Is the Tour de France getting easier?

Is auto racing getting easier ? Why are lap times so much better today than in the 60’s ? A bicycle from the 20’s has as much in common with a bicycle today as the Ford Model-T does with a Mustang GT.

And this doesn’t include the motorcade, training science, medical science, advanced data logging, real time communications and countless other advancements that go into these high stakes pro sports. If only one athlete had this support, it would be considered easy. They are all competing against others with the same type of support behind them, so the difficulty remains the same. In many cases, I would argue its actually harder than easier.

Of course the above assumes “clean” competition without doping. That of course is anyone's guess these days.

What about the impact of technology? Any data on the average weight of the winner’s bike?

Stating that the Tour de France is getting easier based on speed metrics overlooks many technology-related features that were well explained above. I feel that what matters is the way performance is measured.

@ Eamonnca1 : Agreed. Distance and speed are not the only metrics that can be used for measuring effort.Actually, power output (W/ Kg)turns out to be a just as good measuring tool.

@ EdBikes : "These guys are superhuman". Some of them actually are, to put it bluntly. Based on the calculation of power output, it is possible to find out whether or not some performances fall within the realm of human abilities.

Inspired by this very topical issue, a couple of friends and I created a interactive, comprehensive visualization that shows the evolution of performances during mountain stages.

The result here http://www.actuvisu.fr/tour-de-france

What?! Distance and speed? Are they seriously the only metrics you're measuring? What about climbing, headwind, quality of road surface? Only the power produced by the winning rider over time (work done in joules) would be a true measure of how much work they're doing, and since power meters only came into use in the last decade I find it hard to see how you'd measure that.

What's with all the cars and motorbikes following along side or leading the racers? A bicycle race should be just that. Doesn't appear that minorities are represented too well either.

Hello The Economist, better stick to economics... the Tour has progressively gotten more and more difficult... distance is only one factor; terrain, location, technology, human skills and training, team organzations, genetic composition, etc... are other enormous factors. Cyclist from previous eras would not stand a chance of making the podium in Paris... So, sorry, Economist you've short-changed "Is the TdF getting easier?" Pro cycling is arguably the most demanding and physically more difficult than any other pro sport... just try burning 10,000 - 12,000 calories daily for 20+ days, these guys are super human...

Carbon fiber is merely an appetizer. Each small ceramic bearing on these bikes cost the same as or more than 1 year subscription of this magazine.

Modern-day innovations/technology are the key factors to soaring speeds. Plus of course the "dopamine effect" to add to the fray!

Is the Tour de France getting easier?

Perhaps... but you still wouldn't see me getting through it

The story about the Tour during WW2 is not quite complete. Have a look at this photo (http://www.cyberus.ca/~turbo/TURBO/1942_TdF.html).

Halina

gbles is almost correct. When on flattish ground, wind resistance dominates (rather than the work needed to lift the rider + bike up hill on the climbs).

Wind resistance goes up approx. with the square of speed.
The work done per second (in watts, or horsepower) goes up with the cube of speed, so even more sharply. This is not exactly exponential but it's a steep curve nonetheless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_%28physics%29#Power

The more interesting statistic would be height gains. With all the work on aerodynamics, being in the peleton uses little energy, making the flat sections less of a challenge.

@gbles

A technical quibble -- I think you are confusing Force with Energy. Acceleration actually has a linear relationship to Force, while it has an exponential relationship to kinetic Energy. Hence, Force = Mass * Acceleration, while Energy = Mass * Acceleration^2. If you move an old fashioned rider on an old fashioned bike (high mass) with a given speed, you are generating a lot of Force (and kinetic Energy for that matter). A modern rider on a modern bike (smaller mass) moving at the same speed, generates both less Force and Energy.

The converse is different -- Force divided by mass equals acceleration. Therefore a rider's acceleration is directly affected in a substantial way by a reduction in mass, assuming that the rider is capable of exerting a specific maximum level of Force on his bike. This is why the lighter modern materials used in cycling have a HUGE impact on speeds.

Interesting to see and speculate about the attention spans of spectators/fans, technological advancements in bicycle building materials, rider support systems, and diets. All have changed so much since the initial tour.

One may also note the drop in KM/h after the doping scandals and increased testing two years ago. Far from scientific it has a peculiar correlation.

Speed is the biggest indicator of effort, or toughness. Weight contributes to effort only at a linear rate. Distance is similar, although you could argue that above a threshold distance, effort increase faster than linear. But speed definitely increases effort expontentially, as a factor of air resistance. Halving the distance is but doubling the speed is a net increase in effort.

Having said that, I would hate to have to lug a big old iron bike over an un-tarmaced road... urgh.

Records in all sports are going up, steadily. remember when the 4 minute mile was considered superhuman? and, if you look at this graph, or the graphs of other sports which all show similar linear improvement, you see a relatively steady increase; which can only mean that technology (including illegal technology and/or drugs/steroids/doping) is NOT a big factor, or you would indeed see distinct jumps whenever they were introduced. the only reasonable explanation advanced thus far for the linear increase in world-record type human performance with time, is that we are still nowhere near the limits of human performance; which is continuously improving with better training, coaching, nutrition, and/or presumably whatever mental thing makes an athlete push himself hard enough to beat the current record.
(PS this is not my crackpot theory, it was an academic publication maybe ten years ago, and apparently nothing has yet happened to change the interpretation).

I think the most interesting thing about this figure is the absence of a sharp increase in race speed between the 50's and 90's. Doping must not have been as much a big deal as supposed.

Surprised to read about the Tour de France, while being incredibly absent minded about Football's World Cup, no doubt a more important sporting event from all perspectives!

keep in mind that the power needed to pedal at 40 km/h is about 2.7 times that required for 24.3 km/h (all things remaining equal). The Tour is not getting easier by any account.

Also, when did teams start designating dedicated "Rabbits" to provide their star racer with a pacemaker to hide behind during the earlier part of each leg?