I dont follow tour stats much (avg speed) but....

terrydel · 08-07-2016 6:53pm #1

Just seen todays was 49 odd kmph, that seems fecking nuts! Is it just me or are these speeds getting better and better every year now after apparently from what Ive read a slowdown after the Lance fallout?
I cant comprehend these speeds, regardless of how good these guys clearly are. It just seems crazy to me.
I need to look up the trend on this one.

68 lost souls · 08-07-2016 7:12pm

2005 was the fastest tour so yes there has been a slow down. Today was only an introduction to the mountains and a big decent finish would have increased speed as well as today being pushed hard by several breakaway attempts and successes

$File%3AOverall_Speed_Tour_de_France.gif[\img]$

RobFowl · 08-07-2016 7:19pm

today was fairly flat up to the last 40k
Also look at the long flat stages this year and they were fairly slow.
Pace is def slower than 10-20 yrs ago

Borderfox · 08-07-2016 7:55pm

It wasn't 49kmph average today, more like just over 40kmph

JK.BMC · 08-07-2016 11:27pm

terrydel wrote: »

Just seen todays was 49 odd kmph, that seems fecking nuts! Is it just me or are these speeds getting better and better every year now after apparently from what Ive read a slowdown after the Lance fallout?
I cant comprehend these speeds, regardless of how good these guys clearly are. It just seems crazy to me.
I need to look up the trend on this one.

It's just you.

Speed today was c.42kmh by the end.
The first hour was 49kmh+ as there was a huge number of attacks happening.
Similar scenario to the recent National Road Race here in Ireland actually, and not uncommon in top level bike racing.
And no, we are not living in the Lance Armstrong era any more.
There is an unprecedented volume of stats and data analysis available nowadays and the race tracker and stats provided by Dimension Data for this year's tour is worth checking - you will learn lots.

Inquitus · 08-07-2016 11:36pm

This Graph shows the Average Speed of the Tour over the years. Lance's "Win" in 2005 being the fastest with a noticeable slowdown since.

Wishbone Ash · 08-07-2016 11:51pm

Inquitus wrote: »

This Graph shows the Average Speed of the Tour over the years. Lance's "Win" in 2005 being the fastest with a noticeable slowdown since....

...and for anyone who thinks that the average speeds for the early years of the TDF seems slow, bear in mind that most stages were 400k or so in length and riders were on single speeds or fixies on unpaved roads, as well as being expected to ride through the night on very primitive lighting systems and were generally 'unsupported'.

Inquitus · 08-07-2016 11:55pm

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

...and for anyone who thinks that the average speeds for the early years of the TDF seems slow, bear in mind that most stages were 400k or so in length and riders were on single speeds or fixies on unpaved roads, as well as being expected to ride through the night on very primitive lighting systems and were generally 'unsupported'.

Excellent history of the TDF here.

Evolution of the bikes here.

The Tourmalet in the 30's.

30's Single Speed TDF bike.

fat bloke · 08-07-2016 11:57pm

I was watching the itv coverage and that jumped out at me as well, at the finish they had the average speed on the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen at 49kph!

fat bloke · 09-07-2016 12:07am

I understand that it's wrong, given that it was 167km in 4 hours, but at the time I nearly spat me coffee out all over the couch when I saw the 49 figure

ted1 · 09-07-2016 12:35am

68 lost souls wrote: »

2005 was the fastest tour so yes there has been a slow down. Today was only an introduction to the mountains and a big decent finish would have increased speed as well as today being pushed hard by several breakaway attempts and successes

$File%3AOverall_Speed_Tour_de_France.gif[\img]$

The "Lance years", if you take away the riders who aren't on gear you will find the average speed decreased significantly

RobFowl · 09-07-2016 12:37am

ted1 wrote: »

The "Lance years", if you take away the riders who aren't on gear you will find the average speed decreased significantly

Good luck trying to work that one out

Crocked · 09-07-2016 12:42am

Interesting to see on that chart how the average speed plummeted after WW1 for about a decade, no doubt due to the wipping out of a generation of young fit men.

Again after WW2 it was about a decade before average speeds jumped marketly.

ted1 · 09-07-2016 12:45am

Crocked wrote: »

Interesting to see on that chart how the average speed plummeted after WW1 for about a decade, no doubt due to the wipping out of a generation of young fit men.

Again after WW2 it was about a decade before average speeds jumped marketly.

I'd say you'd need a mountain bike for most roads and carry the bike while swimming across the river where the bridge is out.

Who was speed and distance measured back then ?

68 lost souls · 09-07-2016 7:37am

ted1 wrote: »

I'd say you'd need a mountain bike for most roads and carry the bike while swimming across the river where the bridge is out.

Who was speed and distance measured back then ?

It would have been based off the overall time to complete the tour I reckon?

godtabh · 09-07-2016 8:21am

ted1 wrote: »

I'd say you'd need a mountain bike for most roads and carry the bike while swimming across the river where the bridge is out.

Who was speed and distance measured back then ?

Speed = distance/time. Not difficult to work out the average

michaelm · 09-07-2016 8:25am

fat bloke wrote: »

I understand that it's wrong, given that it was 167km in 4 hours, but at the time I nearly spat me coffee out all over the couch when I saw the 49 figure

Same as that - it just flashed up on that image and was corrected for the next shot.

ford2600 · 09-07-2016 8:35am

ted1 wrote: »

I'd say you'd need a mountain bike for most roads and carry the bike while swimming across the river where the bridge is out.

Who was speed and distance measured back then ?

Harrison invented an accurate sea clocks in the 1740's. Accurate clocks that work on land have been around for a long time.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 09-07-2016 10:46am

Eurosport also showed the average speed when Cummings crossed the line as 49km/h for the full distance and not just the first hour. It dropped to 42.3kn/h for the rest of the peloton who were roughly 4 minutes behind so clearly the 49kmh was incorrect.

dastardly00 · 09-07-2016 10:51am

RobFowl wrote: »

Good luck trying to work that one out

seamus · 09-07-2016 10:58am

The hour record is 49.7km. That's a professional flat out for an hour on a flat track.

There is no way anyone is coming within spitting distance of that average on a rolling course over several hours.

JK.BMC · 09-07-2016 11:04am

seamus wrote: »

The hour record is 49.7km. That's a professional flat out for an hour on a flat track.

There is no way anyone is coming within spitting distance of that average on a rolling course over several hours.

The pro peleton regularly does. You should check out the Tour of Qatar in February for example. And lots of other examples.

And is the hour record not significantly faster than that?

ford2600 · 09-07-2016 11:17am

JK.BMC wrote: »

The pro peleton regularly does. You should check out the Tour of Qatar in February for example. And lots of other examples.

And is the hour record not significantly faster than that?

Wiggins was 54km odd I think.

Kaisr Sose · 09-07-2016 12:59pm

Yep, hour record is much faster than 49kmph.

Inquitus · 09-07-2016 1:36pm

3hrs48m9s for the 162.5km Stage per the classification.

So 162.5/3.8025 = 42.73kph avg speed for the stage.

fat bloke · 09-07-2016 1:49pm

Inquitus wrote: »

3hrs48m9s for the 162.5km Stage per the classification.

So 162.5/3.8025 = 42.73kph avg speed for the stage.

Ah yeah but that's moving average. It doesn't into account the food, cake & coffee stops at the 40, 80 & 120 km mark.

JK.BMC · 09-07-2016 1:59pm

seamus wrote: »

The hour record is 49.7km. That's a professional flat out for an hour on a flat track.

There is no way anyone is coming within spitting distance of that average on a rolling course over several hours.

Average speed for the first hour of today's stage 8 of the 2016 TdF was a whopping 51kmh.
Just goes to show.....

saccades · 10-07-2016 7:28pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by seamus View Post
The hour record is 49.7km. That's a professional flat out for an hour on a flat track.

There is no way anyone is coming within spitting distance of that average on a rolling course over several hours.

...

JK.BMC wrote: »

Average speed for the first hour of today's stage 8 of the 2016 TdF was a whopping 51kmh.
Just goes to show.....

Can't draft during an hour record.

JK.BMC · 10-07-2016 8:02pm

saccades wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by seamus View Post
The hour record is 49.7km. That's a professional flat out for an hour on a flat track.

There is no way anyone is coming within spitting distance of that average on a rolling course over several hours.

...

Can't draft during an hour record.

And....?

Seems there are 2 different threads/streams of thought at play here.

Darkglasses · 10-07-2016 8:06pm

JK.BMC wrote: »

And....?

Seems there are 2 different threads/streams of thought at play here.

Think they only meant to quote Seamus's post, not yours.

cdaly_ · 11-07-2016 10:16am

godtabh wrote: »

Speed = distance/time. Not difficult to work out the average

Just worked that out. 3519km from sat 2nd July to Sunday 24th July. If you assume a midday start and finish, that's 22 days => 528 hours

3519/528 = 6.665 kph. Sure that's nothing. I did Paris-Brest-Paris twice as fast!*

*1260km/88.15hrs = 14.3kph...

I dont follow tour stats much (avg speed) but....

Comments