LVM breaks hour record

Peter Allen said:

The top Sr3 TT'er is probably a guy who could go up two divisions if he didn't spend all his time
doing other things, enters a few races a year, and has a [censored] sprint so doesn't win them often.

Right.

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

The top Sr3 TT'er is probably a guy who could go up two divisions if he didn't spend all his
time doing other things, enters a few races a year,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has a [censored] sprint so doesn't win them often.

Right.

Dumbass -

That's not really a Cat 3.

If you're going to use that criteria, there's probably a Cat 5/non-licensed rider out there who
could do it. Like one of those Kenyans.

I'm talking about real Cat 3 riders. Like you.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Dumbass -

That's not really a Cat 3

Quoted message said:

If you're going to use that criteria, there's probably a Cat 5/non-licensed rider out there who
could do it. Like one of those Kenyans.

This is why I omitted cat 5's. There's too many of them. The argument is too easy for 5's. The
supply of 3's is a lot less.

Quoted message said:

I'm talking about real Cat 3 riders. Like you.

I was never going to win any Sr3 time trials, local or national.

Dan

Dan Connelly said:

Right. The cat 3 needs access to the wind tunnel, and the Mexico track. This is still a unfair
comparison, as one is comparing the best in the world woman to the best in the US Sr3. But I'd
still take the bet. In other words, announce a $1M prize for a rider who is currently a cat 3 to
break the record within 1 month. I think it would be broken. It's a time trial. There's a lot of
guys out there who can time trial, but don't race enough to upgrade.

Luftmenschen,

Here is another comparison - the Fat Masters Hour Record. From
uci.chbest.htmOpen ↗

40-44 45.1890 Neal Stansbury USA 2003 14.09.2003 Manchester GBR 45-49 49.3610 Kent Bostick USA 1999
25.09.1999 Manchester GBR 50-54 42.4390 Scott Porter USA 2003 11.09.2003 Manchester GBR 55-59
44.5488 Stephen Lehman USA 2002 22.09.2002 Manchester GBR

LZVM rode 93.3% of Bostick's distance and Bostick is an exceptional rider. (I know, Bostick did it
in Manchester, but so what. Going to Mexico City is part of the dedication necessary, just like
training.)

Is there a Cat 3 who could get that close to Bostick? Maybe, but to me it proves nothing, because
categories, talent, and ability are not the same thing. There is a wide disparity in both natural
talent and ability (by which I mean the fraction of natural talent one has actually managed to
train to) in the lower categories. It's quite possible that somewhere out there, there is a Cat 3
who could ride 46 km in the hour right now, but doesn't race or get enough results to upgrade. All
that means is that the guy has more ability than desire, time, or racing smarts, a sort of
"virtual Cat 2."

I'm almost dead certain that somewhere out there, there is a Cat 3 with enough natural talent that
with the wind tunnel, Mexico track, and several months to train he could break 46 km. That means
even less. Hey, with the same training effort, he could upgrade. Somewhere in the U.S. there is a
guy who could have a higher VO2max than Armstrong, but he rides a Huffy to his job washing dishes in
one of those restaurants Kunich doesn't eat in.

Put another way, what makes an athletic achievement singular is not just the doing of it but the
effort required to train to do it. It is like asking what VDB and Lance's results would be if they
switched training schedules. It is meaningless, since if Lance had VDB's level of desire, he would
lose the characteristic that defines "Lance Armstrong," and vice versa.

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

a) Isn't part of being a Cat. 3 *not* having a spare $150,000 to blow on wind tunnel testing and
preparation for an hour record attempt? (well, Leontien's time frame was longer, but it would
still cost a non-significant sum of money).

Quoted message said:

I'll bet there is a Cat 3 Master with more than enough money to fund his run at the hour.

Besserwisser,

Yes.

tristatevelo.comhot0103 2.htmlOpen ↗

(Link has been posted before to rbr, if it's worth reading, it's worth rereading.)

Quoted message said:

And I'd be willing to wager that he coud equal LVM and maybe come close to Merckx with proper
modern training. And he wouldn't need helium in the tires or a "Windsor" track bike.

No.

tristatevelo.comra1003.htmlOpen ↗ tristatevelo.comhot0103 2.htmlOpen ↗

45.189 and 44.549 km respectively. At least one of these guys is higher than Cat 3, I think.

Benjamin Weiner said:

Dan Connelly said:

Right. The cat 3 needs access to the wind tunnel, and the Mexico track. This is still a unfair
comparison, as one is comparing the best in the world woman to the best in the US Sr3. But I'd
still take the bet. In other words, announce a $1M prize for a rider who is currently a cat 3 to
break the record within 1 month. I think it would be broken. It's a time trial. There's a lot of
guys out there who can time trial, but don't race enough to upgrade.

Luftmenschen,

Here is another comparison - the Fat Masters Hour Record. From
uci.chbest.htmOpen ↗

40-44 45.1890 Neal Stansbury USA 2003 14.09.2003 Manchester GBR 45-49 49.3610 Kent Bostick USA
1999 25.09.1999 Manchester GBR 50-54 42.4390 Scott Porter USA 2003 11.09.2003 Manchester GBR 55-59
44.5488 Stephen Lehman USA 2002 22.09.2002 Manchester GBR

LZVM rode 93.3% of Bostick's distance and Bostick is an exceptional rider. (I know, Bostick did it
in Manchester, but so what. Going to Mexico City is part of the dedication necessary, just like
training.)

Bostick wasn't riding according to the neoretro rules.

Quoted message said:

Is there a Cat 3 who could get that close to Bostick? Maybe, but to me it proves nothing, because
categories, talent, and ability are not the same thing. There is a wide disparity in both natural
talent and ability (by which I mean the fraction of natural talent one has actually managed to
train to) in the lower categories. It's quite possible that somewhere out there, there is a Cat 3
who could ride 46 km in the hour right now, but doesn't race or get enough results to upgrade. All
that means is that the guy has more ability than desire, time, or racing smarts, a sort of
"virtual Cat 2."

Most Sr3 races are won by virtual cat 2's.

Definition of a sandbagger -- a rider who's faster than the observer 🙂.

Quoted message said:

I'm almost dead certain that somewhere out there, there is a Cat 3 with enough natural talent that
with the wind tunnel, Mexico track, and several months to train he could break 46 km. That means
even less. Hey, with the same training effort, he could upgrade. Somewhere in the U.S. there is a
guy who could have a higher VO2max than Armstrong, but he rides a Huffy to his job washing dishes
in one of those restaurants Kunich doesn't eat in.

🙂

Dan Connelly said:

There's no evidence that top women are better than top Sr3 riders, where both have the ability to
compete on comparable terms.

Are you saying a senior 3 could have beaten John Verheul that day?

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f7c8d5a$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

And I'd be willing to wager that he coud equal LVM and maybe come close to Merckx with proper
modern training. And he wouldn't

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helium in the tires or a "Windsor" track bike.

No.

tristatevelo.comra1003.htmlOpen ↗
tristatevelo.comhot0103 2.htmlOpen ↗

45.189 and 44.549 km respectively. At least one of these guys is higher than Cat 3, I think.

And they both did it using time trial bikes, no?

Jeff

And these are the best Cat 3 Masters available from the whole US? I had no idea!

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f7c8d5a$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

And I'd be willing to wager that he coud equal LVM and maybe come close to Merckx with proper
modern training. And he

wouldn't

Quoted message said:

need

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

helium in the tires or a "Windsor" track bike.

No.

tristatevelo.comra1003.htmlOpen ↗
tristatevelo.comhot0103 2.htmlOpen ↗

45.189 and 44.549 km respectively. At least one of these guys is higher than Cat 3, I think.

And they both did it using time trial bikes, no?

Jeff

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

I think I hear what you are saying, but you can't use those as being representaive either. Maybe
you are saying that somewhere out there there

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a Cat 3 that really is qualified to race higher, but isn't and we can

train

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

him to do 47 km in the hour if we pump all of the same resources in to

him.

Quoted message said:

Well, at least give him the same wind-tunnel work. I'm not talking about long-term
physiological development. That's why I said there's a 3 out there who could do it in a month
or two. Not a season.

Dumbass -

A Cat 3 can average 29mph for 1 hour, riding in the drops with spoked wheels?

You are a smart guy, but on this issue, Goddamm, you're an idiot.

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

Quoted message said:

This has already been pointed out. Actually, at the moment I'd be lucky to finish cat 5, as I
haven't raced this year at all....

Nick Burns said:

"Dan Connelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Are you a Cat 3 Dan?

It may have been pointed out, but I did not see you confirm it. I am choosy about my sources.

I think there is really no way to prove or disprove your idea. It does erode your credibility a bit
to know that you are talking about someone who in theory is your peer. You are saying that women are
no better than your peers. When it is worded that way, it does not sound so objective, does it?

Are you sure you are being as objective as you think you are?

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dude, that is getting pretty far out there. So go find him. I guarantee

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

he won't be a Cat 3 by the time the event rolls around. Once he gets all

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the attention, he will start to do better in races and get bumped to at least a Cat 2.

And a cat 4 will have moved in to take his place. Categories are always in a state of flux. I'm
taking a time slice.

This argument is getting really silly...

a) Isn't part of being a Cat. 3 *not* having a spare $150,000 to blow on wind tunnel testing and
preparation for an hour record attempt? (well, Leontien's time frame was longer, but it would
still cost a non-significant sum of money).

b) how do you define a Cat. 3 on a physical basis when the best Cat. 3 could probably ride (and not
totally suck) in Cat. 1. Is he a Cat. 1 or a Cat. 3?
b.a. when one person says the top women are between Cat.1 and Cat. 2 and another says they're equal
to the best Cat. 3, is this essentially the same thing on a physical basis?

The reason I say "on a physical basis" is that there are other differences between Cat. 3's and
Cat.1/2's - certainly "Cat. 3" is the less flattering term.

c) Pointing out Coppi's and Anquetil's hour distances compared to LVM is mildly interesting but
confusing (yes I was one of those who did this, sorry...) because the conditions weren't the
same. LVM used a high altitude track.

d) Why the need to compare? Is LVM getting too fast and the Cat. 3 men are losing sleep over it? Why
the need to label LVM as "no better than...Cat. x" in the first place. It's not as if we don't
*know* there's a difference between the two genders in cycling, and nearly all other sports. It
probably explains why no women have posted on this subject, despite the fact that it was a really
impressive performance.

Jeff

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

I think I hear what you are saying, but you can't use those as being representaive either. Maybe
you are saying that somewhere out there

there is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a Cat 3 that really is qualified to race higher, but isn't and we can

train

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

him to do 47 km in the hour if we pump all of the same resources in to

him.

Quoted message said:

Well, at least give him the same wind-tunnel work. I'm not talking about long-term
physiological development. That's why I said there's a 3 out there who could do it in a month
or two. Not a season.

How much benefit do you really think Van Moorsel-Zilgaard got from her time in the wind tunnel?
Position is most important, but A) it is hard to learn how to e.g., hold your head "just so", and B)
her position looks pretty normal, i.e., no different than what you'd expect for somebody who had
never been in the wind tunnel. Similarly, UCI rules greatly restrict the equipment she had to choose
from - and in fact the helmet she wore doesn't even appear to be the one that wind tunnel testing
indicated was the fastest! I therefore submit that *if* she benefitted from her time in the wind
tunnel, it was largely the result of just realizing how important aero drag really
is (e.g., witness her comments about trimming her hair so she could put in under her helmet).

Andy Coggan

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This argument is getting really silly...

Of course! This is rbr after all.

Quoted message said:

a) Isn't part of being a Cat. 3 *not* having a spare $150,000 to blow on wind tunnel testing and
preparation for an hour record attempt? (well, Leontien's time frame was longer, but it would
still cost a

non-significant

Quoted message said:

sum of money).

I'll bet there is a Cat 3 Master with more than enough money to fund his run at the hour. And
I'd be willing to wager that he coud equal LVM and maybe come close to Merckx with proper modern
training. And he wouldn't need helium in the tires or a "Windsor" track bike.

Quoted message said:

and in fact the helmet she wore doesn't even appear to be the one that wind tunnel testing
indicated was the fastest!

I recall her saying in an interview on Dutch tv that they tried several helmets in the windtunnel
and that the old style helmet she was wearing actually turned out to be very aero (she was
surprised herself).

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Nick Burns said:

I think I hear what you are saying, but you can't use those as being representaive either.
Maybe you are saying that somewhere out there

there is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a Cat 3 that really is qualified to race higher, but isn't and we can

train

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

him to do 47 km in the hour if we pump all of the same resources in to

him.

Quoted message said:

Well, at least give him the same wind-tunnel work. I'm not talking about long-term physiological
development. That's why I said there's a 3 out there who could do it in a month or two. Not a
season.

How much benefit do you really think Van Moorsel-Zilgaard got from her time in the wind tunnel?
Position is most important, but A) it is hard to learn how to e.g., hold your head "just so", and
B) her position looks pretty normal, i.e., no different than what you'd expect for somebody who
had never been in the wind tunnel. Similarly, UCI rules greatly restrict the equipment she had to
choose from - and in fact the helmet she wore doesn't even appear to be the one that wind tunnel
testing indicated was the fastest! I therefore submit that *if* she benefitted from her time in
the wind tunnel, it was largely the result of just realizing how important aero drag really
is (e.g., witness her comments about trimming her hair so she could put in under her helmet).

Andy Coggan

"Dan Connelly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message <dreamy stuff snipped>

I am sort of surprised you are still on this.

Will you please think this over a bit, and then answer honestly if you figure out that maybe you
were off by a few KPH?

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f7c6bc0$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

Here is another comparison - the Fat Masters Hour Record. From
uci.chbest.htmOpen ↗

40-44 45.1890 Neal Stansbury USA 2003 14.09.2003 Manchester GBR 45-49 49.3610 Kent Bostick USA
1999 25.09.1999 Manchester GBR 50-54 42.4390 Scott Porter USA 2003 11.09.2003 Manchester GBR 55-59
44.5488 Stephen Lehman USA 2002 22.09.2002 Manchester GBR

LZVM rode 93.3% of Bostick's distance and Bostick is an exceptional rider. (I know, Bostick did it
in Manchester, but so what. Going to Mexico City is part of the dedication necessary, just like
training.)

Those guys used aero equipment. LVM did not (retro rules).

Quoted message said:

I'm almost dead certain that somewhere out there, there is a Cat 3 with enough natural talent that
with the wind tunnel, Mexico track, and several months to train he could break 46 km. That means
even less. Hey, with the same training effort, he could upgrade.

<snip>

That's exactly right. The upgrade.

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

Quoted message said:

And these are the best Cat 3 Masters available from the whole US? I had no idea!

They must be - they broke the world hour record ;-)

Jeff

Nick Burns wrote: out, but I did not see you confirm it. I am choosy

Quoted message said:

about my sources.

I think there is really no way to prove or disprove your idea. It does erode your credibility a
bit to know that you are talking about someone who in theory is your peer. You are saying that
women are no better than your peers. When it is worded that way, it does not sound so objective,
does it?

Are you sure you are being as objective as you think you are?

🙂

I am a cat 3, but haven't raced for a year.

Dan

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

I said:

Quoted message said:

and in fact the helmet she wore doesn't even appear to be the one that wind tunnel testing
indicated was the fastest!

I recall her saying in an interview on Dutch tv that they tried several

helmets in the windtunnel and that the old style helmet she

Quoted message said:

was wearing actually turned out to be very aero (she was surprised

herself).

The pics of her from the wind tunnel show her wearing an old Brancale plastic shell (which I used to
use myself). That does not appear to be what she wore for the actual record performance.

Andy Coggan