time to maintain Indurain's path on the climb to L'Alple d'huez. I wonder what we could see if Pantani were only 2-3 minutes behind Indurain on the General Classification that day. Miguel could not have afforded then to let Pantani go from the bottom and risk the yellow jersey. Whether Miguel could manage to arrive to the top with Pantani or not is another story. I think Pantani would have won the stage anyway (since he is better sprinter than Miguel) but only by 20-30 seconds. However this is all open to speculation.
Actually Indurain did not need to attack that day. The reality is that even if Pantani had tanken 3 minutes on Indurain that day he wouln't have won the 95 TdF. Indurain's real enemies that year were Zulle and Riis, and both were having a hard time to maintain Indurain's path on the climb to L'Alple d'huez.
I don't think it was about chasing Pantani as much as it was about burying the GC riders behind. With Pantani as a Rabbit, Mig had a target for motivation.
