Indurain TT position

"Rik O'Shea" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Stewart Fleming <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Lance most assuredly was NOT in yellow in 1993. He won a stage into Verdun. That is all.

Dear Stewart, thank you for this clarification. You are indeed correct, Armstrong was not in
yellow in 1993 and I do apologise for this mistake as I had confused this with the stage 9 1994
Tour where he wore the World Road Race Champion's jersey

I have checked my tapes for the direct information. It was actually 1994 were Armstrong was in 8th
and Indurain in 7th position going into the stage 9 Périgueux-Bergerac, 64 km ITT.

Armstrong started 2 minutes in front of Indurain and the strategy as outlined by his Motorola
director sportif was to not go out 100%, efectively keeping some reserves for when Indurain would
eventually pass him and to work off Indurain's pace (yes use Indurain as a pace maker of sorts).
The goal was to try to limit his losses to "only" 3 to 4 minutes to Indurain.

It is true to say that Armstrong (resplendent in his World Championship jersey) was indeed working
at his aerobic maximum to hold onto Indurain's pace. Despite this Armstrong finished 6'23" behind
Indurain.

Indeed, since you say so it must be true. You have the wrong year, the wrong jersey and yet you
insist that you can tell by the tapes that Lance was "indeed working at his aerobic maximum" to hold
onto Indurain's pace. Even if that were true, he probably went too hard to try to pace himself (now
that we are in the right year, I know which ITT you are talking about) and then faded when he blew.
I think he made some comments to that affect afterwards. I do not think the interview is not the WCP
tape. Oh well, no matter. Back to your theory then?

Quoted message said:

In the televised interview afterwards Armstrong explained that he would never beat Indurain in the
Tour and his goal was to try to improve his time trial capability by 1" (one minute) a year.

I hope this explanation rectifies my earlier mistake.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but don't you think that it can be said that Lance did not have any
reason to go at his maximum during any pre-cancer Tours?

Quoted message said:

Thanks & regards R

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

Quoted message said:

Rik O'Shea said:

Although you do pose an interesting physiological question - how much are the physically defined
limits of one's aerobic power threshold increased when one is "hyper motivated" ?

What would you say "hyper motivation" adds to this physical limit
(1) 10 watts (2) 15 watts or (3) 150 watts ?

What if the rider get to throw himself on the ground?

Perhaps if Fignon had fallen -before- the finish, he would have won a third TdF!

-Sonarrat.

Where did you get this number? The idea that 4 mM corresponds to any threshold evaporated several
years ago. However, to even talk about statistical averages is a complete waste of time, because
there is a huge variability in HLa concentrations at max lactate steady state (MLSS) between
athletes. Case in point, of the 40 cyclists (some very good, most good, some not so good) I've
tested (for MLSS), I've seen HLa levels as low as 3 mM and as high as 11 mM. From these data, where
would you suggest the best riders fell?

This has long been a problem of discussing lactate in relation to performance, particularly by the
population of riders at large. Most riders, like yourself, have a far too simplistic an
understanding of blood lactate and athletics. To say that Lance can "tolerate" 5 mM (not sure where
you got this from) for long periods says very little about why he is so good. Sadly, I have a pile
of data from myself that shows I can sustain over 7 mM for more than hour. By your assessment, I
could perhaps outperform Lance...If that were only true!

Lance's ability to produce results is likely related to several factors, none of which by themselves
produce his outstanding performances. Moreover, I know many riders who can sustain high lactate
levels, but yet have gravitated and stayed with cycling. In contrast, I've tested a few riders who
can't sustain high lactates and have shown top performances in short events.

Can you still say for sure who my best performers were? The problem with citing research is that you
can rarely talk in generalities.

Chris

"General conclusions lead to average performances."

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

Quoted message said:

Actually it could be. The statistical average amount of lactate for lactate threshold in bike
racers is very close to 4mMol. Lance is able to "tolerate" 5mMol for long periods and perhaps this
enables him to do more work than someone else at their LT. Other athletes can also tolerate high
amounts of lactate but they tend to gravitate to other sports or shorter events.

-WG

[email hidden] (Rik O'Shea) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not quite there... Indurain was much lower.

Quoted message said:

bikelane.combig mig1.jpgOpen ↗

For a big bloke Indurain looks very aerodnamic to me (not to mention having great style). I think
he had a large frontal area - wide shoulders - which would have contributed to drag. He definely
looks more aero than Armstrong (although Armstrong would have a narrower frontal area).

Incidently I dont think Armstrong ever findished within 5 minutes of Indurain in a TdF time trial
(generally he used to be about 6:30 minutes behind).

It was in the 1993 edition of the TdF that Armstrong was leading Indurain on GC (Armstrong had the
yellow jersey) 66 places (14 seconds) in front of Indurain going into the first ITT Lac de Madine,
59 km ITT. Armstrong's tactic was not to go out too fast and "wait" for Indurain; then try and
work off Indurain's pace for as long as possible so as not to loose too much time - he ended up
"only" loosing 6'04".

Quoted message said:

Stage 9 - 59 km ITT 1993
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50"
2. Bugno à 2'11"
3. Breukink à 2'22"
4. Rominger à 2'42"
5. Zulle à 3'18"
6. Bruyneel à 3'50"
7. Jaskula à 4'00"
8. Alcala à 4'05"
9. Louviot à 4'28"
10. Roche à 4'30"
27. Armstrong à 6'04"

Stage 9 - 64 km ITT 1994
1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:15.58
2. Tony Rominger (Zwi) + 2.00
3. Armand de las Cuevas(Fra) + 4.22
4. Thierry Marie (Fra) + 4.45
5. Chris Boardman (GB) + 5.27
6. Bjarne Riis (Den) + 5.34
7. Thomas Davy (Fra) st
8. Abraham Olano (Spa) + 5.45
9. Arturis Kasputis (Lit) + 6.01
10. Pjotr Oegroemov (Let) + 6.04
11. Gianluca Bortolami (Ita) + 6.12
12. Nico Emonds (Bel) + 6.16
13. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 6.23

Stage 8 - 54 kms ITT 1995
1. Miguel Indurain (Spa) 1:04.16'
19. Lance Armstrong (VS) + 5.09'

Stage 19, 46.5km time trial Auphelle--Auphelle 1995

1. Miguel Indurain (Esp - Banesto) 00:57:34.
43. Lance Armstrong (USA) + 6:24.

1996 No Time Trial info for 1996 - Armstrong abandoned on first mountain stage Croix de la Serra
(2-1049) -> Van Bon

1997-98 Armstrong did not compete

1999 - 2003 you know the story

-R

It's really not fair to compare Lance and Miguel during Indurains heyday. Armstrong was still
developing as a rider at the time. One has to compare TT courses when Lance was winning the TDF's.
One would also have to examine TT speeds and courses that are of similar length and profile. On the
otherhand Lance has not put the time on other riders that Miguel did. So this is probably a
indicator that Indurain is a better TT'er...

In-depth investigation of Indurain and his hour record attempt:

jap.physiology.org1522.pdfOpen ↗

Includes his wind tunnel results and power estimate for his '94 record:

Frontal area = 0.3755 m^2 Cd=0.65 Power = 510 W M=81kg

Armstrong's numbers?

--
==================
Kraig Willett project: redshoe www.biketechreview.com
==================

For a previous discussion on this topic, enter the following search terms into Google Groups:

"monkey on a stick" indurain

Zub

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

Quoted message said:

In-depth investigation of Indurain and his hour record attempt:

jap.physiology.org1522.pdfOpen ↗

Includes his wind tunnel results and power estimate for his '94 record:

Frontal area = 0.3755 m^2 Cd=0.65 Power = 510 W M=81kg

Armstrong's numbers?

What you can take from this article is the advancements in the hour record from Boardman and
Rominger are mainly due to aerodynamic improvements as opposed to Indurain's which was due to an
incredible increase in power.

It indicates that Indurain had the potential to improve his own record by reducing his shape
coefficient (with better aerodynamic components and a lower position).

If Indurain could have used Obree's "egg" position he could in theory has achieved nearly 58 km
in the hour - of course this is academic and he may not have been able to maintain such an
extreme position.

Boardman's mark of 56.375 (achieved using the "superman" position)is incredible (you dont need me to
tell you this) and he probably approaches the perfect combination of power, physical size and
aerodynamic riding position - I dont think his "athlete's hour" will ever be bettered.

Obviously the UCI want to see the record improved via an increase in power (physical fitness if you
like) as opposed to extreme aerodynamic positions, which is why they have banned aero positions and
aero equipment.

There is one aspect of the record that isn't included in the analysis. I recall reading an article
on the effects of centrifugal force generated by the rider (at speeds in excess of 50km/h) as they
negotiate the top and bottom of the track. It tends to have a greater detrimental effect on a larger
rider than a smaller rider. Considering that Indurain would have to do about 220 laps, equivalent to
440 "corners" in a 250m velodrome there can be a significant "multiplier effect" that could hamper
his performance. The fact that Indurain would not be "handicapped" by the dimensions of a velodrome
out on a normal road in some way may explain his better performances in road time trials against the
top opposition of the day (Boardman, Rominger).

I have a question. As a kid I attended the first GP Merckx (1980). Knudsen won, and Tour winner
Zoetemelk was dead last at 7 or more minutes.. Knudsen didnt do the Tour that year, but we have
Kneteman as reference. In the Tour ITT of 52 kms Joop (1h10mins) took 2 minutes on Kneteman. In the
Merckx (40 something kms), one month later , Kneteman took about 5 minutes on Joop. Can you estimate
the relative evolution of their psysiological abilities in this period?

Thanks.
B.

Consider a time trial where 10% of the energy goes into rolling resistance, 5% goes into climbing,
and 85% goes into wind resistance. Of course, I don't know how much climbing there was, or the road
surface, so these are just guesses. Assume transmission efficiency is speed and power independent.

then, using the standard model,

p/p0 = (v/v0) [ a + (1 - a)(v/v0)^2 ]

where a = the fraction of power which is speed-proportional (RR + climbing), and v0 is the average
speed, p0 is the average power.

Then one can differentiate, assuming v/v0 is close to 1 :

p(a/p0)/d(v/v0) = a + 3(1-a)

In other words, a 1% increase in (v/v0) requires roughly a 1% ( 0.15 + 3 * 0.85 ) = 2.7%
increase in power.

In this case, assuming the linearization error is acceptable, a swing of on order 11% in speed would
require approximately a 30% swing in power, assuming no change in aerodynamic efficiency.

Dan

Van Hoorebeeck Bart said:

I have a question. As a kid I attended the first GP Merckx (1980). Knudsen won, and Tour winner
Zoetemelk was dead last at 7 or more minutes.. Knudsen didnt do the Tour that year, but we have
Kneteman as reference. In the Tour ITT of 52 kms Joop (1h10mins) took 2 minutes on Kneteman. In
the Merckx (40 something kms), one month later , Kneteman took about 5 minutes on Joop. Can you
estimate the relative evolution of their psysiological abilities in this period?

Thanks.
B.