The One Hour Record

closesupport

http://www.timetrial.org/lotus.htm
http://www.york.ac.uk/org/satsu/OnL...0velorution.pdf
http://www.lotusespritworld.co.uk/L...sSportBike.html

gntlmn

I regard the "out of shape" designation with some skepticism considering it's source, not because of its lack of expertise, but because it's not a third party. The group clearly had a stake in the outcome. Coaches do try to psyche up their athletes, and this may have been one way they did it. He may have been a little out of shape, but this doesn't mean he wouldn't have been capable of raising as high to the occasion as he would have been if he were very highly fit by his own standards. I'm reminded of coach Sherm Chavoor psyching up Mark Spitz during the 1972 Olympics by convincing him that during one of the heats, I think it was the 100 fly, that Mark had "let up" and that he had more to spare. The ploy worked, and Mark won.

Also, as we discussed earlier in the thread, the altitude may not have helped Merckx. They didn't have hypoxic tents back then, and he had been at Mexico City altitude for only 3 days, which wasn't long enough to make much of an adaptation to altitude. So what he gained from decreased wind resistance may have been lost from lack of oxygen in the air. This is a subject of ongoing debate. It would be tough to figure this because I think you would have trouble finding the groups to participate in the study. Average athletes, as opposed to world class, may not yield the same result. The world class athletes wouldn't find time. I agree that it would have been less controversial if Merckx had set the record at sea level.

Furthermore, I call into question that Boardman generated more power in the Superman position. Clearly, his result (distance) was substantially farther. But he had the advantage of aerodynamics. By some complicated calculations and conversions, it's been said that he generated more power in the Superman position than he did in the classic. Well, that's debatable too. He's not the only one who has been elevated to higher power status by fancy conversions. Indurain's physiologists did the same thing. Each time, the scientists were not independent. They had some stake, whether national pride or other, in the result. Until I see the ride done in the classic style, I don't much believe the conversions. It's too easy to get them wrong.

Actually, the way I look at it, Boardman barely beat the record, but he's the only one who really beat it in all these years, and he did it at sea level. I'd say, hats off to Boardman. He's put the record back to sea level where it belongs. Now let history be the judge. I wonder how long it will now take to be bested.

ric_stern/RST

no, his fitness was significantly lower compared to the 96 record.



you can call it into question as much as you like, but you're wrong. he generated ~ 10% more power in the Superman position compared to the Athletes record.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

gntlmn

Superman position, HPV position, cross country skiing position, butterfly position each result in varying power outputs for the same individual. Until any athlete gets on that Merckx classic bike and rides one hour under UCI conditions, they can trumpet their power outputs in other positions all they want, whether the figures are accurate or not. The record won't be theirs until they satisfy the UCI standard.

And the Hour Performance (as opposed to the One Hour Record) is not being debated here. We all know Boardman did the longest race before UCI put an end to the continual besting of each record by continual enhancement of aerodynamics. Also, you don't seem to understand that there is a fudge factor involved in those power measurements. On the one hand, you have the UCI record of 31 mph (roughly) on the Merckx bike, and then you have a corresponding record of 50 mph+ on an HPV. The power difference between these 2 extremes is a different measurement and not as easy to figure as the speed. In fact, the One Hour Record is not based directly on power but on distance, eliminating the need to really know what this power number is. The Hour Performance was kind of a hybrid between these two distance extremes of the UCI standard and the HPV, with Boardman taking the most extreme aerodynamic posture of any of the hybrids in the Superman position. Whether he put out more power in that position relative to others in less aerodynamic positions is a matter of debate. This goes to the core of why the UCI put the record back on the Merckx bike--historical continuity. No longer is there a need to debate power outputs anymore. In fact, the continual focus on power outputs as opposed to distance is to concede that the record was not being done in a consistent form before UCI finally put it back to the Merckx standard.

gntlmn

It appears that we may get an idea whether Lance will make an attempt at the World Hour Record within about 6 weeks. At that time, it may be clearer as to what date it will be attempted and at what locale. It sounds like it may be almost 2 years away.

http://www.usoc.org/11796_30046.htm

gntlmn

I hate to say this, but I hope he does it at sea level. If that 7-Eleven velodrome they are talking about is in Colorado Springs, it may be at elevation 6,000 ft+. A record set at that elevation won't be comparable to Boardman's. Even if he beat it by a fair margin at high elevation, the result will be called into question. Unlike Merckx' day, we all know the top athletes use hypoxic tents and are conditioned for riding at high elevation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think UCI is silent about elevation for the Hour Record.

gntlmn

I like the way Chris Boardman describes the record and what he thinks about keeping it pure and historically comparable in this article. He said it well. He also mentions that he suggested to race officials when he set the record in October of 2000 that they should take and preserve samples from the athlete. While that is a nice gesture, we've already seen that method fail with Hamilton in the Olympics. Anyway, read this article for his thoughts on Armstrong's attempt at the One Hour Record http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/s...e_gears_up.html

taras0000

I would love to see Lance do it at sea level as well, even Manchester, but I think that it will be done in the US for the same reason that Chris did it in Manchester, home town crowd. As far as the altitude thing goes and keeping it pure and comparable, you have to remember that Eddy did his at altitude as well. So if there is going to be a standard, what's it going to be? the Chris standard, or the Eddy standard?

__________________
Taras

gntlmn

I was thinking along the same lines myself, that each athlete doesn't want this to be a cut and dried comparison. I bet each one has a hunch which altitude he will (or would) fare best at compared to the competition. So they choose to do it at the altitude that suits them best, not what their competition chooses. The result becomes fodder for discussion after discussion, and that's what they want, to be kept alive in the minds of us cycling fans.

Eddy's record at altitude was done without the help of acclimatization to the thin air. That's not the case nowadays with hypoxic tents very popular. I think any athlete nowadays will have an advantage in the hour at elevation compared to sea level if he uses a tent. Such was probably not the case in Merckx' day. I'm not sure he gained anything riding high in the mountains. But I am pretty sure that he would have done better, probably quite a bit better, if he would have been sleeping in a hypoxic tent to acclimatize his blood to the thin air.

If Lance does his attempt in Colorado at 6,000 ft elevation, even on the classic bike he will smash the record. Maybe he'll do it again at sea level for comparison purposes, but I have a feeling he won't. This event is not at all easy when it's an attempt on the world record. It's probably about as agonizing an athletic event as can be. So I think he'll probably do it in Colorado Springs to bring some attention and welcome upgrades to the Olympic Training Center there.

gntlmn

It appears that Boardman remembers the pain very well when he set the athlete's one hour record in 2000. It appears that Armstrong is leaving it in the air as to which record he will attempt: the one hour performance, which is the one allowing aerodynamic improvements, and the athlete's one hour record, which uses the Merckx bike. Maybe he'll do both.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1485906,00.html

El Loto

I was reading an article on a website about the history of the World Hour Record and it mentioned at the bottom that Abraham Olano was going to go for the record either in Bilbao or Bordeaux. I'm not sure when it was published. I'll find the link and post it.

El Loto

http://www.speed101.com/now/fastest_0717_4.htm
It was July 2001.

Anybody know if Olano went for it?

ric_stern/RST

no he didn't!

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

gntlmn

It's interesting that in that article, it mentions that Boardman actually believed that he wouldn't have to set a new distance record when the aerodynamically advantaged one hour performance was no longer recognized as the world hour record. Goes to show you he actually believed the hype that the record was indisputably his, that the aerodynamics didn't make such a huge difference from 50- km to 56+ km in an hour. He was in for a rude awakening.

Boardman may not like it much if Armstrong tries for the record at elevation, but actually, it will keep Chris' memorable performance alive for years to come if Armstrong breaks the record. The debate will then focus on the advantage of elevation.

I have a feeling that Armstrong may want to make a statement about his ability at elevation. After all, that's where he would open his biggest gaps in the Tour de France--in the mountains. It's been reported in the media that he sleeps in hypoxic tents to acclimatize to elevation. I don't think there's much doubt that if a rider is acclimatized to elevation (sleep high, train low), he will ride farther in an hour at 6,000 ft elevation than he would at sea level. Furthermore, if the athletes horsepower doesn't degrade as much, relative to other riders, in the hills, this will give him an additional advantage.

I'm rather surprised that the UCI didn't address the elevation question in setting the One Hour Record back to the classic bike. Other things would make a difference too, such as floor surface and aerodynamics of the clothing. But I think these are lesser factors than elevation, which is I suspect a big factor for a prepared athlete.