JTownCitycycle

I spent some time the other day watching highlights of the Tour De France from the 90's and early 2000's on youtube one thing that struck me was there seemed to be a lot more riding out of the saddle then there is today in the tour and not just in the mountains, on relatively flat terrain also. Would that be an accurate observation you think ?

Caretaker

Piles?

catgita

Ironfish653

Power Meters. Shows you can put out the watts you need to get up the hill by sitting and spinning a lower gear at a higher RPM. Also allows you to be more consistent day after day, which is important if you want to win a 3-week Tour.

Gearing has changed, too. 32t cogs and compact chainrings are common. Back in the day, and even up to the early '00s, you were climbing on 42x19 or x21

Read an anecdote about a Brit rider in the TdF ~late '70s, who ran a Stronglight 93 crank with a 38t small ring, where as the Campagnolos his rivals used only permitted a 42t small ring. They couldn't figure out how he was able to ride away from them so easily on the climbs, still running the 'straight-block' cassette on his rear wheel.

canklecat

Gearing and weight. As Ironfish653 noted, old school gearing was limited. Derailleurs and freewheels were a bit cruder and didn't shift as smoothly. Bikes were heavier.

Watch the old films carefully. Riders didn't shift any more than absolutely necessary, especially on climbs -- the equipment was cruder and a blown shift on a climb meant stopping and getting off to spin the crank and get back into gear.

Heavier bikes took more effort to accelerate. There's a big felt difference between an old school steel bike weighing in the low to mid 20s, and a carbon bike well under 20 lbs.

Between these factors most riders would alternate between sitting and standing to pedal, not just to relieve the legs but to accelerate and close even tiny gaps.

The smaller and lighter the rider, the more likely they were to alternate between sitting and standing to pedal. Bigger stronger guys like Merckx and Indurain were horses with powerful flanks and could chug up climbs without needing to stand too often.

The little guys couldn't do that. If a gap threatened to open, even a few inches, they'd need to stand for at least a few pumps to stay on the wheel. They couldn't risk a downtube friction lever shift on a climb that might clatter a couple of moments before engaging, or blow completely. Too easy to lose momentum, open a gap and waste crucial energy trying to get it back.

Five and 6 speed freewheels offered relatively fewer choices. With climbing freewheels there are awkward spaces between some gears when only 5 or 6 cogs are divided between a 13-24 or comparable freewheel. Sometimes it's better to stick with a less than ideal gear than need to double shift between the front and rear to get the preferred gear combo.

Newer bikes shift much more quickly and smoothly, even on climbs, so riders can spin their preferred cadence without energy sapping standing to pedal up climbs. There aren't many who can stand to pedal for long distances like Contador and actually be more effective.

JTownCitycycle

Weren't bikes 15 years ago about the same weight, as close to the 15 lb limit as they could get ?

canklecat

Yup, the Trek OCLV 5500 used in 2000 by that Tour de France fellow who shall not be named was right at 15 lbs.

Current bikes could be even lighter if permitted. According to experienced cyclists the main differences are relatively minor -- stiffer, more responsive yet also comfortable, significantly more aerodynamic.

I have very little experience with carbon bikes. In fact the only carbon bike I've test ridden is a fairly high end Specialized Tarmac. It was a huge step up from my '89 Centurion Ironman. Some folks were skeptical when I raved about the differences, but the most significant difference was how stiff and responsive the Tarmac's bottom bracket and frame were, yet still reasonably comfortable. When I stood to pedal up short steep hills the Tarmac felt like it was doing half the work.

In contrast my Ironman flexes quite a bit -- I can feel it and see it. And most of the Ironman frames were considered to be rather stiff for that era because they were primarily intended to be time trial bikes, not specifically for crits or mass start/finish races. While that flex makes it comfortable on chipseal and rough pavement, it costs me on climbs. That's where I usually get gassed and dropped on fast group rides, unless everyone else is riding old school steel bikes too. But it's wonderful on flats, downhills and most terrain. I could improve it a bit with better wheels, brifters instead of downtube shifters and a few minor mods. But nothing will make a typical classic steel racing frame as responsive as a high end carbon bike, at least not for acceleration and climbs out of the saddle with those short, choppy strokes.

I suspect a lighter weight steel frame with appropriate gearing and mods could be quite good for long climbs while seated. Smooth spinning up long grades wouldn't depend so much on a stiff bottom bracket to resist flex under choppy pedal strokes.

I see a nice looking Viner Record bike on craigslist, built up by an expert, for just under $2,000. Awfully tempting if I didn't have so many medical bills this year. I suspect a good steel bike in the 19-20 lb range would be perfectly satisfying for my riding.

Buttertooth

I think it is also valid to speculate that this time frame coincided with a large amount of blood doping and Epo use. Wonder if that played any part in allowing riders to be more aggressive in their climbing.

Leinster

i would say the opposite. The epo era allowed riders to sit and spin while still in the same gear that would have seen them standing the year before