Landis & Armstrong implicated in blood doping; recordings publiished by l'Equipe
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
But it isn't. It may calculate to tiny if you include all the miles they ride. But if you include only the miles they race the margins become quite fat.BottleCage said:
Winning by one minute on a 10k climb is a lot. The margin/mile is pretty significant. But if you include the 200k that preceded the climb, now that would seem close in terms of margin/mile.
In the Tour you've got the flat stages where the gc riders don't race at all but you include those miles into the calculation, miles where the margins are just about zero.
In running, everyone is doing the same workload. Not true in cycling. It's not an apt comparison. You'd be better off comparing it to stock car racing.
helmutRoole2 said:
Actually in running there is drafting too. If not they would all run next to each other. These guys are running at 20Km/hr in Marathons faster in shorter distances. If they are running on the road then you also do not get the headwind/tail effect of each lap. The estimates I have seen are around 1 min per hour of road racing.
Only looking at one brief moment in during a stage race means nothing. Unless you are talking about Track Racing then I can see your point. You have to get to the mountain climbs first and the more you are sheltered then the better off you will be at the mountain. That is where strategy and a good team come into play and these can account for alot. So it might not be the strongest but the smartest who climbs the fastest that wins.
With the GPS tracking devices now on the bikes it would be very interesting to compare every rider for each climb then award the best climber jersey. But they do not provide that detailed of information yet.
Nope.BottleCage said:
You're still comparing apples and oranges.
What was it, 2000 or 2001 when half the peloton crashed going over the Passage du whatever -- the low tide crossing -- and guys like Zule and Simoni were down by four and five minutes? Why was everyone saying, rightfully, that the race was over for them with still more than 3/4s of the race left? I mean, by your calculations, all they'd have to do is take a split second back over each kilometer and they'd be right back in the hunt by the time they hit Paris, right? Why didn't they do just that?
Because bicycle racing doesn't work that way. It's offensive/defensive. While one guy is trying to make gains the rest can sit in at 20, 30, 40 percent less effort.
Drafting in distance running? 20k/hour=nearly no draft. If there was a significant draft, distance running would be conducted tactically like inline skating, open speed skating and cycling.
Try riding behind someone at 20k/hour and tell me what kind of draft you're getting. A fraction of a percent? 20k/hour? What is that, 12.4mph? You'd struggle stay on top of you bike at that speed.
Look, watching someone win a marathon by eight seconds, that's exciting. Watching someone win the Tour by eight minutes, that's boring. Because? It's not close.
Sorry, but if you want to convince me that the Tours Armstrong won were close and that he wouldn't have won had he not been the superior planner, technician, mr. milipeter -- all that superb marketing **** -- go back to the Tours regarded as close and compare those to Armstrong's seven. Take a look at Lemond/Fignon or even Landis/Pereiro. Armstrong's wins weren't close. You're trying to mathematically debunk something that most of the sporting world agrees on already -- Armstrong dominated the Tour the years he won.
helmutRoole2 said:
As for 1999 stage Zulle was ****** off at the finish because he felt that the stage should have never been in the race. He knew it was bad luck/strategy and lost the time not because we was not strong enough to keep up.
The peloton would never let someone like Zulle gain any time on the flat stages cause that is for the sprinters. In the mountains or TT was his only place to gain time but remember LA won the Prologue that year so it was know his TTing was on form. And in the mountains I do not believe Zulle lost very much time if any but it was his crash in the beginning of the race that ruined it for him. I believe he lost ~6 mins on that day.
This could go on forever....
At 20Km/h on your bike you are saying that there is no wind resistance? And the frontal area on a cyclists is about the same if are running so wind resistance would be the same. The only difference is that cycling is much more efficient so the effect of the wind is greater than in running but it still effects running only a small bit <2%.
Actually that was bad strategy because they should be at the front of the peloton where you are less likely to get caught in a crash. Remember the cobbled sections in I believe in 2003. Right before te cobbled section the pace picked up because everyone wanted to be at the front A.)see any obstructions. b.) Avoid any crashes.
I believe Mayo lost 5 minutes that day because he got caught behind a crash and also crashed. (Basques unfortunately are typically not good on cobbles.) So knowing where the cobbled section help Lance because his team went to the front of the Peloton and drove a wicked pace right before entering the cobbled sections. Alot of people got caught sleeping. It was a flat stage so all of the GC contenders should have had a walk in the park. Mayo was not a bad TTer so Flat stages should be breeze for him. So it was not that LA was stronger that day just smarter/luckier.
Regardless I am of the feeling that the top GC guys dope so the playing field is relatively level in physical terms. It is the other factors that come into play. LA pysched out his rivals and after a couple years everyone was racing for second not first.
Similar threads
