Re: [CR]Vintage Bikes, Vintage Skis, why the difference?

(Example: Framebuilding:Technology)

Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:04:45 -0700
From: "John Wood" <braxton72@gmail.com>
To: "Mark Ritz" <ritzmon@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Vintage Bikes, Vintage Skis, why the difference?
In-Reply-To: <514292.2537.qm@web83105.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <MONKEYFOOD4nPPu1OOL000003a7@monkeyfood.nt.phred.org>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 8:57 AM, Mark Ritz <ritzmon@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> John Wood wrote:
> "And finally, if modern bikes are so clearly superior in every way, why
> does Peter Post's record for average speed still stands for Paris-Roubiax?"
>
> There were two factors: first, a strong tailwind that year.

How strong? Any numbers that we can compare to other years? Again, serious questions here. I'd find it hard to believe if no P-R's have had a strong tail wind in the subsequent years. I would think it would be easy to correlate wind speed/direction to average speed as well, if those numbers exist.

And second, the number and length of the pave sections was shorter than the
> current race course. There was a loss of pave in northern France due to
> modernization, and the race had become more of a flat road race. The race
> directors started looking for more pave to bring back the character of the
> race.

So, Post had an advantage of less pave sections, but current racers have the advantage of "significantly better" equipment. If the equipment really is "significantly" better, shouldn't that easily outweigh (or at least equal) the advantage that Post enjoyed? It really would be easy to draw out any correlation between pave length and average speed, if anyone knows if and where those numbers exist. Anyone?

John Wood Red Lodge, Montana, USA
>
> This, of course, slowed the race speeds down and made Post's record
> almost untouchable. I say almost because you never know...
> Cheers,
> Mark Ritz
> Rainy Arcata, California, USA
> http://www.kinetic-koffee.com