Armstrong's Tour De France Time Trials

(4) Improved Aerobic Threshold - If we are extremely generous and say
that 50% of Armstrong's post cancer speed increase (2.391 km/hr) came
from an improved aerodynamic position that still leaves 50% (73 watts)
due to improved aerobic capacity. This still represents a remarkable
increase in aerobic power in an already highly trained professional
athlete. With mature top class athletes who have trained for a number
of years it is extremely difficult to even gain a 10-15 watt
improvement in aerobic threshold power. When they have high-end
aerobic thresholds that exceed 400W a significant training stress is
required to even maintain this level let alone increase it. Top class
athletes are tested up to half a dozen times a year to determine what
their aerobic thresholds are (these days even amateurs have it done).
It is performed in a lab environment using an ergo meter under ideal
conditions and almost an exact value +- 5 watts can be determined for
aerobic threshold. I would find it very interesting if Armstrong's
results for this lab test pre and post cancer were made available and
the exact improvements of the potentially most successful TdF
competitor could be quantified.

Armstrong's power output at LT increased 22% from 1993 to 1999. This
increase seems to be due to putting a greater focus on aerobic power.
Your analysis, I believe, incorrectly assumes the pre-cancer Armstrong
was a "mature" aerobic athlete.

http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm

(ChrisH) wrote in message . com...
(4) Improved Aerobic Threshold - If we are extremely generous and say
that 50% of Armstrong's post cancer speed increase (2.391 km/hr) came
from an improved aerodynamic position that still leaves 50% (73 watts)
due to improved aerobic capacity. This still represents a remarkable
increase in aerobic power in an already highly trained professional
athlete. With mature top class athletes who have trained for a number
of years it is extremely difficult to even gain a 10-15 watt
improvement in aerobic threshold power. When they have high-end
aerobic thresholds that exceed 400W a significant training stress is
required to even maintain this level let alone increase it.


Armstrong's power output at LT increased 22% from 1993 to 1999. This
increase seems to be due to putting a greater focus on aerobic power.
Your analysis, I believe, incorrectly assumes the pre-cancer Armstrong
was a "mature" aerobic athlete.

http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm

Thanks for providing this information. I hope we've moved on from the
"hyper motivated", or "can suffer like a dog" explanations of
improvement...

The LT power values (340W-360W) for years 93 & 94 are somewhat
consistent with his performances in the TdF TTs from those years and
the correlation between these LT power values and his times and
average speed indicate that he was riding at his aerobic maximum.
Curiously the stated increases in LT power values from 95 & 96 aren't
reflected in his TT performances. His TT performances from '94 to '96
don't reflect the stated improvement of aerobic threshold from 342W to
403W during that period. A 61W improvement is very substantial and one
would have expected to see this refected in his times and average
speeds.

My assertion that Armstrong was a mature athlete comes from the fact
that he competed at a professional level in Triathlon (the major
component of which is the TT) before entering into the European
peloton in mid 92 and effectively had 4 full seasons bringing him up
to the '96 Tour. During this period he displayed what can only be
considered mediocre (by professional standards) time trial ability
with relatively little improvement.

Armstrong can now be considered the leading TT performer of the
present era. What separates him from the leading TT performers from
the recent past (Boardman, Rominger, Indurain, Ulrich, Lemond,
Hinualt, Moser) is that he never displayed any exceptional ability in
this discipline until after his cancer treatment and his first Tour
win in '99. By contrast all the others showed exceptional early
ability and steady improvement. For example, Boardman as an amateur
won everything in this country of origin, regularly smashed national
and coarse records and his steady progression culminated in his
record-breaking hour rides.

"Rik O'Shea" wrote in message
http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm

Thanks for providing this information. I hope we've moved on from the
"hyper motivated", or "can suffer like a dog" explanations of
improvement...

Yeah, me too. I still stand by my statements that Lance was not as motivated
and the motivation plays a significant role in ITT. If you deny that again,
I would like you to at least answer how many ITTs you have done and how
close your results were to the lab tests?

The LT power values (340W-360W) for years 93 & 94 are somewhat
consistent with his performances in the TdF TTs from those years and
the correlation between these LT power values and his times and
average speed indicate that he was riding at his aerobic maximum.
Curiously the stated increases in LT power values from 95 & 96 aren't
reflected in his TT performances. His TT performances from '94 to '96
don't reflect the stated improvement of aerobic threshold from 342W to
403W during that period. A 61W improvement is very substantial and one
would have expected to see this refected in his times and average
speeds.

My assertion that Armstrong was a mature athlete comes from the fact
that he competed at a professional level in Triathlon (the major
component of which is the TT) before entering into the European
peloton in mid 92 and effectively had 4 full seasons bringing him up
to the '96 Tour. During this period he displayed what can only be
considered mediocre (by professional standards) time trial ability
with relatively little improvement.

Most cyclists are not fully mature until 26 to 29 years old. It is most
noticeable on climbs and ITT when the athlete needs to push as hard as they
can go. Remember, no athlete can go at 100% of their ability. They go
anywhere in the high 90s, depending on *motivation* and maturity. Athletes
learn how to drive closer to their maximums as they mature.


Armstrong can now be considered the leading TT performer of the
present era. What separates him from the leading TT performers from
the recent past (Boardman, Rominger, Indurain, Ulrich, Lemond,
Hinualt, Moser) is that he never displayed any exceptional ability in
this discipline until after his cancer treatment and his first Tour
win in '99. By contrast all the others showed exceptional early
ability and steady improvement. For example, Boardman as an amateur
won everything in this country of origin, regularly smashed national
and coarse records and his steady progression culminated in his
record-breaking hour rides.

And you still insist that motivation has nothing to do with it? Look at his
ITT in the 2000 Tour and then at the Sydney Games. I am sure that the
Olympics motivate him as well but not as much as the risk of winning the
Tour without winning a stage. He beat Ullrich in the last ITT to take his
first stage at that year's Tour. Also, he did have excellent results in ITTs
before cancer in races he was in contention to win (Tour Dupont) and
possible others that I can't recall. Lance Armstrong is a "money player". He
responds very well to pressure. Furthermore, there are many many cyclists
that never put in winning ITTs until they had to in order to win a stage
race. Sean Kelly for instance was crap at the ITT and so was Jalabert early
on. Sean Kelly almost beat Fignon for a stage in the 84 Tour. After that he
put in excellent times when he needed to. Jalabert got better during his
career and eventually took the World's ITT after being sucky early on. In
fact, I would say that early success in ITT is more the exception than the
rule. You have to learn how to pace yourself at your maximum and that is
really hard to do. It gets easier as you learn more about your body and how
to motivate yourself.

Please give this up. I am tired of defending Armstrong. Look at this
*******, he left his wife and 3 kids, stop doing this to me!

Hey,

I still don't understand why you post at all, Rik O'Shea. Are you
even a bicycle rider? Have you ever raced?

You seem to keep harping on Lance pre and post cancer, and make some
stupid contrasting statements.

Listen closely.

1) Lance set a USCF Junior category national record in 1989 for the
20k Time Trial. Period. Any words to the effect that his performances
now are suspect is stupid. He was a raw talent. He spent most of the
day off the front that year at Jr Worlds in the RR, after which many
national coaches were duly impressed with his talent.

2) People are amazed that he can climb now, never taking into account
he was one of the fiercest attacking riders many times pre cancer.
Look at Jeremy Ranch (Utah) Elite National RR in 1991, when he smoked
Steve (the next LeMond) Larsen on the final climb to be champion at
age 19.

3) Guys like Darren Baker stating that when LA attacked (Pittsburg,
Philly, Tour de Trump, or even Flanders, Liege-B-Liege, etc.... NOBODY
could match his accelerations.

4) OCH publicly stated that LA was doing the Tour in '93 and even '94
for experience. The fact that he won a road stage at 21 years old is
incredible. Most Directors don't allow riders under 24 or 25 to even
ride the Tour. OCH knew then, he would mature, time trial better as he
learned how, and eventually be a Tour rider. That was targeted for
97-98 ish.

5) In the pro side, riders tend to peak from 28 to 31, so comparing
Indurain to Armstrong when Lance was younger than Mig is idiotic.

6) You say he was giving certain efforts in the TT stages of the Tour
early on. HOW the **** do you even know this? You lost all credibilty
(of which you were given little) when you were POSITIVE Lance was
riding to defend his 'Yellow' Jersey in 1993. You've since back
pedaled on that, but the damage is done. You are a RBR "Dumbass"

7) He lost some body weight, spins a little faster, trains more
thoroughly, and has entered his peak performance years post cancer. He
was a champion on many levels in '87 (Tri guy of the year-sprint dist)
'89 TT record and Worlds ride mentioned earlier, '91 Nat Champ, '93
Triple Crown Million, USPRO Champ, Tour Road Stage winner (Verdun),
and then rode away from Big Mig in Oslo to win Worlds RR solo at 21.
Then proceeded to climb UCI rankings, won Fleche, great rides at LBL,
San Sebastion (win) and won a ridiculous amount of stages in Tour
Dupont one year (I think 5).

The fact that he is good now is not a surprise, and until tents are
banned (which they won't ever be) his performance is TOTALLY clean.

All of this, and I don't even like the guy. You are a complete moron
whose posts here are beginning to bore others as well. Read the subtle
hints from Saunders, Kurgan, and others in your threads. DumbASS.

Thanks,
Ronde Chumpion

can we get some interesting off season stuff? I see that Jones/Julich
won't be happening like I saw earlier. Booby didn't make the grade.
Can't wait to here about how he was feeling 'GOOD' at Hamilton until
fate (F Derailleur) stepped in.

Armstrong said in his book that he never
really trained hard _all year_ prior to his
cancer. He's said many times that the
major difference post-cancer were the
long hours during the "off season".

"Inside the Tour De France" David Walsh, Publisher Stanley Paul,
published 1994.

‘... I lost six minutes. I mean it's plain as day, I know exactly
where I am. I went ALL OUT, Indurain went all out. I'm six minutes
down. But he's the greatest time-triallist there's ever been. Hinault
never killed people, never killed the competition like he does. So
maybe it's not rational to compare yourself to him.' – Lance Armstrong
("Inside the Tour De France" David Walsh, Publisher Stanley Paul,
published 1994).

I wont gloat; call people dumbass, dick-heads or whatever the abusive
term of choice is. This is "rec.bicyles.racing" not
"rec.i-luv-armstrong.com". If this thread upsets you, don't read it –
you can instead read about Sandra Bullock or go sign the guest book on
LA.com. This is a comparison of Armstrong's pre-cancer performance
(against Indurain) with his post-cancer performance. Any inference
that is derived from this is your own.

My initial analysis over-estimated Armstrong's aerobic threshold (I
assumed a champion would have a value around the 400-420W level
however I did specify that the initial value was somewhat arbitrary
and could be increased/decreased and still produce the same %
increases).

If the value of 342W is used as the baseline
(http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm) then the
analysis shows the following:

(1a) 1993 Stage 9 LAC DE MADINE, 59 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50" (Moy : 48.604 km/h)
27. Armstrong à 6'04" (Moy : 44.87 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 434W
Abolsote Increase: 92W
Percentage Increase: 26.9%

(1b) 1993 Stage 19 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE-MONTHLERY, 48 km ITT
N/A Armstrong abandoned before TT in line with his Tour plans.

(2a) 1994 Stage 9 PERIGUEUX-BERGERAC, 64 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h15'58" (Moy: 50.548 km/h)
13. Armstrong à 6'23" (Moy : 46.63 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 364W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 463W
Abolsote Increase: 99W
Percentage Increase: 27.2%

If Armstrong had the stated increase of 22W (342W to 364W) or 6% then
the above results would imply that Indurain also enjoyed the same
increase for that year. Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT
power from 1993 gives the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 435W
Abolsote Increase: 93W
Percentage Increase: 27.2%


(2b) 1994 Stage 19 Cluses-Morzine Avoriaz, 47.5 km ITT
N/A Armstrong abandoned

(3a) 1995 Stage 8 HUY (Bel)-SERAING (Bel), 54 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h04'16" (Moy : 50.414 km/h)
19. Armstrong à 5'09" (Moy : 46.67 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 381W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 480W
Abolsote Increase: 99W
Percentage Increase: 25.9%

If Armstrong had the stated increase of 17W (364W to 381W) or 4.7%
then the above results would imply that Indurain also enjoyed the same
increase for that year. Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT
power from 1993 gives the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 431W
Abolsote Increase: 89W
Percentage Increase: 26%


(3b) 1995 Stage 19 LAC DE VASSIVIERE, 46.5 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 57'34" (Moy : 48.465 km/h)
43. Armstrong à 6'24" (Moy : 43.62 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 381W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 522W
Abolsote Increase: 141W
Percentage Increase: 37%

Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT power from 1993 gives
the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 469W
Abolsote Increase: 127W
Percentage Increase: 37%

Since this is the second time trial of the Tour it is likely that
Armstrong didn't perform near his stated max of 381W or even 342W and
the results or percentage difference between himself and Indurain bear
this out. The results indicate that he performed around 316W on this
occasion.


Abridged Post Cancer Analysis
Summary:
Post Cancer Average Speed 50.229 km/h

Difference pre-post cancer (50.229 - 45.447) = 4.782 km/h

Assuming Armstrong had a pre cancer maximum LT power of 342W he would
have to increase this by 119W to 461W to achieve this increase in
speed. Some correspondents have indicated that his current max LT
power is measured at 420W and that his aerodynamic drag has been
reduced. This would indicate that he achieves an approximate 41W
benefit from improved aerodynmics and that his aerobic threshold
increase pre/post cancer is approximately 78W (22.8% improvement).

"Inside the Tour De France" David Walsh, Publisher Stanley Paul,
published 1994.

‘... I lost six minutes. I mean it's plain as day, I know exactly
where I am. I went ALL OUT, Indurain went all out. I'm six minutes
down. But he's the greatest time-triallist there's ever been. Hinault
never killed people, never killed the competition like he does. So
maybe it's not rational to compare yourself to him.' – Lance Armstrong
("Inside the Tour De France" David Walsh, Publisher Stanley Paul,
published 1994).

I wont gloat; call people dumbass, dick-heads or whatever the abusive
term of choice is. This is "rec.bicyles.racing" not
"rec.i-luv-armstrong.com". If this thread upsets you, don't read it –
you can instead read about Sandra Bullock or go sign the guest book on
LA.com. This is a comparison of Armstrong's pre-cancer performance
(against Indurain) with his post-cancer performance. Any inference
that is derived from this is your own.

My initial analysis over-estimated Armstrong's aerobic threshold (I
assumed a champion would have a value around the 400-420W level
however I did specify that the initial value was somewhat arbitrary
and could be increased/decreased and still produce the same %
increases).

If the value of 342W is used as the baseline
(http://www.jt10000.com/team/events/carmichael99/1.htm) then the
analysis shows the following:

(1a) 1993 Stage 9 LAC DE MADINE, 59 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h12'50" (Moy : 48.604 km/h)
27. Armstrong à 6'04" (Moy : 44.87 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 434W
Absolute Increase: 92W
Percentage Increase: 26.9%

(1b) 1993 Stage 19 BRETIGNY SUR ORGE-MONTHLERY, 48 km ITT
N/A Armstrong abandoned before TT in line with his Tour plans.

(2a) 1994 Stage 9 PERIGUEUX-BERGERAC, 64 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h15'58" (Moy: 50.548 km/h)
13. Armstrong à 6'23" (Moy : 46.63 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 364W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 463W
Absolute Increase: 99W
Percentage Increase: 27.2%

If Armstrong had the stated increase of 22W (342W to 364W) or 6% then
the above results would imply that Indurain also enjoyed the same
increase for that year. Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT
power from 1993 gives the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 435W
Absolute Increase: 93W
Percentage Increase: 27.2%


(2b) 1994 Stage 19 Cluses-Morzine Avoriaz, 47.5 km ITT
N/A Armstrong abandoned

(3a) 1995 Stage 8 HUY (Bel)-SERAING (Bel), 54 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 1h04'16" (Moy : 50.414 km/h)
19. Armstrong à 5'09" (Moy : 46.67 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 381W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 480W
Absolute Increase: 99W
Percentage Increase: 25.9%

If Armstrong had the stated increase of 17W (364W to 381W) or 4.7%
then the above results would imply that Indurain also enjoyed the same
increase for that year. Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT
power from 1993 gives the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 431W
Absolute Increase: 89W
Percentage Increase: 26%


(3b) 1995 Stage 19 LAC DE VASSIVIERE, 46.5 km ITT
1. Miguel Indurain en 57'34" (Moy : 48.465 km/h)
43. Armstrong à 6'24" (Moy : 43.62 km/h)

Armstrong stated LT power: 381W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 522W
Absolute Increase: 141W
Percentage Increase: 37%

Assuming Armstrong had no major increase in LT power from 1993 gives
the following results:

Armstrong LT power: 342W
Increased LT power to match Indurain: 469W
Absolute Increase: 127W
Percentage Increase: 37%

Since this is the second time trial of the Tour it is likely that
Armstrong didn't perform near his stated max of 381W or even 342W and
the results or percentage difference between himself and Indurain bear
this out. The results indicate that he performed around 316W on this
occasion.


Abridged Post Cancer Analysis
Summary:
Post Cancer Average Speed 50.229 km/h

Difference pre-post cancer (50.229 - 45.447) = 4.782 km/h

Assuming Armstrong had a pre cancer maximum LT power of 342W he would
have to increase this by 119W to 461W to achieve this increase in
speed. Some correspondents have indicated that his current max LT
power is measured at 420W and that his aerodynamic drag has been
reduced. This would indicate that he achieves an approximate 41W
benefit from improved aerodynmics and that his aerobic threshold
increase pre/post cancer is approximately 78W (22.8% improvement).

From: (Rik O'Shea)

I wont gloat (snip)

Any inference
that is derived from this is your own.

I infer that Lance learned how to time trial (wind tunnel work being one
factor).

What's your take? --Tom Paterson

Rik

God. I thought you left here. Go Away.


"In order to have gone faster, he would have had to put out more
watts. DUH!!!" "And further more, his improvement over time is really
hard to grasp."
-all said in a nasely high pitched geek voice.

Bye now. I'm jamming your signal from here on out.

RC

ospam (Tom Paterson) wrote in message
Any inference
that is derived from this is your own.

I infer that Lance learned how to time trial (wind tunnel work being one
factor).

What's your take? --Tom Paterson

Armstrong is a super-champion and his progression combined with his
absolute focus and determination fascinates me. By comparison Boardman
who may not have been the most talented hour record holder but his
focus and preparation combined with his talent means that he is the
most successful at this discipline. I see Armstrong in the same light
in terms of his overall performances in the TdF.

The figures were purely an academic exercise for people with an
interest in quantifying performance on a bicycle. They acted as an
attempt to elicit some unknown information or facts and in some ways
were successful. Some correspondents contributed factually/objectively
to round out the discussion.

You ask "what's may take"?
My take is that when a non-populist opinion or viewpoint is tabled
that an otherwise interesting thread is serially high jacked by the
same few hostile posters who respond to discussion points with an
uncommon degree of invective and abuse ... I suppose that's my take.

EOT

-Rik