Hour record observations

UCI: Just define what the hour record is (and isn't). Then riders can
do what they have to do to prepare for it.

But of course, you should have age graded (every 5 years) records, as
well as Cat 5,4,3 records too ;-)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

UCI: Just define what the hour record is (and isn't). Then riders can
do what they have to do to prepare for it.

IMO, they should no longer define it as they currently do. The Merckx Record
has been broken on a similar bike.

It's time to move on.

with today's technology and pharmaceuticals,
the record should fall into the 57 minute range.
e-RICHIE

Carl Sundquist said:

Armstrong claims he is interested in both the UCI "absolute" and "best hour
performance" records.

I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about 10
meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes, all future hour record
attempts ignore the "absolute" record and just attempt the "best". Let the
UCI suffer the ignominy of recognizing a record that no one cares about and
has been exceeded for over twenty years.

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour record
power output, but fellas, it's time to move on.

I agree. I thought that was really goofy ruling after Indurain, Rominger,
Obree, and Boardman were already way out at 55-56 km. It was some twisted logic
that rolled back the clock for the clocked event. Don't roll back the chrono
for the chrono. Let the chrono move forward and make the 2nd Law happy.

Richard Sachs said:

with today's technology and pharmaceuticals,
the record should fall into the 57 minute range.

LOL. A 57 minute hour. I've taken that sort of dope but it never helped my
riding.

Just say yes:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585422274
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=19256&parentid=4&stocknumber=CU8835&page=1&itemsperpage=24

Richard Sachs said:

Quoted message said:

with today's technology and pharmaceuticals,
the record should fall into the 57 minute range.

gwhite said:

LOL. A 57 minute hour. I've taken that sort of dope but it never helped my
riding.

You've taken up downhill mountain biking ?

Carl Sundquist said:

I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about 10
meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes,

Though at sea level.

Quoted message said:

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour
record power output

Which calculated record power output is that?

I greatly appreciated the technological development that helped propel the
hour in the 90's= it is apples and oranges now because you are forced to use
antiquated bike parts as the current rules stand. why not free up
development and encourage the advancement of cycling ?

Laz

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:jgZJd.4086$G31.156@okepread05...

Quoted message said:

Armstrong claims he is interested in both the UCI "absolute" and "best

hour

Quoted message said:

performance" records.

I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about 10
meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes, all future hour record
attempts ignore the "absolute" record and just attempt the "best". Let the
UCI suffer the ignominy of recognizing a record that no one cares about

and

Quoted message said:

has been exceeded for over twenty years.

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour

record

Quoted message said:

power output, but fellas, it's time to move on.

Carl (if it's good enough for Curtis Gunn, it's good enough for me)
Sundquist

Carl Sundquist said:

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour record
power output, but fellas, it's time to move on.

No, he has to stay sharp. Because he knows that the Tour will have a
cannibal time trial and a singlespeed mountain stage in 2006.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist said:

I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about 10
meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes,

Though at sea level.

As was discussed when MagillaGorilla spewed forth his nonsense, Boardman was
pretty through in his preparation and had financial support, though
obviously not as much as Armstrong would. He could have chosen to make his
attempts at altitude if he had wanted to. Breaking the record by a ten meter
margin didn't leave a whole lot of room for error. Why not make the attempt
at altitude if it's a surer thing? Was Boardman that politically tied to
making his attempts in Manchester?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour
record power output

Which calculated record power output is that?

The one you made a graph for on the cadence/TT thread.

Quoted message said:

UCI: Just define what the hour record is (and isn't). Then riders can
do what they have to do to prepare for it.

But of course, you should have age graded (every 5 years) records, as
well as Cat 5,4,3 records too ;-)

And a world record for men, aged 43 years 6 months to 43 years 7 months
with body fat between 85 and 90%. That one's for me.

Carl Sundquist said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist said:

I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about
10 meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes,

Though at sea level.

As was discussed when MagillaGorilla spewed forth his nonsense,
Boardman was pretty through in his preparation and had financial
support, though obviously not as much as Armstrong would. He could have
chosen to make his attempts at altitude if he had wanted to. Breaking
the record by a ten meter margin didn't leave a whole lot of room for
error. Why not make the attempt at altitude if it's a surer thing? Was
Boardman that politically tied to making his attempts in Manchester?

I suspect so, but I don't have any insider knowledge. My recollection is
that there were two oddities about that attempt:

1. The attempt was being made in the middle of some track event at
Manchester.
2. Until a day or two beforehand, Boardman was under the impression that
it *was* a sure thing. Since it was a "new" category, whatever distance he
went would set a record. Then the UCI told him at the last minute that
unless he passed 49.431km, they wouldn't recognize it as a record.

If I do remember that correctly, that makes the 10 meter margin even more
remarkable.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour
record power output

Which calculated record power output is that?

The one you made a graph for on the cadence/TT thread.

That's what I was afraid of. I suspect that webpage overstated the power
output of the Mexico City efforts (i.e., Merckx and Moser). If you were to
believe it, it would say that Merckx had hugely more aero drag than
Boardman, even in Mexico City. I've done a cursory search and there's huge
variation in the estimates for the power output for the hour records.

Robert Chung said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist wrote:
> I say that since Boardman broke Merckx's record, albeit by only about
> 10 meters and with wheels containing 24 less spokes,

Though at sea level.

As was discussed when MagillaGorilla spewed forth his nonsense,
Boardman was pretty through in his preparation and had financial
support, though obviously not as much as Armstrong would. He could have
chosen to make his attempts at altitude if he had wanted to. Breaking
the record by a ten meter margin didn't leave a whole lot of room for
error. Why not make the attempt at altitude if it's a surer thing? Was
Boardman that politically tied to making his attempts in Manchester?

I suspect so, but I don't have any insider knowledge. My recollection is
that there were two oddities about that attempt:

1. The attempt was being made in the middle of some track event at
Manchester.

The 2000 World track Champs . I was there the next day and saw
Boardman. He was walking like he had just spent the night in Bubba the
lifer's cell...

Regards!
Stephen

Agreed. They should just say "UCI-legal track bike and equipment"

That way, anything you could use in a pursuit, you could use in a
record attempt, and vice versa.

My $0.02

Steve

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:52:57 -0600, "Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

IMO, they should no longer define it as they currently do. The Merckx Record
has been broken on a similar bike.

It's time to move on.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

2. Until a day or two beforehand, Boardman was under the impression that
it *was* a sure thing. Since it was a "new" category, whatever distance he
went would set a record. Then the UCI told him at the last minute that
unless he passed 49.431km, they wouldn't recognize it as a record.

On one hand, that seems contrary to Boardman/Keen's reputation for exacting
preparation. On the other hand, the combination of the mere fact that the
UCI even regressed to the old bike specs and wondering if unless you are for
one of the historically core UCI countries (France, Italy, Belgium) you have
a bit of PNG status. Like Obree in 1994.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I respect Merckx and his achievement, especially his calculated hour
> record power output

Which calculated record power output is that?

The one you made a graph for on the cadence/TT thread.

That's what I was afraid of. I suspect that webpage overstated the power
output of the Mexico City efforts (i.e., Merckx and Moser). If you were to
believe it, it would say that Merckx had hugely more aero drag than
Boardman, even in Mexico City. I've done a cursory search and there's huge
variation in the estimates for the power output for the hour records.

I don't consider those values to be particularly accurate, but there are a
lot of factors in addition to altitude to consider. Some of my comment comes
from a sentimental viewpoint that Merckx was a still badass even though
time, technology, and records march on.

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the combination of the mere fact that the UCI even
regressed to the old bike specs and wondering if unless you are for one of
the historically core UCI countries (France, Italy, Belgium) you have a
bit of PNG status. Like Obree in 1994.

Sorry, incomplete sentence.

The fact that the UCI regressed the equipment and Britain is not a core UCI
country, would lend itself to believing the Merckx record would be
re-recognized.

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:CVcKd.4111$G31.3047@okepread05...

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

2. Until a day or two beforehand, Boardman was under the impression that
it *was* a sure thing. Since it was a "new" category, whatever distance
he
went would set a record. Then the UCI told him at the last minute that
unless he passed 49.431km, they wouldn't recognize it as a record.

On one hand, that seems contrary to Boardman/Keen's reputation for
exacting preparation. On the other hand, the combination of the mere fact
that the UCI even regressed to the old bike specs and wondering if unless
you are for one of the historically core UCI countries (France, Italy,
Belgium) you have a bit of PNG status. Like Obree in 1994.

Agreed it seems obvious the UCI would regress to the Merckx record along
with the equipment, but they didn't actually do so until a couple of days
before Boardman's ride. AIUI, this was because there was some issue about
altitude (Boardman certainly wanted there to be a stipulation that attempts
had to be made below 600m, and some such was being considered - that would
automatically dump Merckx's distance).

Peter

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> .

Quoted message said:

Agreed it seems obvious the UCI would regress to the Merckx record along
with the equipment, but they didn't actually do so until a couple of days
before Boardman's ride. AIUI, this was because there was some issue about
altitude (Boardman certainly wanted there to be a stipulation that
attempts had to be made below 600m, and some such was being considered -
that would automatically dump Merckx's distance).

It would also dump Ole Ritter's distance, taking us back to Ferdinand
Bracke's 48.093km record in Milan in 1967

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Agreed it seems obvious the UCI would regress to the Merckx record along
with the equipment, but they didn't actually do so until a couple of days
before Boardman's ride. AIUI, this was because there was some issue about
altitude (Boardman certainly wanted there to be a stipulation that
attempts had to be made below 600m, and some such was being considered -
that would automatically dump Merckx's distance).

Reports on cyclingnews.com lean toward breaking Merckx's record rahter than
establishing a record. No indication of any last minute altitude
clarifications by the UCI.

News of Merckx's record reinstatement

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/sep9news.shtml

Breaking record

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/sep13news.shtml

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/sep00/sep30news.shtml

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct2news.shtml

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct27news.shtml

http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct28news.shtml

Establish record
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2000/oct00/oct14news.shtml