Bike Technology and Nutrition

vrsmatt

Given that every year we see new advances in bike tech and nutrition/training ideas etc how come yesterdays Paris Roubaix was the only one faster than the 1964 edition in the last 53 years?

First.Aspect

VRSMatt wrote:

Given that every year we see new advances in bike tech and nutrition/training ideas etc how come yesterdays Paris Roubaix was the only one faster than the 1961 edition in the last 56 years?

The route changes. So its taken this long for the confluence of a dry race with a strong tail wind and a course with enough tarmac to come about.

You could say the same thing about the boat race or the grand national, and I'd struggle to find an answer for you though.

vrsmatt

First Aspect wrote:

VRSMatt wrote:

Given that every year we see new advances in bike tech and nutrition/training ideas etc how come yesterdays Paris Roubaix was the only one faster than the 1964 edition in the last 53 years?

The route changes. So its taken this long for the confluence of a dry race with a strong tail wind and a course with enough tarmac to come about.

You could say the same thing about the boat race or the grand national, and I'd struggle to find an answer for you though.

Just found this article. http://www.cyclingrevealed.com/Mar08/Ma ... 8_PR64.htm It rained in 1964 also

I'd be interested to find out the details of the route differences but haven't found anything in detail yet

fenix

Not all races are flat out are they ? Tailwinds and weather are very important factors too.

If you want comparison - you're probably looking at something like the hour record - see how much technology and aerodynamics changed that.

If you ban the tribars etc - then the improvements are far less - look at the athletes hour.

thegreatdivide

Bike technology has now caught up with riders off their t+ts on amphetamines, cocaine, smack and whatever else they could get hold of in ’64.

slowbike

You're forgetting - it's a race against other riders - not against the clock.

They don't have to belt it out at max power for hours on end - just enough power to keep them in context or just in front - then they belt it out towards the end ..

So, that coupled with other factors ...

fat daddy

that and in 1964 those cobbles were freshly laid and quite smooth ... 50 years later and no road maintenance and it resembles the a38 .... no wonder its slower each year

they need some pikeys to tarmac it

jgsi

Sums up.. 'it aint about the bike' really is it...?
Such disappointment about perceived performance enhancements because of wireless shifting... disk brakes....aero wheels... leads to many an Ebay insertion.

vrsmatt

fat daddy wrote:

that and in 1964 those cobbles were freshly laid and quite smooth ... 50 years later and no road maintenance and it resembles the a38 .... no wonder its slower each year

they need some pikeys to tarmac it

I think the cobbles are in better condition today than they were then

http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/2534/rebu ... -landscape

chris_bass

thegreatdivide wrote:

New less detectable and "legal" drugs have now caught up with riders off their t+ts on amphetamines, cocaine, smack and whatever else they could get hold of in ’64.

FTFY

thomasmorris

From what I understand the 50's and 60's saw lots of roads tarmacked to the point where the 60's had the fewest KMs of cobbled roads. Since then the organisers have started adding in previously unused pave sectors to restore the selectivity of the race, to the point where for the last 10-15 years there are more cobbles than in the 60's.
Additionally, as the more 'main' roads get tarmacked, the replacement pave are more of 'farm track' standard, so often in worse condition with more twists and turns to boot.
So in all, I'd say the course will be slower now but some of this has been hidden by bikes getting faster and riders getting faster (possibly).

Then you have weather, dry is faster, low pressure is faster, warmer is faster. It's good to have a tailwind, but not too strong otherwise the race gets completely blown apart too early. Then you have to match that with a race scenario unfolding that encourages large groups to chase hard for much of the race. And when thinking of race scenarios there are too many to discuss right here.

So, a high average speed doesn't really tell you much about fitness, nutrition or the bikes, but more about a 'perfect storm'' of weather and race tactics.


I reckon if you got 50+ pros to ride the course in a co-operative manner purely to set a course record in some sort of large TTT effort you'd see average speeds over 50 kmh on a good day.

vrsmatt

thomasmorris wrote:

From what I understand the 50's and 60's saw lots of roads tarmacked to the point where the 60's had the fewest KMs of cobbled roads. Since then the organisers have started adding in previously unused pave sectors to restore the selectivity of the race, to the point where for the last 10-15 years there are more cobbles than in the 60's.
Additionally, as the more 'main' roads get tarmacked, the replacement pave are more of 'farm track' standard, so often in worse condition with more twists and turns to boot.
So in all, I'd say the course will be slower now but some of this has been hidden by bikes getting faster and riders getting faster (possibly).

Then you have weather, dry is faster, low pressure is faster, warmer is faster. It's good to have a tailwind, but not too strong otherwise the race gets completely blown apart too early. Then you have to match that with a race scenario unfolding that encourages large groups to chase hard for much of the race. And when thinking of race scenarios there are too many to discuss right here.

So, a high average speed doesn't really tell you much about fitness, nutrition or the bikes, but more about a 'perfect storm'' of weather and race tactics.


I reckon if you got 50+ pros to ride the course in a co-operative manner purely to set a course record in some sort of large TTT effort you'd see average speeds over 50 kmh on a good day.

I get i'm cherry picking from your (well made) points but it was wet in 1964 with a very strong tailwind, neither of which contributes to your definition of a 'perfect storm'?

I think it must be down to race scenario and amount of tarmac vs cobbles, its a shame there isnt any data.

Its a remarkable statistic still though

thomasmorris

Yes, reading the link you posted up thread it sounds like the biggest contributor was that there was a large break working hard, being chased by peloton with star riders shared relatively evenly between the two groups.

Moonbiker

Looking at the average speeds for each year of the tdf it appears speeds have lvl'd off at around 24mph.

1948 was a fast Paris-Roubaix also

imafatman

Bike technology is reined in by the governing bodies, they pick and choose according to fuck knows what.

So it's really not a technological progress rather only the progress which the governing body deems fit.

vrsmatt

imafatman wrote:

Bike technology is reined in by the governing bodies, they pick and choose according to fark knows what.

So it's really not a technological progress rather only the progress which the governing body deems fit.

Yes but the laymans view would be if you looked at a pro bike from now vs a 60's pro bike then the current one would 'seem' much better....