The One Hour Record

Although I don't think he has publicly stated it, I think Lance Armstrong would love to have this world One Hour Record. He says he may skip the Tour de France in 2005 to do other cycling events. My guess is that he may take the opportunity to set a world record in the one hour.

gntlmn said:

Although I don't think he has publicly stated it, I think Lance Armstrong would love to have this world One Hour Record. He says he may skip the Tour de France in 2005 to do other cycling events. My guess is that he may take the opportunity to set a world record in the one hour.

Don't forget that today's riders are at a big disadvantage when attempting
the UCI standard hour record because it is mainly TT riders who take up the
challenge and all their TT riding has been done in a completely different
position on aero-bars. When was the last time Armstrong rode at close to
maximum power output in the drops position for an hour. While Boardman
already had a bone defect, his hour record victory in that drops position did
not do his back any favours. However if any rider was to acquire the
linear pedaling style, it would suddenly become his new normal TT style,
in keeping with all UCI hour record rules and enable him to use a relaxing
powerful pedalling technique, ideal for the hour record and TT's, instead
of the torturous back breaking circular or stomping pedalling styles.

n crowley said:

Don't forget that today's riders are at a big disadvantage when attempting
the UCI standard hour record because it is mainly TT riders who take up the
challenge and all their TT riding has been done in a completely different
position on aero-bars. When was the last time Armstrong rode at close to
maximum power output in the drops position for an hour. While Boardman
already had a bone defect, his hour record victory in that drops position did
not do his back any favours. However if any rider was to acquire the
linear pedaling style, it would suddenly become his new normal TT style,
in keeping with all UCI hour record rules and enable him to use a relaxing
powerful pedalling technique, ideal for the hour record and TT's, instead
of the torturous back breaking circular or stomping pedalling styles.

You may have noticed we talked quite a bit about Boardman quite a ways back on this thread. He certainly took a big hit on his speed by riding the UCI approved bike compared to what he did as his best in the One Hour Performance (as opposed to what they call the UCI record--the One Hour Record). Actually, if you really want to compare different riding positions and aerodynamics, compare the HPV's, which are turning around 50 mph for an hour, compared to the UCI Merckx bike standard, which is closer to 31 mph. So you know why they had to rein in the natural progression from what this group of riders was doing in outdoing themselves all the way from the first rider to break Merckx' record on a nonstandard bike to the last, which was Chris Boardman in the Superman position. Chris would have ridden far faster in an HPV with full fairing. It's just that the game would have changed so much; you would have wondered if we were still watching cyclists. After all, there are HPV's which fly, and they pedal those too.

As for pedalling styles, much is written about those, but as far as I know, there is no UCI limitation on how you pedal. If you want to stomp them, spin them or pedal, as you say, linearly, I don't think any official's going to say foul. I haven't seen anything negative written about Lance's riding style. He chooses to spin quickly, in the tradition of Anquetil and Indurain. I don't think he'll modify his pedalling or need to. But I agree, it will take some getting used to to ride the UCI Hour Record bike. It will be interesting to follow this from when he decides to make a run at it all the way through the actual event. I haven't heard any definite plans from him though.

gntlmn said:

You may have noticed we talked quite a bit about Boardman quite a ways back on this thread. He certainly took a big hit on his speed by riding the UCI approved bike compared to what he did as his best in the One Hour Performance (as opposed to what they call the UCI record--the One Hour Record). Actually, if you really want to compare different riding positions and aerodynamics, compare the HPV's, which are turning around 50 mph for an hour, compared to the UCI Merckx bike standard, which is closer to 31 mph. So you know why they had to rein in the natural progression from what this group of riders was doing in outdoing themselves all the way from the first rider to break Merckx' record on a nonstandard bike to the last, which was Chris Boardman in the Superman position. Chris would have ridden far faster in an HPV with full fairing. It's just that the game would have changed so much; you would have wondered if we were still watching cyclists. After all, there are HPV's which fly, and they pedal those too.

As for pedalling styles, much is written about those, but as far as I know, there is no UCI limitation on how you pedal. If you want to stomp them, spin them or pedal, as you say, linearly, I don't think any official's going to say foul. I haven't seen anything negative written about Lance's riding style. He chooses to spin quickly, in the tradition of Anquetil and Indurain. I don't think he'll modify his pedalling or need to. But I agree, it will take some getting used to to ride the UCI Hour Record bike. It will be interesting to follow this from when he decides to make a run at it all the way through the actual event. I haven't heard any definite plans from him though.

Do you know if there is a restriction on the width of the normal drop bars ?

gntlmn said:

You may have noticed we talked quite a bit about Boardman quite a ways back on this thread. He certainly took a big hit on his speed by riding the UCI approved bike compared to what he did as his best in the One Hour Performance (as opposed to what they call the UCI record--the One Hour Record).

Boardman's distance was significantly less in the UCI approved record in part simply because his power output was significantly less than when he did the "superman" record. In other words, he was much less fit.

ric

[quote="ric_stern/RST"]Boardman's distance was significantly less in the UCI approved record in part simply because his power output was significantly less than when he did the "superman" record. In other words, he was much less fit.


For any rider, over a 15 or 30 min. period, is his/her power output in the UCI
approved drops position equal to the power output in the aero bar TT
position?

[quote="n crowley"]

ric_stern/RST said:

Boardman's distance was significantly less in the UCI approved record in part simply because his power output was significantly less than when he did the "superman" record. In other words, he was much less fit.

For any rider, over a 15 or 30 min. period, is his/her power output in the UCI
approved drops position equal to the power output in the aero bar TT
position?

ric_stern/RST said:

noel, i don't understand your query? do you can a rider produce the same power in the drops as they can in a TT position? (they can probably produce the same or more).

ric

You understood it correctly. Graeme Obree claimed that the more forward
position on the bike/saddle gave him more power and made it possible for
him to turn those bigger gears in his pursuit events in an aero TT position.
He said it gave a more powerful out of the saddle type of riding with less
weight resting on the saddle.

ric_stern/RST said:

Boardman's distance was significantly less in the UCI approved record in part simply because his power output was significantly less than when he did the "superman" record. In other words, he was much less fit.

ric

I would agree with you that his power output was probably less, but what evidence do you have that he was less fit? It may have been that he was able to generate more power in the superman position than he could in the classic position.

Consider the following. The athletes with the greatest aerobic output per kg are not cyclists. They are cross country skiers. If power output were the only limitation, then they would also be the fastest TT cyclists (ie, the best cc skier would have the hour record). Such is not the case. Clearly they cannot generate the wattage they do on cc skis on bikes. Are they in poorer shape when they get on the bikes? Nope. Something else is at play here.

Granted, this comparison is quite a bit different than the comparison of a cyclist's power output in one position compared to the same cyclist's power output in another, but it's a leap to say that Chris was not in as good shape when he was on the classic bike. I would believe it if I could see power output readings in both positions.

You can make the same argument with HPV's. If it were a simple translation of wattage from road (or track) bicycle riding to HPV, then Chris would have claimed the one hour HPV record. He didn't attempt it. It's not that easy. Talents cannot be assumed to be transferable even with a small change such as classic position to superman. It may not be the same rider who would win both ways.

If you have some evidence to show that a rider can generate the same wattage irrespective of positioning, I'd like to see it here. That would be interesting. My guess is that the data would show that the wattage does not transfer seamlessly.

gntlmn said:

I would agree with you that his power output was probably less, but what evidence do you have that he was less fit? It may have been that he was able to generate more power in the superman position than he could in the classic position.

while this is true (i.e., different positions), usually you produce less power in the aero position than the classic position not the other way around.

additionally, it was well reported in the press that he was less fit and would be touch and go if he could beat the record, and finally i was at university with his advisors, so also know the former point.

Quoted post said:

Consider the following. The athletes with the greatest aerobic output per kg are not cyclists. They are cross country skiers.

not when matched for size. and anyway, the greatest power is put out by sprinters

Quoted post said:

If power output were the only limitation, then they would also be the fastest TT cyclists (ie, the best cc skier would have the hour record). Such is not the case.

this just shows you have a misunderstanding of exercise physiology. just because someone can generate a lot of power in one exercise modality doesn't mean they can do it in a different modality. this is why adaptations to training are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. an elite runner/skier/whatever will only be elite at their proper sport in a different sport they may only be average (or whatever) and lesser athletes could be better than them. this lack of transfer from one modality to another is part of the reason why weights are a waste of time for endurance cycling performance (see training section of the forum).

Quoted post said:

If you have some evidence to show that a rider can generate the same wattage irrespective of positioning, I'd like to see it here. That would be interesting. My guess is that the data would show that the wattage does not transfer seamlessly.

see my point above.

however, the main point is that he wasn't as fit (i.e., lower power output in any position) as reported in the press and to his team, and the fact that you generate more power in the classic versus the aero position.

ric

however, the main point is that he wasn't as fit (i.e., lower power output in any position) as reported in the press and to his team, and the fact that you generate more power in the classic versus the aero position.

ric[/QUOTE]

Why do you generate more power in the classic position ?

n crowley said:

Why do you generate more power in the classic position ?

Its simply due to the nature of the 'extreme' time trial position - the lower you attempt to get at the front end, the more constricted your lungs and therefore breathing can be. There is always a trade off between aerodynamics and postion - the most aerodynamic position isn't always fastest, if it means that it severely restricts your power output. I don't like to use him as an example, but Lance shows this - his position is by no means the most aerodynamic out there - wind tunnel testing has brought him to his current position where he produces the best power/aerodynamic drage ratio.

Samr thing with Big Mig. His lungs were so large that he couldn't get as low as he would need to truly be great on the track. Boardman on the other hand could easily get as low as he needed to be as aero as possible. By the way. What are the restrictions to the new UCI rule for the hour record. Couldn't you get around the no aero bars thing by simply slapping on a really long stem and some extra narrow bars?

ric_stern/RST said:

this just shows you have a misunderstanding of exercise physiology. just because someone can generate a lot of power in one exercise modality doesn't mean they can do it in a different modality. this is why adaptations to training are specific to the joint angle and velocity at which they're trained. an elite runner/skier/whatever will only be elite at their proper sport in a different sport they may only be average (or whatever) and lesser athletes could be better than them. this lack of transfer from one modality to another is part of the reason why weights are a waste of time for endurance cycling performance (see training section of the forum).
ric

I think your problem is not perhaps with your knowledge of exercise physiology, but with your logical reasoning. You say that I have a misunderstanding of exercise physiology, and then, to support this point, you go on to make the same point I already made, inferring that I hadn't made the point yet.

"just because someone can generate a lot of power in one exercise modality doesn't mean they can do it in a different modality," you say.

You see what I mean? That was the point I made to begin with. The original contention you made, if you may recall, was that Chris Boardman was out of shape when he broke the world record on the UCI bike. I contended that we don't know whether Chris Boardman was really very out of shape or if he simply could not generate as much power in the classic position vis-a-vis Eddy Merckx, even though he seemed to generate a substantially higher power relative to the other riders in the Superman position.

That it was "generally reported in the press" that Boardman was out of shape doesn't mean that he really was. That's why I suggested we might want to look at data. My experience with researching exactly what is said in the press with what is really true has demonstrated to me time and time again that what people generally take to be true needs a closer look. Often it's not true.

Another point that you make contradicts yourself. You say that exercise specificity results in varying power output (again, this is the point I already had made). Then you go on to say that the aero position is lower for power output, not greater.

How many people do you know who have trained in the Superman position? If they don't train in the Superman position, then they cannot get exercise adaptivity. Therefore, just because they cannot immediately generate as much power on the first day of doing this Superman position doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot adapt, with training, and generate relatively more power in the future. I suspect that Chris Boardman trained in that Superman position long enough to get exercise specific adaptivity. So his power readings in the Superman position cannot be compared with the other riders without first considering this important distinction. It wouldn't be fair to the other riders who haven't trained that way.

Furthermore, we both agree, although you seem to think I hadn't made that point yet (see above), that power output varies greatly with positioning and exercise modality. The subject of this thread is the One Hour Record on the UCI bike. Eddy Merckx had held that record for so many years until Boardman broke it. All the while, he didn't get the credit he deserved because his efforts were overshadowed by rides which were done on more aerodynamic bikes by riders who could not beat him on the classic bike. The fact that Boardman broke the record only by a very small distance when he went back to the classic bike is no small point here. If he were out of shape at the time, I'd have to see some hard data, not just what a reporter claimed and then everyone else repeated in the press. This is not at all to belittle what Boardman accomplished on that day. More importantly, it highlights just how great Eddy Merckx was in Eddy's day and what a huge difference aerodynamics makes on the One Hour Record.

gntlmn said:

I think your problem is not perhaps with your knowledge of exercise physiology, but with your logical reasoning. You say that I have a misunderstanding of exercise physiology, and then, to support this point, you go on to make the same point I already made, inferring that I hadn't made the point yet.

To be very brief, I was under the tutelage of Boardmans sports science support team and coach at the time the record was achieved. So, yes, i do know he was "out of shape" at the time (obviously "out of shape" being a somewhat relative term).

The very aerodynamic position restricts your ability to generate the same power as a more open/upright position. I know several or more people who have trained in the Superman position.

Don't forget Merckx had the advantage of riding at very high altitude.

limerickman said:

Gntlmn,

You are correct when you say that Indurain's bike was aerodynamically suitable.
I think that there is a photo of it on this website
ida.physik.uni-siegen.deindurain.htmOpen ↗

You will see that his amchine was indeed an aerodynamic spec.

It would be interesting to see how he would do on a Merckx bike.

timetrial.orglotus.htmOpen ↗
york.ac.ukRosen%20 %20up%20the%20velorution.pdfOpen ↗
lotusespritworld.co.ukLotusSportBike.htmlOpen ↗

ric_stern/RST said:

To be very brief, I was under the tutelage of Boardmans sports science support team and coach at the time the record was achieved. So, yes, i do know he was "out of shape" at the time (obviously "out of shape" being a somewhat relative term).

The very aerodynamic position restricts your ability to generate the same power as a more open/upright position. I know several or more people who have trained in the Superman position.

Don't forget Merckx had the advantage of riding at very high altitude.

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.

gntlmn said:

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.

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

Quoted post said:

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.

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

ric_stern/RST said:

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

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.

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