Talk:Alpe d'Huez/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Basque Rider
Is it really fair to characterize Iban Mayo as a Basque rider? The American riders and not referred to by their ethnic origin. Shouldn't he just be called Spanish for these purposes? User: Nlsanand
Evito 05:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have made the change, as no one has spoken. 1 August, 2006. User: Nlsanand
I kind of think that Iban Mayo would prefer to think of himself as Basque. I mean, Basque are an nation inside of a nation-state with a separate identity. I think the comparison to American riders is actually not that relevant. Jul 13 2007 User: JonnyDomestik
dutch mountain
i wonder if the title "dutch mountain" is at all relevant to this article regardless of the amount of dutch cyclists that actually won the tour the France etappe on this mountain, the fact remains that only the dutch call it the dutch mountain, based on some arrogant notion that becaues "we call it like that in holland, so it's a fact and should be in the article , cause after all ,we won there more then others" big deal
you will not hear French folks , let alone folks that actually live on the mountain call it "the dutch mountain"
furthermore, Alpe d'Huez is a lot more then simply a mountain stage of the tour de FRance, it's also a ski resort and so on...
and let's face it , everybody knows that holland is flat as a pancake so a dutch mountain ... in their dreams
- Please, there's no need to attack the Dutch. Here's a couple of non-Dutch sites that mentions Dutch Mountain: [1] [2] [3]. I'm reverting your edit for these reasons. --Turbothy 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way - highest point in Denmark is only half as high as the highest point in the Netherlands, and Michael Rasmussen wins the polka dot jersey for the second consecutive year now, so clearly nationality has no impact on whether you can ride a bike up a mountain. --Turbothy 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Bends named after riders?
Aren't some of the bends named after riders? I know one of them is named after Joaquim Agostinho but what about the rest? Wouldn't it be an interesting addition to the article? Orta 01:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I added this information to the table of winners. Doctormatt 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Map of the climb
The map of the climb is actually inaccurate, as it shows the final corners going to the right above Huez, when they should go to the left and enter the town of Alpe d'Huez from the left of the picture. GuyWR
I was just watching the 1997 Alpe d'Huez and Pantani comes from the right of the screen which is a left turn. The map looks good to me. If this is solved then can you remove this conversation? July 13 User:JonnyDomestik.
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the picture with the map looks like a scan of a postcard, in which case it would be a copyright violation and doesn't belong on in Wikipedia at all. Someone want to get in a plane and take an original photo? RosinDebow 12:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have just visited the equivalent French wikipedia page - the route shown there is correct. New to wikipedia - can someone copy the correction to teh english language version? The approach is from the left of town as the photo is shown - when you watch race coverage, there is a flat bit as they accelarate across town left to right, but not until they are in the buildings. sorry, new to this so don't know how to take action, only to raise the issue!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trimike (talk • contribs) 20:34, 26 July 2007
- The image at the french article appears to be a "corrected" version of the image from this article: you can see some of yellow line remains, though decolored a bit. It looks terrible. Both articles need a better, correct image. (p.s. remember to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~)) Doctormatt 02:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
The route does indeed go through the town (I watched it in 2006). Velonews has a good map, but I don't think it can be poached for here. [4] Anyway, I just added the map from the French site. GuyWR
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Alpe d'HuZes
I moved this text from the article to here since it is not pertinent to the Tour de France section but may be worthwhile RosinDebow (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since 2006 some Dutch riders are climbing the Alpe d'Huez six times a dag, for the action 'Alpe d'huZes'Stichting Alpe d'HuZes. They collect money with this action for the fight against cancer.
Wording issue
I've reworded the following sentence:
"Lance Armstrong, feigned vulnerability earlier in the stage, appearing to be having an off-day. At the foot of the Alpe, however, Lance came to life, and after peering back into Jan Ullrich's eyes, gesturing words to the effect of "come with me if you can" (which Ullrich couldn't), he rocketed up the Alpe in 38 minutes flat, two minutes ahead of Ullrich."
To become:
Lance Armstrong feigned vulnerability earlier in the stage, appearing to be having an off-day. On the climb of Alpe d'Huez, Armstrong moved to the front of the group, looking back at Ullrich before accelerating away from the field to claim the victory, 1:59 ahead of Ullrich.
I think my edit is a more neutral way of conveying the same information. Also, I am debating the best way to end the second sentence. Ullrich is already mentioned, so it'd be nice to avoid mentioning his name twice in the same sentence. However, using "him" in its place is vague, and I can't think of a better way of putting it. Can anybody else think of a better way of writing this? 202.36.179.66 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely more neutral, thanks. How about this for the last sentence:
On the climb of Alpe d'Huez, Armstrong moved to the front of the group, looking back at Ullrich before accelerating away from the field to claim the victory; Ullrich finished 1:59 behind.
2011 Ascent Times
Seems we don't know all that much about the ascent times from 2011 and how they slot into the order, we ought to collate them here. From here already and from Twitter- as unreliable as that may be- I've got 41:20 and 42:01 for Rolland, 41:24 for Sanchez (later removed by whoever put it up on here), and 41:33 for Contador. Any properly sourced figures, because by the looks of it there'll be quite a few added to the list from today. 195.188.107.125 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Doping effected climbs
I have reverted the edit of the doping affected times to its original description of "Evidence/Allegations that performance enhancing drugs or doping affected ascent time" prior to January this year. Edits were made in January including all cases of doping, and there is a strong argument, that a rider testing positive in 2006 is totally irrelevant to his time up the climb in 2011. Doping references should really only be used to explain the performance in question, not cast a POV on the time based on other points int eh riders career 23:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimspace (talk • contribs)
- There are three entries on teh doping column that have been returned that I think we are on borderline dodgy ground with. The heading is "evidence of ped's affecting ascent time", and we really should only have doping allegations that specifically adress the ascent time in question.
- Iban Mayo 2003 - tested positive in 2007, whatever our personal thought there is no direct evidence that his 2003 time was doping enhanced.
- Kloden 2004 - alleged blood doping in 2006, again, doping in 2006 does not prove doping in 2004.
- Azevedo 2004 - implicated in puerto 2006, again, being implicated in operacion puerto 2 years later does not prove he was doping in 2004.
- Vinokourov 2003 - caught doping in 2007, again, does not show evidence of time being affected.
- I really think the doping descriptions should only be including if they are directly linked to the climb time, either positive test during that race, later confession of doping either career long or at that race, but i dont think we can claim a time effected by doping when the positive test in question is 2 or 3 years later Dimspace (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- There are three entries on teh doping column that have been returned that I think we are on borderline dodgy ground with. The heading is "evidence of ped's affecting ascent time", and we really should only have doping allegations that specifically adress the ascent time in question.
Split article
This article needs to be split into two - one dealing with the cycling aspects and the other with the winter sports. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- dont think it needs splitting yet, as there would be basically nothing left of the original article. However, I would strongly argue that the Skii'ing section complete with infobox should be before the cycling section. It is a ski'ing destination for a large part of the year. its a cycling destination for one day, every three or four years. Propose that the small ski'ing section gets moved about the longer cycling section, which will probably give the page a bit more flow anyway. Dimspace (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree with splitting it - I think it's massively unbalanced as DK says. The cycling is excellent but should be its own article and then the rest should be the ski resort and whatever else goes on there, and developed further. (Just FYI have a look at Vaujany which has a similar balance issue.) But failing that I agree that at least the general/skiing stuff should get in first so it doesn't read like a cycling centre which just happens to have a couple of other things going on sometimes! :) Best wishes 77.96.249.228 (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Daemonic Kangaroo: I agree that the article should be split, as the cycling section is carrying too much weight. I've added the relevant notice to the section. See the article on the French wiki and Climb of l'Alpe d'Huez for a suitable arrangement. EP111 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- dont think it needs splitting yet, as there would be basically nothing left of the original article. However, I would strongly argue that the Skii'ing section complete with infobox should be before the cycling section. It is a ski'ing destination for a large part of the year. its a cycling destination for one day, every three or four years. Propose that the small ski'ing section gets moved about the longer cycling section, which will probably give the page a bit more flow anyway. Dimspace (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because French Wiki does it like that, it doesn't mean English Wiki needs to. Without the Tour de France section, there's not that much content to the article, and I don't believe that it the section is undue, as to many people, Alpe d'Huez is primarily notable for cycling. If the article were to expand significantly then maybe a split would be necessary, but not currently IMO. Note other similar mountains such as Col du Tourmalet also have the TDF section in them. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
2008 significant?
Should that edition be included in significant stages list. Carlos Sastre attacked on the base of the climb and won by two minutes. After all, that attack was the one that won the Tour for him. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Armstrong's ascent times
Should Lance Armstrong's times be listed on Alpe d'Huez#Ascent times? After all, USADA disqualified all his competitive results (seee [5]), and this would be a competitive result. I had a look for sources listing all the times, I found [6] which lists Armstrong, but doesn't seem very reliable, and also has figures different to this article, and [7] and [8] which also list him as 2nd fastest. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Gradient
The TdF website states that the grade is 7.9%, not 8.1% as in the article. "Km 187 - L'ALPE-D'HUEZ - 13.8 km climb to 7.9 % - H Category" (http://www.letour.com/2006/TDF/LIVE/us/1500/dprofil.html) Anyone care to comment. Otherwise, I'll chnage the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yirg (talk • contribs) 07:37, 15 July 2006
1860m ascent over 13.8 km is a lot more than 8% average gradient! It is over 13% average. Can someone explain or can either the official length of the climb or the gradient be corrected?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpconnellan 16 April 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 12:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alpe d'Huez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226202636/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1968/or1968.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1968/or1968.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://grimpee.alpe.9online.fr/references.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Conflicting data about Pantani's record.
The text says that Pantani's record is 37'35", but the "fastest ascent" table claims 36'50". Which is correct?
- I'm not actually sure...it also says Pantani's record is one second better than Lance Armstrong's 37'36" but the tables never mention anything about a 37'35" (they do mention 37'15").
-Later Edit- However, I have found this source: http://www.gastrobiking.com/region/alpe_dhuez.html
The climb has been timed since 1994 so earlier times are not available. From 1994 to 1997 the climb was timed from a point 14.5km from the finish. Since 1999 a photo-finish system was used from 14km to the finish. These times are all taken from 13.8km from the summit ie. from the corner which marks the start of the climb. Other timings have also been taken from the road junction approximately 700m from the start of the climb.
Apparently, certain times have been corrected to be from 13.8km from the finish. I will put this in the article.
Also see cyclingnews.com report on 2004 TdF: http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/stage16 Note: Armstrong's time over the 13.8 km of climbing (excluding the 1.7 km of flat at the start) was 37'36, one second slower than Marco Pantani's "official" record of 37'35 set in 1997. But Pantani's time was actually 36'55 when measured from the start of the climb (as Armstrong was today). Pantani also rode 36'50 for the climb in 1995, which remains the best performance up l'Alpe d'Huez. RosinDebow 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added another para which I hope adds additional information to the discussion, as well as the link to the Cycling News story. GuyWR
The links you guys provide have conflictive data. Pantani's best performance over the 13.8 km of climbing was in 1997 (37:35). I have just checked several cycling magazines from the time as well as videos and the final timings of other riders finishing after the winners. I have therefore updated the table which I think is now 99% correct. For example Pantani rode 38:04 in 1995, Indurain and Zulle who finished 2nd and 3rd respectively arrived 1:24 minutes later, therefore their climbing times were 39:28. I did the same for other years.
- The table looks good, but might be in need of an update already. Procycling mag, Jan 2007, lists the following times from the 2006 stage of the Tour. Frank Schleck: 40'46"; Floyd Landis and Andreas Kloden: 38'36". GuyWR
- I had added Floyd Landis at 38'34" and Andreas Kloden at 38'35" which was from the July 19th, 2006 edition of l'Equipe -- I assume that the TdF doesn't offer official times.. these are probably obtained unofficially from individuals at various reporting angencies. It should also be noted that this table is VERY incomplete. scotts 21:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the table is very incomplete - a bunch of times from several sources and some potentially dubious historical numbers (where did Coppi's time come from, for example?). I wonder, though, if we're getting close at all; or, would it be better represented as a 'selection of times for the climb' rather than a ranking of the supposed fastest? GuyWR
I made some further changes to the table, based on an article in the UK magazine Procycling (procycling.com) - see my note above - that also includes historical times over the last 20 years. I therefore added some new times at the bottom of the table, which appear plausible given the individuals and the eras. I also added Jose Azevedo, only 4" slower than Kloden in 2004; the problem with this 'count back' approach for the ITT is that it assumes all the riders did the same time for the first stretch from Bourg d'Oisans to the base of the climb (which is a reasonable assumption given the short distance), so I've left it at 'The Ace' for now and not added any others. GuyWR
"First , sorry about my bad english. The statistics are completely wrong! Have you ever timed the races yourselves!? I timed the performance of the 1997 alp d`huez today from a live recording. From the start of the climb, from the curve were the climb beginns to the finishline of the Tour de France Pantanis time was 36.42. Ullrichs time was 37.28. Ullrich is the second fastest ever on the climb. Not Armstrong. Armstrongs best times from the start of the climb were 37.36 and 38.01.The times from Matt Rendells book are bullshit. First, they were obviously not timed from the start of the climb. Second they were not even timed from the same place. Pantani was equally fast in 1995 as in 1997 and its impossible he was that much slower in 95 between the roadjunction or wereever they started the clock to the actual start of the climb.if you have doubts why dont you time the performances yourselves! my english is not good enough.For accurate statistics(more or less)http://grimpee.alpe.9online.fr/references.html And stop quoting Ligett!, Fredrik T " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.209.92 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised if there are problems with the timings, but I don't think it is possible to accurately time from a television broadcast. There is no way to consistently and accurately measure the time when each rider passes over the starting point and the finish line without having timing equipment at the site, and there might be edits or delays even in a live broadcast. Except for the ITT, the climb was not officially timed, so in my opinion having an accurate table is an exercise in futility, and an example of the kind of statistics that don't belong in Wikipedia. The table is a mish mash of times from different sources and measured at different locations and so it is not verifiable at all. I propose replacing the table with a sentence stating what the fastest ascent was, which is verifiable in several places (Pantani at 37'35" in 1997). RosinDebow 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
" Regarding the 1997 television broadcast: It shows the peloton as it approaches bourgh d´oisans(village at the foot of the climb) it shows the peloton as it goes through the town, as it turns left from the junction a few hundred meters from the climb. It shows exactly when they hit the climb and from then on the leading riders all the way to the finish. There might be delays when they show Casagrande for example, halfway up, but definetly not at the start or at the finish of the climb. Pantanis time was about 36.42-36.43. Dont know the circumstances around the timing 1994-1997 or the so called "record" of 37.35, but if it stands as a record and not the actual fastest time, the reason can only be they had some sort of official, electronic timing from some point before the climb. The way to verifie this is contacting those responsible for the timing, and not some sport journalist on the internet(who might even have got it from Wikipedia). When done, my sugestion is to state the official "record" and the circumstces surrounding it together with the fastest time of the actual climb,and info of how this was obtained(manual timing). For sure there is info. on the internet of how Armstrong was just 1 second shy of the record of Pantani and so on, but almost everything written is unfortunately incorrect. The list of fastest ascents on this site is just unacceptable. You cant have times measured from different starting points on the same list. http://grimpee.alpe.9online.fr/references.html Fredrik T" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.209.92 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the grimpee link and some additional comments. Anyone is free to remove the table. It would be a shame to lose all that information, so perhaps the best approach would be to have a list of times, without the ranking - but in order - with an explanation as to the difficulty in making comparisons. GuyWR
- GuyWR, thanks for your efforts in improving the article. But I think that the times as well as the ranking are problematic - given that the circumstances are different, they should not appear in the same table, and reconciling data from different sources could be considered original research (see Synthesis). I propose moving the table to this Talk page instead of deleting it entirely. RosinDebow (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd hate to see the table disappear in its entirety given that it's a good record of times, however rough they may be. I'd have no objections to it being shifted. We might want to replace it with a statement regarding the record - with the different times from different sources, which are already on the page. I'll chip in at some point, I'm sure. Until then, good luck! GuyWR —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to popular demand, the table is now here. I've added some text as a replacement and I'll look forward to subsequent edits. Cheers. GuyWR
![[4]](http://www.velonews.com/images/details/10447.15776.f.jpg){kind=link}
*ITT Stage in 2004.
Someone put Alberto Contador's time in the 2010 Dauphiné Libéré as record. This is highly implausible as this era was generally slower and more riders of this stage would have to appear on the list. Are there any sources for the 2010 Contador time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.152.242 (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Template issue
If it's decided to "prohibit" a {Alpe d'Huez (TDF)} article, could we possibly remove the template ? Personally do I think there well could be such articles (also about well-known climbs in other cycling races), but my reflection isn't that deeply thought through and mainly caused by the template. So what about the template ? Boeing720 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)