Why is the tdf getting shorter?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:02:07
From: Callistus Valerius
Subject: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:

2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
. . . and then there were men
1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
* * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
---------
1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours

So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

Date: 10 Jul 2007 09:31:16
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:02:07 GMT, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:

>So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
>organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
>and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
>of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

The TdF has evolved into a bike race, one of many that make up a season of
professional sporting events.

Back in the old days it was more of a "reality tv" sort of a event. A freak show
that was more interested in physically abusing the participants than in
presenting competitors in an athletic challenge. Sorta like RAAM is now, an
American counterpart to those weird festivals in India where masochists display
their devotion to some tin god by publicly multilating and abusing themselves.

Ron

Date: 10 Jul 2007 23:09:50
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

RonSonic wrote:
> Sorta like RAAM is now, anAmerican counterpart to those weird festivals
> in India where masochists display their devotion to some tin god by
> publicly multilating and abusing themselves.

Explains the more extreme neck straps anyway.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 14:40:34
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 9, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mik...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
>
> The UCI already has a standardized impact test for wheels, designed to
> eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the possibility of a wheel shattering
> into various pieces that might cause injury to riders involved in an
> accident.
>
> It also wouldn't be too difficult to adapt the various CPSC tests for frame
> worthiness during an impact, as well as a test that either exists already or
> is proposed for forks.
>
> Major bike companies already have the means to test their product to make
> sure it passes these standards. Smaller companies do not, so they're the
> ones most-likely to lose out under an expanded-testing scenario.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:sguhpk4c1537.1qhq36y6pd037.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> >> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> > It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> > would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> > which
> > their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> > than that of their rivals.
>
> > And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> > to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> > introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> > failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

I find the desire for UCI testing vs general performance requirements
and interesting one. One chooses a authority to test products to
insure a minimum level of quality. The other would make stringent
performance requirements and attempt to turn the marketing value of
sponsoring winners into improving bicycle durability.

I vote for the second of the two. If A rider was required to you not
only the same type bike, but the same bike the entire race, then
durability and ease of repair would be rewarded. These are attributes
we can use. Team support could always repair even rebuild the bike
and possibly neutral support bikes could be allowed for temporary use
so that crashes didn't disqualify large numbers of riders.

Never happen though because the golden rule says that bike
manufacturers have the final word. The UCI has stated that if enough
manufacturers requested it they would "revisit" the min weight rule.

Wayne

Date: 10 Jul 2007 08:15:31
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:40:34 -0700, Wayne wrote:

> I vote for the second of the two. If A rider was required to you not
> only the same type bike, but the same bike the entire race, then
> durability and ease of repair would be rewarded.

How about installing bumps which would stress the bikes and weed out
the overly flimsy ones? They'd have to be spring-loaded to pop up just in
front of the riders so that they wouldn't have time to cheat by hopping
over them, of course.

Date: 10 Jul 2007 00:30:15
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

The Tour was sure shorter in 1946

Stage 1 Monaco - Digne, 185km Aldo Baito
Stage 2 Digne - Briançon, 219km René Vietto
Stage 3 Briançon - Aix-les-Bains, 263km Jean Robic
Stage 4 Aix-les-Bains - Dijon, 294km Adolfo Leoni
Stage 5 Dijon - Paris, 355km Adolfo Leoni

GC
1st: Apo Lazaridès, 1316km in 44h 31' 42" (29.554km/h)
2nd: René Vietto, @37' 59"
3rd: Jean Robic, @40' 25"
4th: Lucien Teisseire, @49' 58"
5th: Emile Rol, @52' 07"
6th: Aldo Baito, @54' 35"
7th: Pierre Brambilla, @57' 28"
8th: Diego Marabelli, @1h 00' 11"
9th: Salvatore Crippa, @1h 10' 59"
10th: Auguste Mallet, @1h 23' 53"

Actually it was "La Course du Tour de France" or sometimes
Monaco-Paris, but it was nevertheless the First Tour organized by
L'Equipe with only 5 stages and took place about a couple of weeks
after a similar Ronde de France

1946 - Ronde de France Stage Winner
Stage 1 Bordeaux - Pau, 221km Ezio Bertocchi
Stage 2 Pau - Toulouse, 300km Giulio Breschi
Stage 3 Toulouse - Montpellier, 249km Raymond Louviot
Stage 4 Montpellier - Gap, 274km Giulio Breschi
Stage 5 Gap - Grenoble, 277km Apo Lazaridès

GC
1st: Giulio Breschi, 1321km in 45h 32' 09" (32.026km/h)
2nd: Ezio Bertocchi, @4' 08"
3rd: Edouard Fachleitner, @11' 24"
4th: Pierre Cogan, @14' 14"
5th: Apo Lazaridès, @26' 50"
6th: Giuseppe Tacca, @30' 48"
7th: Augusto Introzzi, @44' 13"
8th: Pierre Brambilla, @58' 42"
9th: Maurice De Muer, @1h 02' 29"
10th: Petrus Van Verre, @1h 10' 13"

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
-Leo Tolstoy

Date: 09 Jul 2007 04:11:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 9, 2:04 am, Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrock...@azurservers.com >
wrote:
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > You'd think regulation for weight wouldn't be needed, and would be
> > self correcting in this open market. If a product was a "stupid light"
> > bad design the images of the crashes and press coverage would be a
> > much bigger penalty to the companies' images and sales than the crap
> > from the UCI.
> > When the stuff is this public you can't hide defective garbage. It
> > would drive companies to produce better all around designs, or at
> > least well designed gimmicks if they wanted to sell bikes. Cost really
> > shouldn't be an issue, especially in comparison with, say,
> > motorsports.
> > Bill C
>
> It never seemed to deter Crash-N-Fail CannnnnnnnnnonDaaaaaaaaaaaaaale
>
> --
> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
> -
> Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity
> and a blind desire for safety and security.

I guess the only response to both you and Tom would be that every time
we think we've seen it all someone invents better idiots to buy the
stuff. Tghen again that's one where I'm all in favor of Darwin.
If they see this shit failing, and people sanding off body parts due
to it and still buy it I hope they at least yell "Hey Y'all Watch
This!!" first.
Bill C

Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:08:17
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

I believe the UCI discussed it, but it was never implemented.

On Jul 8, 2:20 pm, oronk...@ling.helsinki.fi (A R:nen) wrote:
> "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
>
> Is this correct? The UCI rules have limited grand tours to no more than
> 3500 km total (and all but two stages to no more than 225 km each) at
> least for the past five years.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 12:00:36
From: A R:nen
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"hizark21@yahoo.com" <hizark21@yahoo.com > writes:

> > Is this correct? The UCI rules have limited grand tours to no more than
> > 3500 km total (and all but two stages to no more than 225 km each) at
> > least for the past five years.

> I believe the UCI discussed it, but it was never implemented.

The rule has been in that form in the UCI rule book since January 2002
(2.6.011). Is my copy missing an appendix listing the rules one may ignore?

Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:03:12
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

es this why a uniform testing standards and methods have been
established similar the Snell helmet test.

On Jul 8, 10:47 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> > This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.
>
> And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:45:05
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 8, 6:58 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> hizark21who? writes:
> >>> The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
> >>> should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and
> >>> testing if this were the case.
> >> Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in
> >> order to still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the
> >> weight limit, it seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to
> >> me.
> > UCI should not be holding back technology. Their stated intent is
> > to ensure that the bikes are safe. Therefore, they should be
> > testing bikes and components. This makes it safe for racers and
> > well as other riders.
>
> Requiring a team to qualify a single bicycle design for the entire
> tour does not limit technology, technology that is applicable to
> performance bicycling and not some specialty quirk, such as an faired
> recumbent for a flat TT. Qualifying a one design bicycle for a team
> involves testing durability, but even that is taken care in such a
> regulation. Teams would not send riders on mountain stages with rough
> descents with flimsy hill climb bicycles, for instance.

This not necessarily true once the UCI and other amateur bodies
implement this rule then manufacturers would probably discontinue
producing products that don't comply with this. There would be some
liability issues, especially in the US.

> As a result, wannabe pros would not be buying the latest light weight
> geegaw because it never made it to the TdF under their favorite rider.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Date: 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

On Jul 8, 8:32 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:58:23 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > No, UC is hold backing technology.
>
> Last I checked, the UCI's charter does not include bicycle R&D
> or marketing.
>
> People who want stupid-light are very proud when they get below
> the UCI weight limit, and they certainly don't feel limited by the
> UCI rule. Bike shops around here will happily sell them complete
> bikes below the limit, too.
>
> My reaction to these purchases is to avoid descending too closely
> behind them :-)

Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:25:43
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, "hizark21@yahoo.com"
<hizark21@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

Please put down your pipe and think about it.

There are hundreds of UCI races going on around the world. BIcycle
parts can be filed out, drilled out or made to a variety of specs.
What you are suggetion would require a system of shipments and
controls to labs and have huge potential for cheating since stuff
could be changed after the lab approves it.

Weight stuff is simple. What you suggest is complicated.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 09 Jul 2007 15:17:01
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests which
their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
than that of their rivals.

And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 06:32:15
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

>> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.

The UCI already has a standardized impact test for wheels, designed to
eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the possibility of a wheel shattering
into various pieces that might cause injury to riders involved in an
accident.

It also wouldn't be too difficult to adapt the various CPSC tests for frame
worthiness during an impact, as well as a test that either exists already or
is proposed for forks.

Major bike companies already have the means to test their product to make
sure it passes these standards. Smaller companies do not, so they're the
ones most-likely to lose out under an expanded-testing scenario.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au > wrote in message
news:sguhpk4c1537.1qhq36y6pd037.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.
>
> And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 18:13:20
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 7, 6:16 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:47:28 +0930, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:39:29 -0700, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
> >> should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and testing
> >> if this were the case.
>
> >Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in order to
> >still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the weight limit, it
> >seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to me.
>
> It's far more operationally feasible than testing material for
> strength. Scales are easy to use.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

You'd think regulation for weight wouldn't be needed, and would be
self correcting in this open market. If a product was a "stupid light"
bad design the images of the crashes and press coverage would be a
much bigger penalty to the companies' images and sales than the crap
from the UCI.
When the stuff is this public you can't hide defective garbage. It
would drive companies to produce better all around designs, or at
least well designed gimmicks if they wanted to sell bikes. Cost really
shouldn't be an issue, especially in comparison with, say,
motorsports.
Bill C

Date: 09 Jul 2007 08:04:51
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > writes:

>
> You'd think regulation for weight wouldn't be needed, and would be
> self correcting in this open market. If a product was a "stupid light"
> bad design the images of the crashes and press coverage would be a
> much bigger penalty to the companies' images and sales than the crap
> from the UCI.
> When the stuff is this public you can't hide defective garbage. It
> would drive companies to produce better all around designs, or at
> least well designed gimmicks if they wanted to sell bikes. Cost really
> shouldn't be an issue, especially in comparison with, say,
> motorsports.
> Bill C
>

It never seemed to deter Crash-N-Fail CannnnnnnnnnonDaaaaaaaaaaaaaale

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity
and a blind desire for safety and security.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 03:33:09
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1183943600.434568.238190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> You'd think regulation for weight wouldn't be needed, and would be
> self correcting in this open market. If a product was a "stupid light"
> bad design the images of the crashes and press coverage would be a
> much bigger penalty to the companies' images and sales than the crap
> from the UCI.
> When the stuff is this public you can't hide defective garbage. It
> would drive companies to produce better all around designs, or at
> least well designed gimmicks if they wanted to sell bikes. Cost really
> shouldn't be an issue, especially in comparison with, say,
> motorsports.

The real problem is the fans who will buy ANYTHING based on who has the
lightest weight and not whether or not it is safe. What about those wheels
with the kevlar spokes that broke spokes for years but people kept buying
them because they were advertised as the lightest?

Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:58:23
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

No, UC is hold backing technology. In order to reduce weight this
requires technical innovation.

On Jul 8, 8:02 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:36:40 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > UCI should not be holding back technology.
>
> They're not, they're setting the rules for professional road racing, which
> is part of their job. You're free to ride whatever you like, including
> bikes lighter or more efficient than they permit.
>
> > Therefore they should be testing bikes and components.
>
> Do you have a set of safety tests that everyone will politely agree on,
> if the minimum weight is scrapped? Ha ha.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 13:02:57
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:58:23 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> No, UC is hold backing technology.

Last I checked, the UCI's charter does not include bicycle R&D
or marketing.

People who want stupid-light are very proud when they get below
the UCI weight limit, and they certainly don't feel limited by the
UCI rule. Bike shops around here will happily sell them complete
bikes below the limit, too.

My reaction to these purchases is to avoid descending too closely
behind them :-)

Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:20:04
From: A R:nen
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > writes:

> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K

Is this correct? The UCI rules have limited grand tours to no more than
3500 km total (and all but two stages to no more than 225 km each) at
least for the past five years.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 07:36:40
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

UCI should not be holding back technology. Their stated intent is to
ensure that the bikes are safe. Therefore they should be testing bikes
and components. This makes it safe for racers and well as other
riders.

On Jul 6, 7:17 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:39:29 -0700, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
> > should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and testing
> > if this were the case.
>
> Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in order to
> still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the weight limit, it
> seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to me.

Date: 09 Jul 2007 01:58:39
From:
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

hizark21 who? writes:

>>> The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
>>> should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and
>>> testing if this were the case.

>> Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in
>> order to still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the
>> weight limit, it seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to
>> me.

> UCI should not be holding back technology. Their stated intent is
> to ensure that the bikes are safe. Therefore, they should be
> testing bikes and components. This makes it safe for racers and
> well as other riders.

Requiring a team to qualify a single bicycle design for the entire
tour does not limit technology, technology that is applicable to
performance bicycling and not some specialty quirk, such as an faired
recumbent for a flat TT. Qualifying a one design bicycle for a team
involves testing durability, but even that is taken care in such a
regulation. Teams would not send riders on mountain stages with rough
descents with flimsy hill climb bicycles, for instance.

As a result, wannabe pros would not be buying the latest light weight
geegaw because it never made it to the TdF under their favorite rider.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 09 Jul 2007 00:32:17
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:36:40 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> UCI should not be holding back technology.

They're not, they're setting the rules for professional road racing, which
is part of their job. You're free to ride whatever you like, including
bikes lighter or more efficient than they permit.

> Therefore they should be testing bikes and components.

Do you have a set of safety tests that everyone will politely agree on,
if the minimum weight is scrapped? Ha ha.

Date: 08 Jul 2007 19:09:16
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Michael Warner wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:36:40 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> UCI should not be holding back technology.
>
> They're not, they're setting the rules for professional road racing, which
> is part of their job. You're free to ride whatever you like, including
> bikes lighter or more efficient than they permit.
>
>> Therefore they should be testing bikes and components.
>
> Do you have a set of safety tests that everyone will politely agree on,
> if the minimum weight is scrapped? Ha ha.

Thu UCI doesn't need any agreement. All it needs is Jean Wauthier to
come up with some rules which push work toward his Belgian cronies ;)

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Date: 08 Jul 2007 09:51:50
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
> UCI should not be holding back technology. Their stated intent is to
> ensure that the bikes are safe. Therefore they should be testing bikes
> and components. This makes it safe for racers and well as other
> riders.

Please don't give this bunch of Utter and Complete Idiots ideas. They
have a proven trackrecord of not understanding bike design or component
testing.

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Date: 07 Jul 2007 14:01:12
From: dbrower
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 8:37 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <3bqji.4232$rR.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> > 2006FloydLandis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> > 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> > 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> > 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> > 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
>
> Actually, that's getting longer not shorter.
>
> > So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the
> > race organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the
> > race shorter and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern
> > rider. The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
> The race has to fit into TV schedules. That would be the biggest
> driver, because that's what allows cycling to make billions of Euros a
> year.

Hundreds of millions seems more likely; one billion possibly. I
doubt very much two billion euros. That is why it is so easy for Mr.
Pound to bash.

-dB

Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:15:19
From: billyroll
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 9:57 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Dan Connelly writes:
> >>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance
> >>> tests, often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage
> >>> alone, or in small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that
> >>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
> >>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
> >>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
> >> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?
> > It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually
> > designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.
> > At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every
> > stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit
> > like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.
>
> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.
>
> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>
> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Sigh. Spoken like a true engineer. Jobst, I love your book on the
wheel. Good reading. But stick to engineering. You know nothing of
marketing, as evidenced by the above post. As Mike already posted, TT
bikes are not a big money maker for manufactureres, nor are aero bars,
or other TT specific equipment. The cost of production on these bikes
are astronomical, when you factor in engineering costs (which I'll
assume you know about) and spread those acros unit sales. Unit sales
of TT bikes are quite small.

The only marketing benefit is having the winning rider on your bike.
And that sells "standard" bikes, not the "special" equipment. They
make these event specific bikes to keep the teams happy... and
winning. Not to sell them to the public. They'll sell a few, of
course. But if TT bikes were their business, they'd quit the business
quite quickly.

-B

Date: 07 Jul 2007 05:55:36
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

In article <1183778119.787004.97170@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
billyroll <billybeane31@hotmail.com > wrote:

> marketing, as evidenced by the above post. As Mike already posted, TT
> bikes are not a big money maker for manufactureres, nor are aero bars,
> or other TT specific equipment. The cost of production on these bikes
> are astronomical, when you factor in engineering costs (which I'll
> assume you know about) and spread those acros unit sales. Unit sales
> of TT bikes are quite small.
>
> The only marketing benefit is having the winning rider on your bike.
> And that sells "standard" bikes, not the "special" equipment. They
> make these event specific bikes to keep the teams happy... and
> winning. Not to sell them to the public. They'll sell a few, of
> course. But if TT bikes were their business, they'd quit the business
> quite quickly.

That's true, but TT bikes don't have to make all the money. They're a
profitable additional line.

Also, I think you and Mike are underestimating the value of the
triathlon market, which is a pretty important driver of TT-bike sales,
albeit with their own slightly odd priorities.

My impression is that pro road racers are the great drivers of TT tech,
but the main consumers are not amateur roadies, but triathletes.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:12:03
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:24:47 -0700, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> >Entropy?
>
> POTM

Thanks for the nod, but it's still the first week in _July_. Of
course there will be some far more worthy post.

R

Date: 07 Jul 2007 04:10:20
From: still me
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:12:03 -0700, RicodJour
<ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:

>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:24:47 -0700, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Entropy?
>>
>> POTM

Shorter? Why to leave more time for drug testing, of course!

Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:12:59
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

The TDF length changes from year to year and shorter year is not
necessarily bad. The 1988 TDF was exceptionally hard year and the
riders pushed even harder that year when Pedro Delgado won. When
Indurain was winning the organizers decided to toughen up the race to
give other riders a chance. Miguel simply used this as a opportunity
to make the race even harder on his rivals.

But the races like Bordeaux-Paris other long races have faded because
they simply don't generate the excitement.

On Jul 6, 8:37 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <3bqji.4232$rR.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> > 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> > 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> > 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> > 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> > 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
>
> Actually, that's getting longer not shorter.
>
> > So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the
> > race organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the
> > race shorter and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern
> > rider. The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
> The race has to fit into TV schedules. That would be the biggest
> driver, because that's what allows cycling to make billions of Euros a
> year.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:39:29
From: hizark21@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and testing
if this were the case. The consumer product safety commission has it's
own test machine and standards. Now some of these rules are
problematic, but at least it gives people a place to start.

On Jul 6, 9:57 am, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Dan Connelly writes:
> >>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance
> >>> tests, often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage
> >>> alone, or in small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that
> >>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
> >>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
> >>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
> >> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?
> > It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually
> > designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.
> > At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every
> > stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit
> > like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.
>
> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.
>
> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>
> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Date: 07 Jul 2007 11:47:28
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:39:29 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
> should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and testing
> if this were the case.

Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in order to
still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the weight limit, it
seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to me.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 06:16:52
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:47:28 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au >
wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:39:29 -0700, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> The weight rule has been ridiculous from it's inception. The UCI
>> should have implemented a set of uniform safety standards and testing
>> if this were the case.
>
>Unless teams are pressuring riders to use stupid-light stuff in order to
>still fit power-measuring hubs etc and come in at the weight limit, it
>seems like a pretty sensible, clear-cut rule to me.

It's far more operationally feasible than testing material for
strength. Scales are easy to use.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:31:05
From:
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 2:02 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
> . . . and then there were men
> 1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
> 1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
> 1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
> 1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
> 1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
> 1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
> 1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
> 1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
> 1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
> 1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
> 1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
> 1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
> 1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
> * * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
> 1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
> 1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
> 1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
> ---------
> 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
> of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

Another factor is that until 20 years ago, many stages were done at a
slow pace except for the last two hours. Now that there is more
intense racing for more of the race, it is a good idea to decrease the
distance.

You also have to take into account the two rest days, which reduce the
distance by 300km.

-ilan

Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:25:21
From:
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 8:08 pm, Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m >
wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:468e7489$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> a
> > r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar=E9 :
> >> Dan Connelly writes:
> >> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> >> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> >> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> >> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> >> different from what we see today.
>
> >> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> >> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> >> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> >> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>
> >> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
> >> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>
> >> Jobst Brandt
>
> > You're a total jerk.
>
> That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our poin=
ts, it might be assumed you generally agree.

Not constructive, but remarkably insightful, assuming he hasn't read
too much of his posts.

-ilan

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:54:10
From: Andre
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 1:30 pm, "G.T." <getne...@dslextreme.com > wrote:
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
> > The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> > 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> > 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> > 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> > 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> > 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
> > . . . and then there were men
> > 1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
> > 1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
> > 1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
> > 1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
> > 1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
> > 1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
> > 1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
> > 1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
> > 1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
> > 1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
> > 1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
> > 1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
> > 1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
> > * * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
> > 1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
> > 1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
> > 1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
> > 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
> > ---------
> > 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> > After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> > Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> > So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> > organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> > and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
> > of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
> Because watching ultra-distance sports is BORING AS HELL.
>
> Greg
> --http://ticketmastersucks.org
>
> Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They could go a long way on Absinthe in those days.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 12:53:01
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
> . . . and then there were men
> 1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
> 1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
> 1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
> 1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
> 1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
> 1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
> 1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
> 1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
> 1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
> 1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
> 1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
> 1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
> 1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
> * * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
> 1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
> 1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
> 1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
> ---------
> 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
> of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

Mostly. But some are still around:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/harvey.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:30:34
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
> . . . and then there were men
> 1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
> 1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
> 1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
> 1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
> 1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
> 1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
> 1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
> 1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
> 1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
> 1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
> 1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
> 1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
> 1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
> * * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
> 1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
> 1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
> 1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
> ---------
> 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
> of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

Because watching ultra-distance sports is BORING AS HELL.

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:37:02
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

In article <3bqji.4232$rR.2277@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com > wrote:

> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K

Actually, that's getting longer not shorter.

> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the
> race organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the
> race shorter and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern
> rider. The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

The race has to fit into TV schedules. That would be the biggest
driver, because that's what allows cycling to make billions of Euros a
year.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:21:55
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

in message <3bqji.4232$rR.2277@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, Callistus
Valerius ('jazzyboss@hotmail.com') wrote:

> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the
> race organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race
> shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The
> iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

These days we consider drug-taking a bad thing. The riders still do it, of
course, but it's no longer considered proper.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003

Date: 06 Jul 2007 08:04:39
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 10:46 am, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu >
wrote:
>
> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance tests,
> often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage alone, or in
> small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that there would be much
> interest in such an event now. It would be amusing, though, to return
> to the practice of requiring riders to make their own field repairs,
> including changing flats.

Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?

"Oh my! Schleck is in trouble! He's run out of prepreg carbon fiber
and has miscalculated his two-part ratio! I'm afraid that's the last
we'll be seeing of poor Frank for this year's tour. There's simply no
way for that to cure given the temperature and humidity conditions out
on the parcourse today. He'll miss the cutoff for sure."

R

Date: 06 Jul 2007 09:46:42
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

RicodJour wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:46 am, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
> wrote:
>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance tests,
>> often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage alone, or in
>> small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that there would be much
>> interest in such an event now. It would be amusing, though, to return
>> to the practice of requiring riders to make their own field repairs,
>> including changing flats.
>
> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?
>

It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.

At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.

Dan

Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:57:45
From:
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Dan Connelly writes:

>>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance
>>> tests, often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage
>>> alone, or in small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that
>>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
>>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
>>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.

>> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?

> It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually
> designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.

> At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every
> stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit
> like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.

I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
(TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
different from what we see today.

The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.

The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 07 Jul 2007 11:49:08
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On 06 Jul 2007 16:57:45 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.

And not allowed to have 11t cogs, since you don't like them, right? :-)

Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:37:45
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Dans le message de news:468e7489$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > a
réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Dan Connelly writes:
>
>>>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance
>>>> tests, often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage
>>>> alone, or in small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that
>>>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
>>>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
>>>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
>
>>> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?
>
>> It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually
>> designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.
>
>> At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every
>> stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit
>> like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.
>
> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.
>
> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>
> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>
> Jobst Brandt

You're a total jerk. Go back home. God loves you, anyway. Maybe only.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 03:58:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:468e7de9$0$19350$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>
> You're a total jerk. Go back home. God loves you, anyway. Maybe only.

Was that from SANDY? What will come out of the fingers of that lawyer now?

Date: 06 Jul 2007 18:08:34
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:468e7489$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> a
> réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> Dan Connelly writes:

>> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
>> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
>> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
>> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
>> different from what we see today.
>>
>> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
>> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
>> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
>> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>>
>> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
>> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> You're a total jerk.
>

That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our points, it might be assumed you generally agree.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:15:52
From: Fred Clydesdale
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote:

(snippage 'til you want to scream.)

> >> Jobst Brandt
> >
> > You're a total jerk.
> >
>
> That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our points,
> it might be assumed you generally agree.

one can't help but notice that jobst is frequently right.

one also can't help but notice that, should he ever err, an admission
of same will not be forthcoming. at best, one can hope for infuriating
silence.

one therefore concludes that he is a jerk. and the (120mm) (iron)
horse he rode in on.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:47:46
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Fred Clydesdale wrote:
> Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
>
> (snippage 'til you want to scream.)
>
>>>> Jobst Brandt
>>> You're a total jerk.
>>>
>> That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our points,
>> it might be assumed you generally agree.
>
> one can't help but notice that jobst is frequently right.

"frequently" as in count, or "frequently" as in percentage? someone
that answers 100 times may get 10 things right, and be more "frequently"
right than someone that answers 5 times and gets 5 things right. he
/writes/ as if he's right, but that's not the same as actually /being/
right - and that pseudo-authoritative style deceives a good many people
that have insufficient expertise to know any different.

>
> one also can't help but notice that, should he ever err, an admission
> of same will not be forthcoming. at best, one can hope for infuriating
> silence.

when he's silent, you can pretty much guarantee he knows he's wrong.
when he's voluble, you can pretty much guarantee he hasn't figured out
he's wrong yet.

>
> one therefore concludes that he is a jerk. and the (120mm) (iron)
> horse he rode in on.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 00:12:52
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

in message <fred-A41DCD.17155206072007@forte.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >, Fred
Clydesdale ('fred@belldinger.com') wrote:

>
> Dan Connelly <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m> wrote:
>
> (snippage 'til you want to scream.)
>
>> >> Jobst Brandt
>> >
>> > You're a total jerk.
>>
>> That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our
>> points, it might be assumed you generally agree.
>
> one can't help but notice that jobst is frequently right.
>
> one also can't help but notice that, should he ever err, an admission
> of same will not be forthcoming. at best, one can hope for infuriating
> silence.

Or else, when really backed into a corner, he'll call you a liar.

Shame. He's an impressive cyclist with a lot of real (and useful)
knowledge. But seeing he writes with the same assurance and authority when
he's spouting total bollocks as when discoursing on areas of genuine
expertise, it's very difficult to trust anything he says.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Let's have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
;; in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle.
;; Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Dem, OR)

Date: 06 Jul 2007 21:50:08
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Jobst Brandt wrote:
>>> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
>>> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events

Sandy wrote:
>> You're a total jerk.

Dan Connelly wrote:
> That was nice and constructive. Since you didn't dispute any of our points, it might be assumed you generally agree.

Total is a French oil company.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:20:51
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.
>
> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.

Kind of an inside-out way of looking at it. The reality (from my perspective
as an insider of sorts at Trek) is that the team pushes the bike company
very, very hard. The back story to the new Madone is amazing, but can't
probably be told for a little while yet (as it involves politics and
resources between the team and Trek).

The days of the racer who's happy to ride on whatever he's given are, for
the most part, gone. Back in the day it was just the top couple of guys
(sometimes only one) on a team that got the cool stuff. There are still some
riders who just don't care... "Put me on a bike, point me in the right
direction and I'll do my job." But competition among the riders themselves,
competition for a decent contract for the next year... that, too, is a force
pushing the individual rider's desire to have the best-possible equipment.

I don't think Trek really cares that much about making TT bikes from a
business standpoint (there's very little money in them, and way too much
effort). Trek cares about having their name shown on TV, in newspapers, and
magazine covers. It doesn't matter what type of bike it is. They're going to
make lots more money selling standard road bikes to a whole lot of people
than they will anything else. And the average person, seeing a photo of a TT
bike, doesn't have any better feeling about buying a Trek than he or she
would seeing a photo of that same athlete on a standard road bike. Could
even be the opposite.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:468e7489$0$14074$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dan Connelly writes:
>
>>>> No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance
>>>> tests, often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage
>>>> alone, or in small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that
>>>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
>>>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
>>>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
>
>>> Does that include setting bones and carbon fiber repairs?
>
>> It would be good seeing the riders use equipment that was actually
>> designed to last. It would obsolete the silly weight rule.
>
>> At the least, require the riders to use the same equipment in every
>> stage, time trials included. The bike-du-jour syndrome is a bit
>> like Adventure Racing: maximize the number of toys.
>
> I prefer to have each team qualify a bicycle to be used for all its
> members and no other bicycle can be substituted for special events
> (TT, hill climb, etc). This is what you propose, I presume. The
> bicycle that emerges from such a rule might look substantially
> different from what we see today.
>
> The reason this doesn't occur is that bicycle manufacturers sponsor
> the event and use it to market their special equipment. It might be
> different if sponsors from the bicycle industry be banned, leaving it
> to food, drink, phone companies, computers, and the like.
>
> The length of the race is probably also a result of multi-media
> attention span. I'm sure this has been commercially researched.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:46:57
From: David L. Johnson
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:

> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider.

No. What happened was that the early Tours were brutal endurance tests,
often with riders finishing an excruciating 300+ km stage alone, or in
small groups, minutes or hours apart. I doubt that there would be much
interest in such an event now. It would be amusing, though, to return
to the practice of requiring riders to make their own field repairs,
including changing flats.

--

David L. Johnson

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on
no account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:58:49
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

David L. Johnson wrote:
:: there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
:: amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
:: make their own field repairs, including changing flats.

Amusing? Why? You like seeing people suffer needlessly?

Date: 10 Jul 2007 21:15:42
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:58:49 -0400, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:

>David L. Johnson wrote:
>:: there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
>:: amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
>:: make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
>
>Amusing? Why? You like seeing people suffer needlessly?
>
It isn't needless if it's part of the race. Mountain bike rules, in America
anyway, require the rider fix his own stuff.

Ron

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:32:39
From: G.T.
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Roger Zoul wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> :: there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
> :: amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
> :: make their own field repairs, including changing flats.
>
> Amusing? Why? You like seeing people suffer needlessly?
>
>

Suffer needlessly by changing a flat? Oh my goodness. I hope you said
that in jest.

Greg

--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

Le Petite Dejeuner au Tour de Farce:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6131132

Date: 06 Jul 2007 08:18:40
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Roger Zoul wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:

>>> there would be much interest in such an event now. It would be
>>> amusing, though, to return to the practice of requiring riders to
>>> make their own field repairs, including changing flats.

> Amusing? Why? You like seeing people suffer needlessly?

Trick question? <eg >

Date: 06 Jul 2007 16:35:24
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:

> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>

wasn't this a mountainbike race on singlespeeds?
[ducks]

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:15:41
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:

> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
[snip]
> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544

Pretty weak troll if you ask me.

in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h

Even the RAAMers can do that <g >

Do the math... Shorter tours mean higher speeds and generally better
television.

Iron men my ass ....... sheesh.

Bill

Date: 07 Jul 2007 00:00:46
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

in message <h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >, William R.
Mattil ('wrmattil@ix.netcom.com') wrote:

> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>
>> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> [snip]
>> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>
> Pretty weak troll if you ask me.
>
> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h

The roads they were riding over were almost entirely unsurfaced, and the
bikes they were using were heavy singlespeeds. Very few Freds can do
28Km/h for any distance on unsurfaced roads on a singlespeed.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:08:54
From: Fred Clydesdale
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

In article <h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net >,
"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote:

> > 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544

> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h

sir, *I* am a fred, and while i may be able to attain 28km/h, i doubt
i could sustain it for 5500km (what is that in pints, anyway?).

i would ask that you you consult with freds before making sweeping
generalizations about us.

cheers...goddammit!

Date: 07 Jul 2007 23:04:55
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Fred Clydesdale wrote:
> In article <h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>
>> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
>> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
>> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h
>
> sir, *I* am a fred, and while i may be able to attain 28km/h, i doubt
> i could sustain it for 5500km (what is that in pints, anyway?).
>
> i would ask that you you consult with freds before making sweeping
> generalizations about us.
>
> cheers...goddammit!

You, on the other hand, are granted special dispensation for making
sweeping generalizations about us.

I don't like sweeping, and someone's got to do it.

Date: 07 Jul 2007 09:22:35
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Fred Clydesdale wrote:
> i would ask that you you consult with freds before making sweeping
> generalizations about us.

Consulting with freds is like team racing for fatty masters.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:45:43
From: benjo maso
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com > wrote in message
news:h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>
>> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> [snip]
>> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>
> Pretty weak troll if you ask me.
>
> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h
>
> Even the RAAMers can do that <g>

300 to 400 km a day on unasphalted roads and dirt roads in the mountains, on
40 pound bicycles with no gear, making your own repairs and with nobody to
hand you food or drinks? Any Fred can do that at 28km/h? I'm not so sure...

Benjo

Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:39:15
From: Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

benjo maso wrote:
>
> 300 to 400 km a day on unasphalted roads and dirt roads in the mountains, on
> 40 pound bicycles with no gear, making your own repairs and with nobody to
> hand you food or drinks...

Jobst Brandt on vacation? ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:19:28
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

benjo maso wrote:
> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>
>>> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
>> [snip]
>>> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>> Pretty weak troll if you ask me.
>>
>> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
>> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
>> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h
>>
>> Even the RAAMers can do that <g>
>
>
> 300 to 400 km a day on unasphalted roads and dirt roads in the mountains, on
> 40 pound bicycles with no gear, making your own repairs and with nobody to
> hand you food or drinks? Any Fred can do that at 28km/h? I'm not so sure...
>

If Pantani had been on a 40lb bike instead of a 16 lb bike up L'Alpe, and he weighed 126 lb, and his equipment was 3 lb, then his 36-min L'Alpe would have been a 42-min L'Alpe.

He still would have beaten me by 6 minutes, and that if I was totally fresh, I crudely estimate.

That said, I don't think Tour bikes in the climbing era were ever 40 lb. Maybe 30lb.

Dan

Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:01:16
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Date: 06 Jul 2007 19:53:23
From: benjo maso
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

"Dan Connelly" <d_j_c_o_n_n_e_l@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m > wrote in message
news:468E7559.9050506@y_a_h_o_o_._c_o_m...
> benjo maso wrote:
>> "William R. Mattil" <wrmattil@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8sji.18408$2v1.11895@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Callistus Valerius wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
>>> [snip]
>>>> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
>>> Pretty weak troll if you ask me.
>>>
>>> in 1911 the average speed was ~28.4km/h and in 2006 it was ~41km/h
>>> Anyone that rides a bike must know the difference between these two
>>> speeds. Any Fred can do 28km/h
>>>
>>> Even the RAAMers can do that <g>
>>
>>
>> 300 to 400 km a day on unasphalted roads and dirt roads in the mountains,
>> on 40 pound bicycles with no gear, making your own repairs and with
>> nobody to hand you food or drinks? Any Fred can do that at 28km/h? I'm
>> not so sure...
>>
>
> If Pantani had been on a 40lb bike instead of a 16 lb bike up L'Alpe, and
> he weighed 126 lb, and his equipment was 3 lb, then his 36-min L'Alpe
> would have been a 42-min L'Alpe.
>
> He still would have beaten me by 6 minutes, and that if I was totally
> fresh, I crudely estimate.
>
> That said, I don't think Tour bikes in the climbing era were ever 40 lb.
> Maybe 30lb.

They were about 15 kg, plus a pump, tools, three spare tyres, etc.- which
means about 2 to 3 kg extra.

Benjo

Date: 06 Jul 2007 06:24:47
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Entropy?

R

Date: 06 Jul 2007 18:44:36
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 06:24:47 -0700, RicodJour
<ricodjour@worldemail.com > wrote:

>Entropy?

POTM
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:33:55
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

Callistus Valerius wrote:
> The tour de france is getting shorter all the time, consider this:
>
> 2006 Floyd Landis 89h 39m 30s 3639K
> 2004 Lance Armstrong 83h 36m 02s 3391K
> 2002 Lance Armstrong 82h 05m 12s 3278K
> 1989 Greg LeMond 87h 38m 35s 3250K
> 1988 Pedro Delgado 84h 27m 53s 3300K
> . . . and then there were men
> 1931 Antonin Magne 177h 10m 3s 5095
> 1930 Andre Leducq 172h 12m 10s 4818
> 1929 Maurice De Waele 186h 39m 16s 5286
> 1928 Nicolas Frantz 192h 48m 58s 5377
> 1927 Nicolas Frantz 198h 16m 42s 5348
> 1926 Lucien Buysse Belgium 238h 44m 25s 5475
> 1925 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 219h 10m 13s 5430
> 1924 Ottavio Bottecchia Italy 226h 18m 21s 5427
> 1923 Henri Pelissier France 222h 15m 30s 5386
> 1922 Firmin Lambot Belgium 222h 8m 6s 5378
> 1921 Leon Scieur Belgium 221h 50m 0s 5484
> 1920 Philippe Thys Belgium 228h 36m 0s 5503
> 1919 Firmin Lambot Belgium 231h 7m 15s 5560
> * * * No Tour de France - World War I * * *
> 1914 Philippe Thys Belgium 200h 28m 49s 5414
> 1913 Philippe Thys Belgium 197h 54m 0s 5387
> 1912 Odile Defraye Belgium 184h 50m 0s 5229
> 1911 Gustave Garrigou France 195h 35m 25s 5544
> ---------
> 1911-1931 over 5000 K, around 200 hours
> After that it dropped to 4200 K around 120 hours.
> Now the modern era it's around 3300 K around 85 hours
>
> So as equipment has evolved, and technology has improved, it seem the race
> organizers have less confidence in the riders, as they make the race shorter
> and shorter to meet the lower standards of the modern rider. The iron-men
> of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
>

The TdF is not the only race in a Pro's season.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 06 Jul 2007 05:22:32
From: tiborg
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Jul 6, 9:02 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com > wrote:

> The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.

After 80 years, I would expect most of them to be dead too;)

The difference between now and then is that today's racers are
averaging 40+km/h compared to the 30km/h of the past era. That's quite
a difference in output. I don't think very many people would be
interested in watching a group of bikers pudding along at speeds most
healthy people can easily attain themselves.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:01:00
From: Dan Connelly
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

tiborg wrote:
> On Jul 6, 9:02 pm, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
> After 80 years, I would expect most of them to be dead too;)
>
> The difference between now and then is that today's racers are
> averaging 40+km/h compared to the 30km/h of the past era. That's quite
> a difference in output. I don't think very many people would be
> interested in watching a group of bikers pudding along at speeds most
> healthy people can easily attain themselves.
>
>

http://www.raceacrossamerica.com/

P.S. It's a natural consequence of television coverage. Pre-TV, interest was sparked by newspaper stories, which can better represent tangible feats of endurance than subtle yet substantial differences in speed and power.

Date: 06 Jul 2007 22:47:52
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 05:22:32 -0700, tiborg wrote:

>> The iron-men of the 20's and 30's are long gone.
>
> After 80 years, I would expect most of them to be dead too;)
>
> The difference between now and then is that today's racers are
> averaging 40+km/h compared to the 30km/h of the past era. That's quite
> a difference in output.

Although I would bet that they draft more tightly and share the workload at
the front more effectively than they did 80 years ago, too.

> I don't think very many people would be
> interested in watching a group of bikers pudding along at speeds most
> healthy people can easily attain themselves.

Well, in the early days I suppose the fact that the riders had to maintain
that moderate pace for 14-15 hours at a time was impressive. These days
the endurance aspect of the race is spread over many more days, so they
can work harder at any given time if necessary.