Was racing harder back then?

SACH Central

I've just had a look at the Ras website. Great site, really good articles & photos on the Ras's of yestaryear. It got me thinking......was road racing harder back then than it is now in the 'modern' era.

If you look at the Ras of 1961, as featured on the website, all the stages were over 100 miles with the longest at 140 miles. If you look at the equipment the guys back then used; heavy steel frames, were they using 5 or 10 speed?, toe clips, leather saddles. And then their kit - before the invention of Lycra- not the most comfortable I'd imagine. Also I don't think they would have had the same information we have today on training, diet, recovery etc.

If you go back even further to the days of Anquetil (the 50's) & Coppi (mostly the 40's) I think they may have had it even harder; worse bikes again, tubs rapped around their shoulders and of course the unsurfaced roads in the mountains.

My question is this; will all the modern bikes & equipment, all the most up to date kit, all the information on training, diet etc. would someone like Shay O'Hanlon trounce the opposition in this years Ras? and by the same token, would Jacques Anquetil be a re hot favourite for this years TdF?

What do ye think?

rp

SACH Central wrote: »

... and by the same token, would Jacques Anquetil be a re hot favourite for this years TdF?

If he gave up the fags, he'd be in with a chance

Hungrycol

They were also whacked off their faces in drugs back then too. I think the new equipment and diet etc is making the pro's faster nowadays. That and they're competing in a lot more races cos travel isn't a big a deal. It was Robert Millar saying that the new breed of cyclists coming through the ranks had legs like body builders when he was competing.

blorg

Lightweight steel frames are not as heavy as you might think (as well as being very comfortable.) Certainly sub 10kg for a full bike.

Leather saddles are actually more comfortable than modern racing saddles, especially over distance; they are just heavier.

I don't know about the clothing but wool still has it's adherents. It's meant to not get as smelly as synthetics.

Bikes would have been 10-speed, yes, but this just gives you less close ranges.

Clipless pedals are a big advantage, I think it was Merckx who singled this out as the most significant development since he retired.

But if well maintained and lubricated these bikes would have gone very well indeed.

I suspect training and nutrition really would have been where you would see the biggest differences. You do hear so many stories of crazy behaviour that just wouldn't enter into anyone's mind today. Also the fact that there is more money in the professionalism of the modern era; perhaps more cyclists can really dedicate themselves to the sport than would have been possible previously.

Quigs Snr

Average speeds are constantly going up. A small portion of this can be attributed to equipment, but really I think the majority is diet and more scientific training.

Even an average club rider looks after himself these days, probably uses a strict training program which is periodised etc....

The lads of old using their old training methods and bikes ? Probably would struggle to get a top 10 in the RAS, thing is though you can't compare. They were the best of their time and if there were in this time, they would be doing the same training, using the same equipment etc... ultimately their natural talent would shine through and they would do well I would expect.

fish-head

Steel bikes, wool jerseys, leather saddles.. That's what it's all about! All the most beautiful bikes are auuuuld steel ones from the 60s and 70s, in my opinion.