Tour de France 2017 in numbers

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I'm starting to believe Behindthebikesheds is a professional troll now. No simple throwaway comments for a pro but some heavyweight embelishment of a tale of bygone days to cement that 'not sure if serious' element into the story. Bravo sir.

I doubt he thinks he is a troll.

Grumpy old man - yes.

He probably recognises that though

Leviathan wrote:

342 - the minimum numbers of days before TheDoctor bothers to post again.

And Don, I can assure you I am in the correct country, France is for the Tour, not for living in. Let  me say something controversial, but watching the Tour live is shite. I've stood and waited for the Tour three times, in Briancon, Argentierre and at the base of the Alpe, and each time it was hot and boring (37C at one point.) Three hours waiting for the caravan to pass, throwing wheels of cheese at the masses only for a blur of riders to go by in 30 seconds without a clue who they are or what is happening in the race. Tennis, Athletics, Rugby or Football, yes Football are worth seeing live, but cycling, you are having a lark. I'll gladly pay my £12.12 and wait for the Vuelta and the World Champs on the telly even if I have to watch Gary Imlach's mouth shrink year on year as if he is Yosemite Sam being tricked into eating a spoonful of Alum.

Boom that is a hot take for you.

Blimey! Someone's full of fun today, aren't they?

It still cost you nothing to watch. And again I suggest you were in the wrong place. And thanks for the lecture, I always found having a press pass much more enjoyable than mixing with the proles.

don simon wrote:

Blimey! Someone's full of fun today, aren't they?

It still cost you nothing to watch. And again I suggest you were in the wrong place. And thanks for the lecture, I always found having a press pass much more enjoyable than mixing with the proles.

Well lar-de-dar, floating in the mixed zone are we. Let me know if you have a spare pass next year as they must just be lying around your gaff.

@TheDoctor, I've seen The Doctor and she is a lady, you are no Doctor; you are a purveyor of Cow Chutney!

Leviathan wrote:

don simon wrote:

Blimey! Someone's full of fun today, aren't they?

It still cost you nothing to watch. And again I suggest you were in the wrong place. And thanks for the lecture, I always found having a press pass much more enjoyable than mixing with the proles.

Well lar-de-dar, floating in the mixed zone are we. Let me know if you have a spare pass next year as they must just be lying around your gaff.

 

@TheDoctor, I've seen The Doctor and she is a lady, you are no Doctor; you are a purveyor of Cow Chutney!

You obviously missed the bit about not wanting to mix with the great unwashed.

I'm retired from all that and happily watch from the sofa.

don simon wrote:

0(zero) the amount of money you have to pay to watch a stage.

£12.12 a month, the cost of a TV licence. So I can watch ITV4 and actually follow what is happening. You seem to be overlooking a few overheads, like Eurostar/Ferry tickets or just being french.

Leviathan wrote:

don simon wrote:

0(zero) the amount of money you have to pay to watch a stage.

£12.12 a month, the cost of a TV licence. So I can watch ITV4 and actually follow what is happening. You seem to be overlooking a few overheads, like Eurostar/Ferry tickets or just being french.

I'm pretty sure the last two grand tours I watched where I wasn't working involved 10-15 mins walk from home and no entry tickets. Quite sure there's a huge number at Le Tour who watched and didn't pay a penny.

Not my fault you live in the wrong country. 

Leviathan wrote:

don simon wrote:

0(zero) the amount of money you have to pay to watch a stage.

£12.12 a month, the cost of a TV licence. So I can watch ITV4 and actually follow what is happening. You seem to be overlooking a few overheads, like Eurostar/Ferry tickets or just being french.

if you watch the catchup you don't need a license, so it's still £0.00

Grahamd wrote:

It's the average speed that gets my attention, 25 mph. Awesome, puts into context just how much of a gulf there is between club riders and professionals.

So, in all honesty they're not even twice as good/fast?

I've ridden some longish tours solo in the dim and distant past, my longest average mileage was 70 over 10 days (my very first tour in france), mostly rolling terrain, about 50 ft/mile at an average of 14-15mph so nothing special but I was taking it easy. I was 21, not attached to any cycling club as I mainly played rugby and a big lad (when wasn't I ever a big lad, i think I was 10 or 11 when i was last at Chris Froome's weight).

Carrying all my own kit in panniers (only around 10kg or thereabouts so fairly light), if i was really bothered I could have gone and done 70 miles every day for another 2 weeks and more at that pace. i was riding a Raleigh 'sports tourer' made from Reynolds 501.

As I said, I did nothing out of the ordinary and very much slower than a lot of decent club cyclists of the time.

Given how much they all hide behind each other and in turn saving sometimes 40-50% of the effort compared to being on the front and that the average speed is by the best rider on any given day the average overall speed doesn't surprise me in the least, I would actually expect it to be faster, that it isn't shows how tactical the racing is and isn't absolutely balls out every single day, not everyone riding together to get the whole group the absolute fastest finishing time possible.

There's a gulf, absolutely no doubt about it but to my mind not quite twice as good/fast as an ordinary club rider, I mean, even the hour record holder bradley wiggins is only just twice as good as a 102 year old man! http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/102-year-old-robert-marchand-beats-own-h...

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

It's the average speed that gets my attention, 25 mph. Awesome, puts into context just how much of a gulf there is between club riders and professionals.

So, in all honesty they're not even twice as good/fast?

I've ridden some longish tours solo in the dim and distant past, my longest average mileage was 70 over 10 days (my very first tour in france), mostly rolling terrain, about 50 ft/mile at an average of 14-15mph so nothing special but I was taking it easy. I was 21, not attached to any cycling club as I mainly played rugby and a big lad (when wasn't I ever a big lad, i think I was 10 or 11 when i was last at Chris Froome's weight).

Carrying all my own kit in panniers (only around 10kg or thereabouts so fairly light), if i was really bothered I could have gone and done 70 miles every day for another 2 weeks and more at that pace. i was riding a Raleigh 'sports tourer' made from Reynolds 501.

As I said, I did nothing out of the ordinary and very much slower than a lot of decent club cyclists of the time.

Given how much they all hide behind each other and in turn saving sometimes 40-50% of the effort compared to being on the front and that the average speed is by the best rider on any given day the average overall speed doesn't surprise me in the least, I would actually expect it to be faster, that it isn't shows how tactical the racing is and isn't absolutely balls out every single day, not everyone riding together to get the whole group the absolute fastest finishing time possible.

There's a gulf, absolutely no doubt about it but to my mind not quite twice as good/fast as an ordinary club rider, I mean, even the hour record holder bradley wiggins is only just twice as good as a 102 year old man! http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/102-year-old-robert-marchand-beats-own-h...

Wow, talk about completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting.  It's not "twice" as hard to go 30mph compared to 15mph.  I can cycle at 15mph without breaking a sweat, 20mph is getting harder, 25mph is seriously difficult, 30mph is doable for a VERY short period.  It's this wonderful thing called air resistance that increases exponentially as you go faster.  Hence why, for example, it may take 110 watts to travel 15 mph, but 400 watts to do 30mph.  So even using that, rough, outline it's 3 times harder.  But it's actually harder than that.

You've then got the fact they ride up these things called mountains.  They tend to slow you down quite a bit.  And tire you out.

Oh, and they're racing for 21 days out of 23.  

Oh, and they cover 100+ miles a day.  Many people won't do a hundred mile ride in a year, let alone 18 days out of 21.  

So either clue up or stop trolling.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

It's the average speed that gets my attention, 25 mph. Awesome, puts into context just how much of a gulf there is between club riders and professionals.

So, in all honesty they're not even twice as good/fast?

I've ridden some longish tours solo in the dim and distant past, my longest average mileage was 70 over 10 days (my very first tour in france), mostly rolling terrain, about 50 ft/mile at an average of 14-15mph so nothing special but I was taking it easy. I was 21, not attached to any cycling club as I mainly played rugby and a big lad (when wasn't I ever a big lad, i think I was 10 or 11 when i was last at Chris Froome's weight).

Carrying all my own kit in panniers (only around 10kg or thereabouts so fairly light), if i was really bothered I could have gone and done 70 miles every day for another 2 weeks and more at that pace. i was riding a Raleigh 'sports tourer' made from Reynolds 501.

As I said, I did nothing out of the ordinary and very much slower than a lot of decent club cyclists of the time.

Given how much they all hide behind each other and in turn saving sometimes 40-50% of the effort compared to being on the front and that the average speed is by the best rider on any given day the average overall speed doesn't surprise me in the least, I would actually expect it to be faster, that it isn't shows how tactical the racing is and isn't absolutely balls out every single day, not everyone riding together to get the whole group the absolute fastest finishing time possible.

There's a gulf, absolutely no doubt about it but to my mind not quite twice as good/fast as an ordinary club rider, I mean, even the hour record holder bradley wiggins is only just twice as good as a 102 year old man! http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/102-year-old-robert-marchand-beats-own-h...

Wow, talk about completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting.  It's not "twice" as hard to go 30mph compared to 15mph.  I can cycle at 15mph without breaking a sweat, 20mph is getting harder, 25mph is seriously difficult, 30mph is doable for a VERY short period.  It's this wonderful thing called air resistance that increases exponentially as you go faster.  Hence why, for example, it may take 110 watts to travel 15 mph, but 400 watts to do 30mph.  So even using that, rough, outline it's 3 times harder.  But it's actually harder than that.

You've then got the fact they ride up these things called mountains.  They tend to slow you down quite a bit.  And tire you out.

Oh, and they're racing for 21 days out of 23.  

Oh, and they cover 100+ miles a day.  Many people won't do a hundred mile ride in a year, let alone 18 days out of 21.  

So either clue up or stop trolling.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

It's the average speed that gets my attention, 25 mph. Awesome, puts into context just how much of a gulf there is between club riders and professionals.

So, in all honesty they're not even twice as good/fast?

I've ridden some longish tours solo in the dim and distant past, my longest average mileage was 70 over 10 days (my very first tour in france), mostly rolling terrain, about 50 ft/mile at an average of 14-15mph so nothing special but I was taking it easy. I was 21, not attached to any cycling club as I mainly played rugby and a big lad (when wasn't I ever a big lad, i think I was 10 or 11 when i was last at Chris Froome's weight).

Carrying all my own kit in panniers (only around 10kg or thereabouts so fairly light), if i was really bothered I could have gone and done 70 miles every day for another 2 weeks and more at that pace. i was riding a Raleigh 'sports tourer' made from Reynolds 501.

As I said, I did nothing out of the ordinary and very much slower than a lot of decent club cyclists of the time.

Given how much they all hide behind each other and in turn saving sometimes 40-50% of the effort compared to being on the front and that the average speed is by the best rider on any given day the average overall speed doesn't surprise me in the least, I would actually expect it to be faster, that it isn't shows how tactical the racing is and isn't absolutely balls out every single day, not everyone riding together to get the whole group the absolute fastest finishing time possible.

There's a gulf, absolutely no doubt about it but to my mind not quite twice as good/fast as an ordinary club rider, I mean, even the hour record holder bradley wiggins is only just twice as good as a 102 year old man! http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/102-year-old-robert-marchand-beats-own-h...

Uhhrrrrr, you haven't done much physics/mechanics, have you...

The dominating force in bicycle mechanics is air resistance which is proportional to the air velocity squared.

i.e. to go twice as fast, you have to produce four times the power.

Rolling resistance and drive train resistance increase proportionally with speed so that has to be added too.

On a fast club ride, myself and the faster guys can keep up a 20mph average for a good couple hours on decent roads - to think that the gents in the TdF are doing 25mph for a few hours a day for 3 weeks is just ridiculous.