Originally Posted by
Rustyoldbikes
The Tour de France used to be a LONG race, over roads that were often cobblestones, bricks or asphalt, the climbing stages were often on "goat trails" of gravel, dirt, and rock. Today, the Tour is a much shorter race, run primarily on smooth concrete roads. Shorter race, better roads, yet average "per hour" times have improved by ONLY 10%. Why?
1956...the race was 4527 Km with an average speed of 36.3 Kph over poorly surfaced roads, and gravel mountain tracks.
2004...the race was shortened to just 3,391 km over smooth concrete roads, but the average speed only increased to 40.5 Kph...just a 10% improvement over 1956.
How much of that 10% difference should be credited to Lance Armstrong's physicial ability? How much to riding on smooth concrete roads instead of up a gravel and rock covered goat track? How much of the credit goes to making the race MUCH shorter? And how much credit goes to his $4,000 carbon "wonder bike"?
You do realize that power increase needed to go from 22.6 to 25.2 mph is huge, right? 10% more speed is 30% more power all else being equal. So if the roads are better now that would account for some, reduced weight in bikes would account for some, improved aerodynamics some more, increased strength, etc.
And the bikes are not that more expensive accounting for inflation.
Is there a point in there somewhere?