No question he (Obree) was not the most powerful but certainly he was one of the smartest if thinking outside the box is accounted for
OK ...I'm done
....and UCI still sucks
Breaking the hour record.
Moderators: robbosmans, Moderator Team
-
rustychain
- Posts: 3907
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:42 pm
- Location: lat 38.9677 lon 77.3366
- Contact:
Nice pic. Obree however was within the rules at the time. It was his position they did not like (as well as the fact that he was not a "pro" and was bipolar). Looking at the current aerobar rule that disallows the praying mantis I think is closer to the mark. Should they take away the Landis Tour California TT win? Changing the rules after the fact is what I have issue. UCI sucks
No question he (Obree) was not the most powerful but certainly he was one of the smartest if thinking outside the box is accounted for
OK ...I'm done
....and UCI still sucks
No question he (Obree) was not the most powerful but certainly he was one of the smartest if thinking outside the box is accounted for
OK ...I'm done
....and UCI still sucks
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
obree was driven by his own internal demons, that played a major part in his success.. not taking away from his athletic prowess he was a phenomenal athlete.
2 reasons they wont touch the record anymore:
its really really tough !!
there s less press interest in it now.
sosenka broke the record and you heard about it in procycling a month + after the event !!! also his career went nowhere but down following the record..... strange seeing as it was ratified by UCI !!!!
talk is cycling insiders knew more about tests being don than the UCI did.
LA could have brought it back into the spotlight and was seriously considering it ( as pics of a track bike showed at his 2005 pre season camp) but obviously read more about the likes of merckx's comments ie "it nearly killed me".
michael hutchinson's book about his attempt is an interesting read.
2 reasons they wont touch the record anymore:
its really really tough !!
there s less press interest in it now.
sosenka broke the record and you heard about it in procycling a month + after the event !!! also his career went nowhere but down following the record..... strange seeing as it was ratified by UCI !!!!
talk is cycling insiders knew more about tests being don than the UCI did.
LA could have brought it back into the spotlight and was seriously considering it ( as pics of a track bike showed at his 2005 pre season camp) but obviously read more about the likes of merckx's comments ie "it nearly killed me".
michael hutchinson's book about his attempt is an interesting read.
When Merckx did it, it was big news for a number of reasons. He had done a long season winning everything as usual with little planning compared to today. Some wondered if he was biting off more than he could chew.
The record itself has to be understood against the historical backdrop of the time. The professional individual pursuit was 5,000m in those days and the world title was usually won in a time of over 6 minutes. What Merckx did was basically stack up nearly 10 x 5,000m pursuits approaching 6 minutes. At the time it was extraordinary. And as proven later, until Boardman beat it, the records were done on 'modern' bikes. Boardman suffered like hell to put what I thought was 100 metres although I read today it was 10 metres and for a lot of the time he was behind.
For Merckx to say it was the hardest thing he ever did shows how hard it must have been, because Merckx suffered every time he rode the bike after his crash on the track at Blois in 1969.
Compare the circus around Merckx in 72 to what Irish said and which is spot on, we heard about Sosenka after the event, i.e., it was a non-event from someone we'd never heard of and who had prepared all year for it and to stick about 250 metres. Methinks Merckx would have got close to 50k's in the hour and still hold the record. All hypothetical of course.
The reality is that nobody takes notice of it unless it's a true champion. If Lance had of done it then it would have been an event, but not Sosenka.
It's really really tough. Indeed it must be if Hinault never took it on or Lance. The numbers are daunting.
The record itself has to be understood against the historical backdrop of the time. The professional individual pursuit was 5,000m in those days and the world title was usually won in a time of over 6 minutes. What Merckx did was basically stack up nearly 10 x 5,000m pursuits approaching 6 minutes. At the time it was extraordinary. And as proven later, until Boardman beat it, the records were done on 'modern' bikes. Boardman suffered like hell to put what I thought was 100 metres although I read today it was 10 metres and for a lot of the time he was behind.
For Merckx to say it was the hardest thing he ever did shows how hard it must have been, because Merckx suffered every time he rode the bike after his crash on the track at Blois in 1969.
Compare the circus around Merckx in 72 to what Irish said and which is spot on, we heard about Sosenka after the event, i.e., it was a non-event from someone we'd never heard of and who had prepared all year for it and to stick about 250 metres. Methinks Merckx would have got close to 50k's in the hour and still hold the record. All hypothetical of course.
The reality is that nobody takes notice of it unless it's a true champion. If Lance had of done it then it would have been an event, but not Sosenka.
It's really really tough. Indeed it must be if Hinault never took it on or Lance. The numbers are daunting.
-
rustychain
- Posts: 3907
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:42 pm
- Location: lat 38.9677 lon 77.3366
- Contact:
non UCI hour record http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV3Xd6VBSsA
24 hour track record (ouch) http://www.ultracycling.com/records/24h ... d2008.html
Question. Assuming one is acclimated to the altitude what advantage does it have to perform the hour at elevation? Looks like the latest is done at sea level? I am confused
I also note that all the records are on tubular tires (Vitoria and Dugast lately) I assume this is a smooth track (wood) according to some here clinchers should be the choice. I also remember something about heavy wheels used to increase momentum, is this true?
24 hour track record (ouch) http://www.ultracycling.com/records/24h ... d2008.html
Question. Assuming one is acclimated to the altitude what advantage does it have to perform the hour at elevation? Looks like the latest is done at sea level? I am confused
I also note that all the records are on tubular tires (Vitoria and Dugast lately) I assume this is a smooth track (wood) according to some here clinchers should be the choice. I also remember something about heavy wheels used to increase momentum, is this true?WW Velocipedist Gargantuan
Altitude reduces available aerobic power:
http://www.midweekclub.ca/powerFAQ.htm#Q17
Anaerobic power will be around 2% of total for a 1-hour event, and presumably is not strongly affected by altitude. It's fair enough to neglect this for the hour.
On the other hand, reduced air pressure reduces wind drag. Wind drag is around 94% of the total, perhaps, in these events. So basically aerobic power and wind resistance are the key factors. The dependence of pressure on altitude:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-a ... d_462.html
If you divide available aerobic power by the air pressure, this will be maximum at some altitude. However, when I used the numbers I referenced, I get for all three power-versus altitude models, speed continues to increase up to 10 kft altitude. That seems surprising to me.
http://www.midweekclub.ca/powerFAQ.htm#Q17
Anaerobic power will be around 2% of total for a 1-hour event, and presumably is not strongly affected by altitude. It's fair enough to neglect this for the hour.
On the other hand, reduced air pressure reduces wind drag. Wind drag is around 94% of the total, perhaps, in these events. So basically aerobic power and wind resistance are the key factors. The dependence of pressure on altitude:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-a ... d_462.html
If you divide available aerobic power by the air pressure, this will be maximum at some altitude. However, when I used the numbers I referenced, I get for all three power-versus altitude models, speed continues to increase up to 10 kft altitude. That seems surprising to me.
rustychain wrote:Question. Assuming one is acclimated to the altitude what advantage does it have to perform the hour at elevation? Looks like the latest is done at sea level? I am confused
DJ described it quite well.
The 68 Olympics was held in Mexico and the times for the pursuit were very fast. Ritter went there and broke the reocrd the same year. Hence Merckx going there in 72. At one time the track of choice was the Vigorelli in Milan. Then Mexico, Bordeaux etc. It was always attempted outdoors until Bordeaux became popular.
As for tubulars, it was the only choice until the technology we have now came in. MAny will argue the opposite, but I believe that tubulars are better than clinchers.
The tracks now are wooden. The tracks have morphed from concrete 500m tracks, then 333m tracks to the 250m standard we have now.
The bikes. Merckx's bike only weighed about 12lb and was shod with 24 hole rims and silk tyres. The thinking then was that lighter was the way to go, since proven wrong.
When Moser did the record in 84 it was on a radically different bike that weighed approximately double what Merckx rode on; and had disc wheels. I'm no tech head so can't describe rolling resistance etc., but the bikes became radically different, hence the UCI's actions in calling it the Athlete's Hour.
Around 440 watts:
Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data.
Applied Sciences
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(11):1665, November 1999.
BASSETT, DAVID R. JR; KYLE, CHESTER R.; PASSFIELD, LOUIS; BROKER, JEFFREY P.; BURKE, EDMUND R.
Abstract:
BASSETT, D. R. JR, C. R. KYLE, L. PASSFIELD, J. P. BROKER, and E. R. BURKE. Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 1665-1676, 1999.
Purpose: The world hour record in cycling has increased dramatically in recent years. The present study was designed to compare the performances of former/current record holders, after adjusting for differences in aerodynamic equipment and altitude. Additionally, we sought to determine the ideal elevation for future hour record attempts.
Methods: The first step was constructing a mathematical model to predict power requirements of track cycling. The model was based on empirical data from wind-tunnel tests, the relationship of body size to frontal surface area, and field power measurements using a crank dynamometer (SRM). The model agreed reasonably well with actual measurements of power output on elite cyclists. Subsequently, the effects of altitude on maximal aerobic power were estimated from published research studies of elite athletes. This information was combined with the power requirement equation to predict what each cyclist's power output would have been at sea level. This allowed us to estimate the distance that each rider could have covered using state-of-the-art equipment at sea level. According to these calculations, when racing under equivalent conditions, Rominger would be first, Boardman second, Merckx third, and Indurain fourth. In addition, about 60% of the increase in hour record distances since Bracke's record (1967) have come from advances in technology and 40% from physiological improvements.
Results and Conclusions: To break the current world hour record, field measurements and the model indicate that a cyclist would have to deliver over 440 W for 1 h at sea level, or correspondingly less at altitude. The optimal elevation for future hour record attempts is predicted to be about 2500 m for acclimatized riders and 2000 m for unacclimatized riders.
Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data.
Applied Sciences
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 31(11):1665, November 1999.
BASSETT, DAVID R. JR; KYLE, CHESTER R.; PASSFIELD, LOUIS; BROKER, JEFFREY P.; BURKE, EDMUND R.
Abstract:
BASSETT, D. R. JR, C. R. KYLE, L. PASSFIELD, J. P. BROKER, and E. R. BURKE. Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 11, pp. 1665-1676, 1999.
Purpose: The world hour record in cycling has increased dramatically in recent years. The present study was designed to compare the performances of former/current record holders, after adjusting for differences in aerodynamic equipment and altitude. Additionally, we sought to determine the ideal elevation for future hour record attempts.
Methods: The first step was constructing a mathematical model to predict power requirements of track cycling. The model was based on empirical data from wind-tunnel tests, the relationship of body size to frontal surface area, and field power measurements using a crank dynamometer (SRM). The model agreed reasonably well with actual measurements of power output on elite cyclists. Subsequently, the effects of altitude on maximal aerobic power were estimated from published research studies of elite athletes. This information was combined with the power requirement equation to predict what each cyclist's power output would have been at sea level. This allowed us to estimate the distance that each rider could have covered using state-of-the-art equipment at sea level. According to these calculations, when racing under equivalent conditions, Rominger would be first, Boardman second, Merckx third, and Indurain fourth. In addition, about 60% of the increase in hour record distances since Bracke's record (1967) have come from advances in technology and 40% from physiological improvements.
Results and Conclusions: To break the current world hour record, field measurements and the model indicate that a cyclist would have to deliver over 440 W for 1 h at sea level, or correspondingly less at altitude. The optimal elevation for future hour record attempts is predicted to be about 2500 m for acclimatized riders and 2000 m for unacclimatized riders.
"The True Hour Record Holder ... is Bracke!" article by Claude Genzling in Bike Tech August 1984 (translated from French) reprinted from Le Cycle March 1984. Conclusions of estimated calculations by Aerotechnic Institute of Saint-Cyr-l'Ecole. Estimated 7% difference in power between Mexico City and Milan due to 2000m altitude difference.
466 W (est) Francesco Moser in Mexico City 1984. 441 W airdrag (CdA 0.32 m²) + 25 rolling (plastic coated track)
434 W (est at Milan) 409 W airdrag + 25 W rolling
525 W (est) Eddy Merckx in Mexico City 1972. 485 W airdrag (CdA 0.39 m² *) + 40 W rolling.
565 W (est if in Milan). 525 W airdrag + 40 w rolling
580 W (est in Milan) Ferdinand Bracke Rome 1967. 540 airdrag (CdA 0.37 m²) + 40 rolling
*"For Eddy Merckx ... himself has given us his value of CdA 0.39 m².
The power outputs in this article are much higher than other sources.
466 W (est) Francesco Moser in Mexico City 1984. 441 W airdrag (CdA 0.32 m²) + 25 rolling (plastic coated track)
434 W (est at Milan) 409 W airdrag + 25 W rolling
525 W (est) Eddy Merckx in Mexico City 1972. 485 W airdrag (CdA 0.39 m² *) + 40 W rolling.
565 W (est if in Milan). 525 W airdrag + 40 w rolling
580 W (est in Milan) Ferdinand Bracke Rome 1967. 540 airdrag (CdA 0.37 m²) + 40 rolling
*"For Eddy Merckx ... himself has given us his value of CdA 0.39 m².
The power outputs in this article are much higher than other sources.
Equality for Cranks.
580 watts for an hour? Sweet jesus.
www.ChrisDiRe.com
Adam Hansen wrote:Sponsors should not have to go, its the doped riders that should be shot instead, in the knee caps would be nice.
-
stella-azzurra
- Posts: 5065
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
- Location: New York
According to Lemond..
"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."
"Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years"
"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."
"Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years"
-
chase196126
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:11 pm
=4cranks wrote:"The True Hour Record Holder ... is Bracke!" article by Claude Genzling in Bike Tech August 1984 (translated from French) reprinted from Le Cycle March 1984. Conclusions of estimated calculations by Aerotechnic Institute of Saint-Cyr-l'Ecole. Estimated 7% difference in power between Mexico City and Milan due to 2000m altitude difference.
466 W (est) Francesco Moser in Mexico City 1984. 441 W airdrag (CdA 0.32 m²) + 25 rolling (plastic coated track)
434 W (est if at Milan) 409 W airdrag + 25 W rolling
525 W (est) Eddy Merckx in Mexico City 1972. 485 W airdrag (CdA 0.39 m² *) + 40 W rolling.
565 W (est if at Milan). 525 W airdrag + 40 w rolling
580 W (est if at Milan) Ferdinand Bracke Rome 1967. 540 airdrag (CdA 0.37 m²) + 40 rolling
*"For Eddy Merckx ... himself has given us his value of CdA 0.39 m².
The power outputs in this article are much higher than other sources.
I am going to call a very large BS on these numbers. Think about it, if Bracke's FTP is 580 watts, and lets say he weighs 75 kilos (I have nothing to back this up at all, so its just a guess weight wise) that is 7.73 watts per kilo. No way. Hell he could be 80 kilos and that would still be 7.25 w/kg.
Lets look at his results as well, he won the Vuelta in 1971, and yet was 77th in the tour in 1976. With those power numbers he would have been minutes and minutes ahead on EVERY climb without trying at all.
Even the Merckx number is way way out of the realm of physical possibility. He was roughly 70 kilos, and at 520 watts that is 7.4 w/kg. Eddy was a great rider, but not that great.
-
RollinOn27s
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:17 am
stella-azzurra wrote:According to Lemond..
"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."
"Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years"
Exactly. It's impossible. Even with doping, no one has ever put out 8w/kg for more than a few minutes.
Lemond is out of his mind if he truly thinks that guys that small are putting out that kind of power.
Similarly, I very much doubt that anyone short of Indurain has ever put out 500w or more for an hour, and he was a good deal larger than Armstrong, Merckx, Hinault or Moser.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
RollinOn27s wrote:stella-azzurra wrote:According to Lemond..
"You'd get a continuous output of power recorded during a Tour stage and then if you found someone who had a VO2 Max of 80 and he was doing 500 watts for 30 minutes, you'd know that that was statistically and mathematically impossible to do. So then he's positive – boom! – he's out – that's doping. That's it – it's simple."
"Cycling is so black and white when it comes to watts and we can have that data now – it's not a mystery. Last year there were climbers doing 450 watts but weighing 58-60kg – that's nearly 8 watts per kilo. That's impossible – unless we've all had some kind of genetic mutation over the past 15 years"
Exactly. It's impossible. Even with doping, no one has ever put out 8w/kg for more than a few minutes.
Lemond is out of his mind if he truly thinks that guys that small are putting out that kind of power.
Similarly, I very much doubt that anyone short of Indurain has ever put out 500w or more for an hour, and he was a good deal larger than Armstrong, Merckx, Hinault or Moser.
Rollin', I think that was Lemond's point wasn't it? You DON'T see that power from guys that small. Without assistance that is. Hence the basis for his "power-based" doping control. Though one does have to entertain the fact that there may indeed be a one-in-a-billion chance of some uber freaky mutant cyclist will show up one day and blow away all pre-conceived notions of what a human can do.
So back to topic, if 8w/kg is, without doping or being a mutant, impossible then what were these guys putting out?
440 watts seems more plausible, which is still a lot. Would be interesting to see someone like Cancellara's power output to see what he could manage in the hour.
Anyone else whom we think could have a good crack at this?
Either which way I think my attempt maybe put on hold for some time then.
