Road Cycling · Public discussion

LVM's hour attempt

Started by Andy Coggan · · Last activity · 58 posts · 2,256 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
1 October 2003
Last activity
4 October 2003
Original author
Andy Coggan
Posts
58
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,256
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 58
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

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

    Quoted message said:
    Jeff Jones said:

    cyclingnews.comnews

    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

  2. "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

  3. "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

  4. "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.

  5. "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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.htm

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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.cfm

  12. 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.cfm

    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

  13. 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.cfm


    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).

  14. "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.cfm

    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

  15. "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.

  16. "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?

  17. 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

  18. "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.

  19. "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

  20. 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.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.