Could Lance Have Won a Tour De France On A Bike.....

The BikeForums Team

-adv-

This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.

Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)

Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net

StephenH

More importantly, could Popeye beat up Batman?

And on a more general note...If things were different, what would they be like?

(And my opinion- "no".)

Gee3

If everyone else was riding similar bikes, yes. But he'd still put the hurt on a lot of people even if eveyone else didn't use the same bike.

Popeye could only beat Batman if he had a can of spinach.

Keith99

I'd say no. The winning margins are pretty small and little things make a difference. It has been calculated that if Figneon had not had his ponytail flapping in the wind on the final TT he would ahv bet Lemond.

A bike doesn't have to be that much inferior to cost a lot of time ofver 2000 miles. It isn't just weight, though that difference alone might be enough. Bet that bike is less stiff wher it counts. Shifting would be less precise and slower.

The final add in is how it would effect various riders mindsets. Others would think he was vunerable. His creating an aura of being invincible help considerably in a couple of his wins, the opposite would have hurt just as much. If outers knew he was riding an inferior bike and knew just how it was inferior they would have attacked those weaknesses and if that came into play he would have had no chance at all.

AlexTaylor

Yes, it would appear Lance would win -

Lance vs Jan (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Lance+armstrong+Diamond+Back&word2=Jan+Ullrich+Bianchi)

Whereas Batman would leather Popeye, in fact it would be quite a bloodbath!

Popeye v Batman (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Popeye&word2=Batman)

Intheloonybin

edzo

More importantly, could Popeye beat up Batman?

And on a more general note...If things were different, what would they be like?

(And my opinion- "no".)

I LOL'D

really, I did.

NotAsFat

gnug125

Spinach, the new Testosterone!

mvillan

nope, nope... batman wins

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=popeye&word2=batman

dahoss2002

If he rode the Kent GMC Denali, he might have a shot..........

ultraman6970

Keith99

HI... actually hs is/was so good than no matter what bike he rides he might been able to win anyways.

I have to put something clear... I wouldnt race in a 500 bucks junk anyways and i lance wouldnt, but probably any low level ridley or an aluminum cyfac? at least something respectable, not a wall mart 100 bucks bike.

The rider makes the bike famous. Many bikes are cheap and fast as hell but how nobody have been able to win a world cup or something important in them, they are entittled as bad bikes.

Cya.

Yea, so much better that everyone else he could just show up and win. So why didn't he ever win 2 Major tours in one year? Why no Tour/ worlds double?

Lance won the TDF because he was talented and focused. He paid attention to all the details and pointed towards one race each year. Now if he was not very talented he still would not have won, but he was not head and shoulders above the rest.

kemmer

Lance could have won on a bike like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/iamjacobpriest/l_ea9cf6b37c50f83a5a77d8c936a26911.jpg

Details in this thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=379107)

baj32161

Lance also had a very talented team dedicated to one single minded task...seeing to it that Lance won the Tour.

garysol1

I would be surprised if the drive train and wheels on a $500.00 bike would last more than one leg of the tour under the power that someone like Lance can produce.

Keith99

I would be surprised if the drive train and wheels on a $500.00 bike would last more than one leg of the tour under the power that someone like Lance can produce.

Finally a post that is Lance supporting that I really like. To nit pick I'd give even money the bike would last til the first mountian stage, after all the real GC contenders are pretty much just sitting in on those first few sprinters stages.

Could be a fun thing though, after all some places they bet on almost anything (First score, over/unders..). With this we could have how many KMs til bike failure!

Booger1

He would just have to take more drugs then he did then.

ProFail

He would just have to take more drugs then he did then.

Three, two, one....

bikingshearer

If he had a brand new one, perfectly dialed in, at the start of every stage (to minimize the possible breakage factor), my guess is he would not have won seven Tours, but he would have won two or three.

The real difference between Lance and everyone else was not raw talent (Ullrich was at least as physically gifted overall, and there were any number of better pure climbers) but desire (and a modicum of luck - no Tour-ending crashes, no irretrievably bad days at the crucial time, very few mechanical problems at exactly the wrong moment, etc.). He simply wanted it more than anyone else, and he worked his butt off to win. And that remains true whether or not you believe he doped. He was pretty driven even before the cancer, but post-cancer, he was simply the most driven racer in the peloton, and makes the short list of most driven racers in the history of the sport.

Oh, and don't forget about his anger. The man ran on the stuff; it's almost as if anger was a critical nutrient for him. Anger at cancer, anger at the Cofidis team for dumping him, anger at the cycling world for belittling his first TdF win as against 2nd rate competition, and especially anger at the French press for its seemingly endless series of antagonistic articles. Every time L'Equipe ran another anti-Lance piece, I knew that he was going to win - again. You'd have thought L'Equipe would learn but nooooooooooo.

thedips

i think a bike that crappy would make a huge difference.. but if he was on a somewhat comparable bike the would be fine....

Creakyknees

ok I'll take the anti position since no one seems willing to.

These days 599 will get you a basic alu fram and Tiagra level stuff. Wheels, depending which model, are still better than what Lemond/Fignon rode most days.

Leave out TTs, assume the bike is tuned, I bet he'd still win.

There. And if I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer.

Bacciagalupe

These days 599 will get you a basic alu fram and Tiagra level stuff. Wheels, depending which model, are still better than what Lemond/Fignon rode most days.

Leave out TTs, assume the bike is tuned, I bet he'd still win.
I have my doubts. (And you could substitute "Lance" for any winner. :P )

Lance beat Basso by 4' 40", Ullrich by a mere 1' 01", most others by 6-7', including time bonuses. And that's over 21 days of racing.

Even though it isn't directly cumulative, that's a very slim margin. The difference between a $600 entry-level road bike and a $4,000+ custom racing bike may be small, but I don't think it's THAT small....

Hobartlemagne

With world class atheletes, many events are won by seconds or fractions of seconds.
Its because of this that the choice of equipment is the absolute best performance.

Hezz

...from Sports Chalet ? I saw a Diamond Back road bike at Sports Chalet for $599.00 . I was wondering how much difference a bike makes to a rider like Lance. Think he could have won a Tour with one of those bikes ?

The answer is no.

A 600 dollar bike will weight about 22-23 pounds or more compared to the 15 pounds of the high end bikes that they use in the TDF. Also the TDF bikes have lighter wheels and better bearings which make a big difference when accelerating. On a flat course it wouldn't make as much difference but would likely meant that he couldn't realistically do any better than stay with the peloton, but on the mountain stages the difference would be huge. Lance probably could not win the TDF if he couldn't gain time on most of the field in the mountain stages. An extra 8 pounds of weight in the mountain stages could easily cost him as much as 15-20 minutes of time on each mountain stage putting him back in the zone where he would be way out of contention.

Even if, as a very conservative estimate, he lost only 5 minutes on each of three mountain stages that puts him way out of the race.

This is one of the reasons that Lance was very good in the mountains because of his very strict diet and maximizing his power to weight ratio. Also, because endurance at higher wattages is one of his strong traits he chose wisely to emphasize this in his training. Lance cannot usually win flat fast stages because all the sprinters will outrun him at the last half kilometer of the race. He has to be good at TT and mountains to win the TDF and both require constant higher wattage long term endurance and maximized power to weight ratio.

Murrays

An extra 8 pounds of weight in the mountain stages could easily cost him as much as 15-20 minutes of time on each mountain stage putting him back in the zone where he would be way out of contention.

Source please? I plugged some numbers into analytic cycling (400 watts, 8% grade, 10 km, 4 kg weight savings) and came up with 70 seconds difference. Significant, yes, but nowhere near "15-20 minutes".

In his prime, Lance easily put more than 70 seconds into the competition on the last climb, though it could be argued he wouldn't have had that kind of power having carried an extra 4 kg up the previous climbs.

As for stuff breaking under Lance's power, give me a break! A 300 lb guy standing on the pedals at low cadence would stress the bike "weigh" more than Lance at his high cadence.

Bearing losses? Drops in the bucket; the added resistance wouldn't be measurable.

So put me down as a definite...it would be close. Would a closer race give the contenders more hope or give Lance more fight?

I'd say he'd for sure be in the top 5 if riding at his peak.

-murray

Keith99

Source please? I plugged some numbers into analytic cycling (400 watts, 8% grade, 10 km, 4 kg weight savings) and came up with 70 seconds difference. Significant, yes, but nowhere near "15-20 minutes".

10 km at 8% grade is nowhere near the climbing on the easiest stage that would be classified as a mountian stage on any of the tours.

Murrays

10 km at 8% grade is nowhere near the climbing on the easiest stage that would be classified as a mountian stage on any of the tours.

??

There's no way an extra 4 kg would cause Lance to drop off the slower paced climbs when the sprinters can hang on. If there are more than 10 riders together on a tough climb, I'd wager that Lance (in his prime) would still be able to pull away with an extra 4 kg if the results from analytic cycling are close.

-murray

Hezz

Source please? I plugged some numbers into analytic cycling (400 watts, 8% grade, 10 km, 4 kg weight savings) and came up with 70 seconds difference. Significant, yes, but nowhere near "15-20 minutes".

-murray

Your scenerio just isn't realistic. Even if we use your numbers. A TDF mountain stage would be more representative of say an average of 40-60 km or more of a 8% grade with all of the hills added together. So lets say he looses 70 seconds for each 10 km. That's close to five minutes per mountain stage. With probably 4-5 mountain stages in the race that puts him back 20-25 minutes. Not likely even in the top 10 for many years.

Murrays

Your scenerio just isn't realistic. Even if we use your numbers. A TDF mountain stage would be more representative of say an average of 40-60 km of a 8% grade with all of the hills added together. So lets say he looses 70 seconds for each 10 km. That's close to five minutes per mountain stage. With probably 4-5 mountain stages in the race that puts him back 20-25 minutes. Not likely even in the top 10 for many years.

As I tried to explain in my previous post, 4 kg isn't going to cause Lance to lose contact with the pack on the earlier, slower paced climbs so there wouldn't be a single second lost up till the last climb of the day.

The only question would be how much affect the extra effort would have on his power output at the end of the stage.

-murray

Hezz

As I tried to explain in my previous post, 4 kg isn't going to cause Lance to lose contact with the pack on the earlier, slower paced climbs so there wouldn't be a single second lost up till the last climb of the day.

The only question would be how much affect the extra effort would have on his power output at the end of the stage.

-murray

The effect would really depend on the nature of the stage. If it was a long steady gradual grade until the end the effect would be less. But it still would be there. However, usually less than 1 minute separates the top three finishers. A total loss of 70 seconds would be enough to keep him from winning on most years. Plus you have not factored in the gradual effect of energy expenditure over time which cannot be ignored. Over the course of a 21 stage race it would have a cumulative effect.

Murrays

However, usually less than 1 minute separates the top three finishers. A total loss of 70 seconds would be enough to keep him from winning on most years.

I'll say again, Lance in his prime would take 2 minutes out of the next closest rider on the last climb. Take away 70 seconds and Lance still takes 50 seconds.

Plus you have not factored in the gradual effect of energy expenditure over time which cannot be ignored. Over the course of a 21 stage race it would have a cumulative effect.

That's why I said it would be close and how the riders would react to being close to winning or Lance to losing.

Anyone who says definitely yes or definitely no hasn't shown anything to back it up IMHO.

-murray

marin1

I'll say again, Lance in his prime would take 2 minutes out of the next closest rider on the last climb. Take away 70 seconds and Lance still takes 50 seconds.

That's why I said it would be close and how the riders would react to being close to winning or Lance to losing.

Anyone who says definitely yes or definitely no hasn't shown anything to back it up IMHO.

-murray

Take away the TTT in 2003 and Lance would have won by 18 seconds. I am pretty sure on a crappy bike he would have lost. Also 2005 was only a 2min victory when you take away the TTT. Anyone who thinks that LA would have won is delusional and just has an enormous hard-on for LA. Yes he was good, but try to think about this objectivly. The drain over 3400km would have destroyed any chance of winning.

Common sense should be more common.

Keith99

Murrays

Take away the TTT in 2003 and Lance would have won by 18 seconds. I am pretty sure on a crappy bike he would have lost. Also 2005 was only a 2min victory when you take away the TTT. Anyone who thinks that LA would have won is delusional and just has an enormous hard-on for LA. Yes he was good, but try to think about this objectivly. The drain over 3400km would have destroyed any chance of winning.

Common sense should be more common.

I'll say it one more time with emphasis: Lance in his prime would take 2 minutes out of the next closest rider on the last climb. Not Lance when he was having difficulty, but at his best.

And the drain would only be on the steeper uphill portions, a very small fraction of the 3400km.

I'm not saying he would have won 7 or even that he would have won at all, just saying it would have been close and he would have been in the top 5 almost certainly.

-murray

Murrays

So at 4 mountian stages thats 8 minutes. Lance did well in time trials also. So how come he NEVER won by 8 minutes?

Pretty simple, because he didn't need to take time out on every mountain. One or two explosive efforts was all that was needed along with the TTs.

Was he incapable of putting out another 5% effort on the other climbs? 5% more is all that's needed to carry an extra 4kg up an 8% grade. It's pretty obvious to me that Lance (in his prime) was rarely, if ever, at his limit unless he was taking time out of the other riders.

-murray

Keith99

I'll say it one more time with emphasis: Lance in his prime would take 2 minutes out of the next closest rider on the last climb. Not Lance when he was having difficulty, but at his best.

And the drain would only be on the steeper uphill portions, a very small fraction of the 3400km.

I'm not saying he would have won 7 or even that he would have won at all, just saying it would have been close and he would have been in the top 5 almost certainly.

-murray

That is very interesting. Just when was his prime? Lance NEVER won a stage by 2 minutes. His largest was 1 Minute 59 Seconds in 2003.

Lance was a master tactition. He NEVER dropped huge time and big time only once I can remember, with a couple of other times where he was at serious risk but managed a bad day well. Yet somehow people get this image that he was consistently ripping the legs off everyone else.

Murrays

That is very interesting. Just when was his prime? Lance NEVER won a stage by 2 minutes. His largest was 1 Minute 59 Seconds in 2003.

Lance was a master tactition. He NEVER dropped huge time and big time only once I can remember, with a couple of other times where he was at serious risk but managed a bad day well. Yet somehow people get this image that he was consistently ripping the legs off everyone else.

You like putting NEVER in bold and caps, don't you? :D

You're right that it doesn't appear he gained two minutes, but he did gain more than 70 seconds a number of times. My point is he would have been capable of hanging on for the most part and likely to pull away in some cases with an extra 4 kg. Doing it over a couple mountain days would be difficult.

Regardless, the statement that he would lose 15-20 minutes on a mountain stage is ridiculous.

-murray

Hezz

Pretty simple, because he didn't need to take time out on every mountain. One or two explosive efforts was all that was needed along with the TTs.

Was he incapable of putting out another 5% effort on the other climbs? 5% more is all that's needed to carry an extra 4kg up an 8% grade. It's pretty obvious to me that Lance (in his prime) was rarely, if ever, at his limit unless he was taking time out of the other riders.

-murray

I think you are overestimating Lance's realistic ability. While it may be true that he often had an extra 5% to give if necessary on a mountain stage that is purely assumption on your part. You don't really know you only want to believe it. Anyway Lance was smart. Totally giving everything in endurance racing is dangerous on long multiday events. Lance also knew that to win he had to finish without blowing up the next day.

ElJamoquio

another 5% effort

5% is roughly the difference between your maximum 60 minute effort (in other words, the last TdF climb of the day) and your maximum 20 minut effort (in other words, cracking halfway up).

marin1

I'll say it one more time with emphasis: Lance in his prime would take 2 minutes out of the next closest rider on the last climb. Not Lance when he was having difficulty, but at his best.

And the drain would only be on the steeper uphill portions, a very small fraction of the 3400km.

I'm not saying he would have won 7 or even that he would have won at all, just saying it would have been close and he would have been in the top 5 almost certainly.

-murray

Whose to say 2003 was not his prime? Just because the time difference was close does not mean he was in worse shape. It is very apparent your love of LA is clouding your vision.:D

Keith99

You like putting NEVER in bold and caps, don't you? :D

You're right that it doesn't appear he gained two minutes, but he did gain more than 70 seconds a number of times. My point is he would have been capable of hanging on for the most part and likely to pull away in some cases with an extra 4 kg. Doing it over a couple mountain days would be difficult.

Regardless, the statement that he would lose 15-20 minutes on a mountain stage is ridiculous.

-murray

Yup it is. Likely to be much more. Dropped from the leading group on a climb before the final climb on a multi-cat1 and HC day and it is likely to be more than 20 minutes in that one day.

Keith99

As I tried to explain in my previous post, 4 kg isn't going to cause Lance to lose contact with the pack on the earlier, slower paced climbs so there wouldn't be a single second lost up till the last climb of the day.

The only question would be how much affect the extra effort would have on his power output at the end of the stage.

-murray

The group of the sprinters is often dropped of the back well before the final climb. The pure sprinters are also dropped off the back on final climbs where there is a large flat afterwards. A stage where all the GC contenders end up ST, Zabel wins the sprint and Super Mario and the other pure sprinters drop over 20 minutes.

Keith99

You like putting NEVER in bold and caps, don't you? :D

You're right that it doesn't appear he gained two minutes, but he did gain more than 70 seconds a number of times. My point is he would have been capable of hanging on for the most part and likely to pull away in some cases with an extra 4 kg. Doing it over a couple mountain days would be difficult.

Regardless, the statement that he would lose 15-20 minutes on a mountain stage is ridiculous.

-murray

Really? I blew it before his 1'59" stage win was in 2001. Name one other non TT stage win of over 70 seconds. Shouldn't be a problem since he did it a number of times.

Murrays

Yup it is. Likely to be much more. Dropped from the leading group on a climb before the final climb on a multi-cat1 and HC day and it is likely to be more than 20 minutes in that one day.

4 kg would NEVER cause Lance to get dropped on a early climb, it simply wouldn't happen. Indeed, Lance WAS putting 10-20 minutes on guys that were easily hanging on those climbs.

You are vastly overstating the effects of 4 kg, or is there some other magical force holding back a rider on a $600 bike??

-murray

Murrays

Really? I blew it before his 1'59" stage win was in 2001. Name one other non TT stage win of over 70 seconds. Shouldn't be a problem since he did it a number of times.

Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. I didn't say he WON by 70 seconds on several occasions, but he took more than 70 seconds out of his closest competitors on a number of occasions (as I said previously):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/jul00/tdfrance00/stages/tdfrance00st10r.shtml
Put 3 minutes 19 seconds into the eventual #2, closest top 5 finisher was 80 seconds behind.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2001/tour01/results/results_stage_10.shtml
1:59 out of eventual #2

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2002/tour02/?id=results/stage12
64 seconds out of eventual #2, 71 seconds out of #3

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/stage13
87 seconds out of eventual #2.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2005//tour05/?id=results/tour0510
62 seconds into the eventual #2, 2:14 into #3

-murray

Fahrrad Fervor

The real question is whether or not the Diamond Back would keep you from winning your local crit--provided (universal) you can win at all.

Scooby Snax

I think that going up hill with an additional 4kg, isn't the entire issue, it's the decent, braking and cornering at 70 - 100km/h added into the mix.

My answer would be, a resounding No.

Murrays

I think that going up hill with an additional 4kg, isn't the entire issue, it's the decent, braking and cornering at 70 - 100km/h added into the mix.

My answer would be, a resounding No.

In what respect? The geometry of the frame? The added weight speeding you up? The materials of the brake pads? The force the brakes can apply to the rim?

Would Lance fall behind by a significant amount because he couldn't go down hill as affectively?

-murray