LVM's hour attempt

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

Quoted message said:

Jeff Jones said:

cyclingnews.comnewsOpen ↗

Her own reactions, from Dutch teletext:

"I never dreamt this possible. I would already have been happy with a 10m improvement, but this is
just incredible", says van Moorsel. After her race, the Rotterdam citizen had to receive extra
oxygen for a while. "You just go so deep. Especially those last 10 minutes you give everything,
having already been at the limit for almost 50 minutes. After the fall I had my doubts for a
while, but I felt that I had to do it now with these stubby legs and that worked out all right."
The world hour record is a crown on the career of van Moorsel, who won everything there is in
women's cycling. Van Moorsel: "Now for one more explosion in Athens and then I'm all done!"

I'll bet Bruce exploded when he heard she'd broken the record.

-RJ

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

Quoted message said:

Her palmares show her to be a far more impressive rider than Lance Armstrong. He may have won the
tour 5 times, but this athlete has proven her dominance in several different cycling disciplines
over several years and has repeated her dominance just to prove her point.

I'd put her up with Merckx as far as cycling champions go. Within women's cycling, she has pushed
it almost as far as one can. Lance can not come close to making the same claim.

I don't think Lance would make that claim. He seems to be pretty realistic about his place
in history.

-T

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Jeff Jones <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote:
> > Correction, and I think this is the final one if I can believe the

three

Quoted message said:

> > sets of results sent to me: 46.065 km

I realize that this thread has since drifted into a discussion of how the exact distance is
computed, but did anybody else notice that the

difference

Quoted message said:

between the original value (46.397 km) and the final one (46.065 km) corresponds to almost exactly
1 lap (i.e., 333.3 m)? Could it be that at first they were incorrectly giving her full credit for
the lap you have to complete after the gun goes off?

Could well be - sounds coincidental enough. I was looking at the time schedule compared to Longo's
and realised there was a big jump in the last 10 minutes. I thought maybe she'd found an extra gear,
but then I was given the revised results. It went from 46.349 to 46.397 to 46.06511 (yeah, right)
and they settled on the latter. I think in the hurry to report the results they might have not
realised that there was an extra lap involved. I have been assured now that the 46.065 km distance
is the correct one. Subject to UCI ratification at some stage.

Well it seems that Longo is still riding OK so I wonder whether she'll have another crack at it and
up the ante?

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that considered
impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all. Does this mean that in 20 years
time, the next LVM will equal Merckx in the Hour record? I guess it doesn't really matter.

Jeff

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

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

news:b6Geb.712

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That sucks. Why not use photo finish equipment for a better fix on the

real

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

distance?

Dumbass -

Because when they made the rule, that equipment wasn't available. Since

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

current record is compared to the old ones (Merckx, for instance), they

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to use the same standard.

I don't believe it. What archaic logic. The current records (Boardman,

Longo) were all set

Quoted message said:

in the era of digital cameras and electronic timing. There is no reason to

fall back to

Quoted message said:

timing methods of 30 years ago.

They'd have to paint hash marks on the track. If they didn't do that, the "guessing" by looking at
the video, then measuring to that spot wouldn't be all that accurate either.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

news:b6Geb.712

Quoted message said:

>
> That sucks. Why not use photo finish equipment for a better fix on

the

Quoted message said:

real

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> distance?

Dumbass -

Because when they made the rule, that equipment wasn't available.

Since

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

current record is compared to the old ones (Merckx, for instance),

they

Quoted message said:

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to use the same standard.

I don't believe it. What archaic logic. The current records (Boardman,

Longo) were all set

Quoted message said:

in the era of digital cameras and electronic timing. There is no reason

to

Quoted message said:

fall back to

Quoted message said:

timing methods of 30 years ago.

They'd have to paint hash marks on the track. If they didn't do that, the "guessing" by looking at
the video, then measuring to that spot wouldn't

be

Quoted message said:

all that accurate either.

No kidding.

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that considered
impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all.

I think it's rather impressive. BTW, Maître Jacques improved himself to 47.493 km in 1967, still on
the lowland track of Milan, but this was not recognized as an official record because he didn't take
a dope test.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that considered
impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all.

I think it's rather impressive. BTW, Maître Jacques improved himself to 47.493 km in 1967, still
on the lowland track of Milan, but this was not recognized as an official record because he didn't
take a dope test.

ida1.physik.uni-siegen.dehourrecmain.htmOpen ↗

Andy Coggan said:

Ah-ha! So she apparently relied on the Lance Armstrong approach to increase her motivation:

"...A crash while warming up delayed her attempt..."

CyclingNewsNetwork.com Exclusive April 1 2004 The UCI is currently considering sanctions against
competitors who actuate the release of extra adrenaline by means of artificially induced terrestrial
contact. UCI president Hein Verbruggen was quoted as saying that this practice, revolutionized by US
Postal rider Lance Armstrong, was unfair to competitors incapable of inducing artificial terrestrial
contact. It could also lead to disharmony within teams as team managers attempted to find ways of
inducing terrestrial contact for riders in their teams. Ex ONCE manager Saiz is said to be
particularly disappointed as he was planning on practicing this technique with GC contenders in his
team before final ITT's. Phonak GC rider Tyler Hamilton was also disappointed as he is an
acknowledged expert on terrestrial contact, and was looking forward to using his expertise in the
2004 tour.

I'm not talking so much about what Lance himself would claim, but rather those of whom that seem to
consider him to be some sort of cycling God or legend. Apologies on that insinuation.

This woman's accomplishments are utterly amazing. Perhaps they should do the 'ol chromosome test
one her ;-)

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Her palmares show her to be a far more impressive rider than Lance Armstrong. He may have won
the tour 5 times, but this athlete has proven her dominance in several different cycling
disciplines over several years and has repeated her dominance just to prove her point.

I'd put her up with Merckx as far as cycling champions go. Within women's cycling, she has
pushed it almost as far as one can. Lance can not come close to making the same claim.

I don't think Lance would make that claim. He seems to be pretty realistic about his place in
history.

-T

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

Quoted message said:

Other hour record trivia:
- The record for exceeding the existing record is held by Jules Dubois who went 2.85 km further
than Desgrange in 1894.

- The first high altitude record was set in 1898 by American Willie Hamilton in Denver. He remains
the only American record holder, and was the last to do so at altitude until Ole Ritter went to
Mexico City in 1968.

I believe Eddy Merckx still has the fastest first kilometer (1:09.???) of any hour record
setting ride.

Greg Hall

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that considered
impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all. Does this mean that in 20 years
time, the next LVM will equal Merckx in the Hour record?

Here's some stuff from marathoning: marathonguide.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

Robert Chung said:

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that considered
impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all. Does this mean that in 20 years
time, the next LVM will equal Merckx in the Hour record?

Here's some stuff from marathoning: marathonguide.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

These data are completely consistent with a 10% difference.

Top 7 men's results: Name Country Race Place RaceDate 1 2:04:55 Tergat, Paul KEN Berlin 1 9/28/03 2
2:04:56 Korir, Sammy KEN Berlin 2 9/28/03 3 2:05:38 Khannouchi, Khalid USA London 1 4/14/02 4
2:05:42 Khannouchi, Khalid MAR Chicago 1 10/24/99 5 2:05:48 Tergat, Paul KEN London 2 4/14/02 6
2:05:56 Khannouchi, Khalid USA Chicago 1 10/13/02 7 2:06:05 da Costa, Ronaldo BRA Berlin 1 9/20/98

top 5 women's results: 1 2:15:25 Radcliffe, Paula GBR London 1 4/13/03 2 2:17:18 Radcliffe, Paula
GBR Chicago 1 10/13/02 3 2:18:47 N'dereba, Catherine KEN Chicago 1 10/7/01 4 2:18:56 Radcliffe,
Paula GBR London 1 4/14/02 5 2:19:26 N'dereba, Catherine KEN Chicago 2 10/13/02

ratios, assuming a 2:1 competitiveness ratio (ie 2nd in women ~ 3rd in men, 3rd in women ~ 5th in
men, etc...)

1. 1.084
2. 1.093
3. 1.103
4. 1.102

Paula Radcliffe is clearly a very special runner -- better relative to other women than the best men
are to other men. But the populations, even with a 2:1 competitiveness ratio in what is a popular
sport for women, is still clearly chracterized by a 10% speed difference.

for cycling, I used 11%. Close enough 🙂.

Dan

Dan Connelly said:

Robert Chung said:

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that
considered impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all. Does this mean that
in 20 years time, the next LVM will equal Merckx in the Hour record?

Here's some stuff from marathoning: marathonguide.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

These data are completely consistent with a 10% difference.

I posted that not only to show the difference, but also to show the time path. Jeff and others
pointed out that LVM's record is about equivalent to Anquetil's 1956 record; Radcliffe's current
marathon record is about equivalent to the men's record in 1960.

That said, it's not clear to me that looking at record times is the best way to examine these sorts
of questions. These data represent extreme values and the sampling theory of extreme values (and
thus, statistical inference for extreme values) is not well-understood (at least, not
well-understood by me).

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

Quoted message said:

Robert Chung said:

Jeff Jones said:

Also, it's been pointed out that this puts LVM just short of Anquetil in 1956. Is that
considered impressive or not? Anquetil was a pretty decent rider after all. Does this mean that
in 20 years time, the next LVM will equal Merckx in the Hour record?

Here's some stuff from marathoning: marathonguide.comindex.cfmOpen ↗

These data are completely consistent with a 10% difference.

Top 7 men's results: Name Country Race Place RaceDate 1 2:04:55 Tergat, Paul KEN Berlin 1 9/28/03
2 2:04:56 Korir, Sammy KEN Berlin 2 9/28/03 3 2:05:38 Khannouchi, Khalid USA London 1 4/14/02 4
2:05:42 Khannouchi, Khalid MAR Chicago 1 10/24/99 5 2:05:48 Tergat, Paul KEN London 2 4/14/02 6
2:05:56 Khannouchi, Khalid USA Chicago 1 10/13/02 7 2:06:05 da Costa, Ronaldo BRA Berlin 1 9/20/98

top 5 women's results: 1 2:15:25 Radcliffe, Paula GBR London 1 4/13/03 2 2:17:18 Radcliffe, Paula
GBR Chicago 1 10/13/02 3 2:18:47 N'dereba, Catherine KEN Chicago 1 10/7/01 4 2:18:56 Radcliffe,
Paula GBR London 1 4/14/02 5 2:19:26 N'dereba, Catherine KEN Chicago 2 10/13/02

ratios, assuming a 2:1 competitiveness ratio (ie 2nd in women ~ 3rd in

men,

Quoted message said:

3rd in women ~ 5th in men, etc...)

1. 1.084
2. 1.093
3. 1.103
4. 1.102

Paula Radcliffe is clearly a very special runner -- better relative to

other

Quoted message said:

women than the best men are to other men. But the populations, even with a 2:1 competitiveness
ratio in what is a popular sport for women, is still clearly chracterized by a 10% speed
difference.

I used 15% in developing my power profiling tables: www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html -
however, I believe that the error in your thinking is assuming that there's only a 5% difference
between categories (and therefore a 10% difference between cat. 1 and cat. 3). I would argue that it
is more like 10%...which would make the "offset" between women and men to be only 1-1.5 categories.
(Ignore the tables in this regard, as they are *NOT* intended to be used to try to categorize people
- that's what races are for.)

Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

for cycling, I used 11%. Close enough 🙂.

Dan

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

Quoted message said:

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

I used 15% in developing my power profiling tables: www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html -
however, I believe that the error in your thinking is assuming that there's only a 5% difference

between

Quoted message said:

categories (and therefore a 10% difference between cat. 1 and cat. 3). I would argue that it is
more like 10%...which would make the "offset"

between

Quoted message said:

women and men to be only 1-1.5 categories.

<snip>

Dumbass -

That sounds right. A "Cat 3" runner would not be running a 2:15 marathon.

Qualifying for the US Olympic Marathon Trials is 2:22 (for men).

There is no bounds to the Cat 3 Delusion in cycling. Kudos to Connelly for this glorious Cat 3
demonstration.

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

Quoted message said:

I used 15% in developing my power profiling tables: www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html -
however, I believe that the error in your thinking is assuming that there's only a 5% difference

between

Quoted message said:

categories (and therefore a 10% difference between cat. 1 and cat. 3). I would argue that it is
more like 10%...which would make the "offset"

between

Quoted message said:

women and men to be only 1-1.5 categories. (Ignore the tables in this regard, as they are *NOT*
intended to be used to try to categorize

people -

Quoted message said:

that's what races are for.)

I said elswhere that the top women are likely to fall somewhere between Senior Men Cat 1 and Cat 2.
Is that what you are saying?

Nick Burns said:

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

Quoted message said:

I used 15% in developing my power profiling tables: www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/profile.html -
however, I believe that the error in your thinking is assuming that there's only a 5% difference

between

Quoted message said:

categories (and therefore a 10% difference between cat. 1 and cat. 3). I would argue that it is
more like 10%...which would make the "offset"

between

Quoted message said:

women and men to be only 1-1.5 categories. (Ignore the tables in this regard, as they are *NOT*
intended to be used to try to categorize

people -

Quoted message said:

that's what races are for.)

I said elswhere that the top women are likely to fall somewhere between Senior Men Cat 1 and Cat
2. Is that what you are saying?

This isn't in conflict with my assertion, which is that they wouldn't win a Sr2 national
championship. They might win a Sr3 national championship. But maybe not.

WRT Andrew's argument -- clearly the Sr3 field lacks depth. But so does the women's field. I showed
data from the first races I checked, the Tour of Gila time trial and the Mt Evans Hillclimb, which
showed the TOP rider in the Sr3 field is comparable to the best of the women riders. I stand by
that data.

Dan

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

Quoted message said:

This isn't in conflict with my assertion, which is that they wouldn't win a Sr2 national
championship. They might win a Sr3 national championship. But maybe not.

WRT Andrew's argument -- clearly the Sr3 field lacks depth. But so does the women's field. I
showed data from the first races I checked, the Tour of Gila time trial and the Mt Evans
Hillclimb, which showed the TOP rider in the Sr3 field is comparable to the best of the women
riders. I stand by that data.

Dearest Delusional Cat 3 Dumbass -

Can you show me a Cat 3 who would have gotten 20th at the Redlands prologue?

thank you very much.

"Ronaldo Jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

I'll bet Bruce exploded when he heard she'd broken the record.

-RJ

Damn! I can't believe he still hasn't posted.

-T

kaiser said:

Her palmares show her to be a far more impressive rider than Lance Armstrong.

I hear her palmares between the sheets is pretty good too.