Hour Record Rules Revisted/Revised

Mar 31, 2009
232
0
0
The change is a good idea, but it should have been done a long time ago.

First, there are records on illegal bikes: Boardman, Rominger, Indurain, and Obree. None of their bikes qualify now.

Second, the only records to compare are Mercyx and Boardman on the 72 bikes. The rules (especially spokes and rims) are a little over the top.

The plans to change the rules to 'any legal track bike' have caused Cancellara to temporarily suspend his hour plans. Why use an old 72 bike if Martin would be allowed to use an aero frame with disc wheels? And there isn't any bike design that can match the Lotus with the Superman position.

Personally, I want to see if Cancellara can do 50 on an old bike. I say he can come close. More exciting to me is a 20k effort, where Boardman and Mercyx are tied.

To me, there is no perfect solution. I don't want to see the rules changed just to make Cancellara happy or to bury the current record holders. (Let's not worry about Sosenska)
 
TShame said:
The change is a good idea, but it should have been done a long time ago.

First, there are records on illegal bikes: Boardman, Rominger, Indurain, and Obree. None of their bikes qualify now.

Second, the only records to compare are Mercyx and Boardman on the 72 bikes. The rules (especially spokes and rims) are a little over the top.

The plans to change the rules to 'any legal track bike' have caused Cancellara to temporarily suspend his hour plans. Why use an old 72 bike if Martin would be allowed to use an aero frame with disc wheels? And there isn't any bike design that can match the Lotus with the Superman position.

Personally, I want to see if Cancellara can do 50 on an old bike. I say he can come close. More exciting to me is a 20k effort, where Boardman and Mercyx are tied.

To me, there is no perfect solution. I don't want to see the rules changed just to make Cancellara happy or to bury the current record holders. (Let's not worry about Sosenska)
Eddy's bike would not qualify either, my friend.:)
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,165
0
0
You can add Moser to the list of bikes that are now illegal.
I don't mind the traditional record but I really wish we could see attempts on legal Track Bikes with all the current tech. By all the marketing hype on AERO we should see superman (Obree) times fall too.
 
Jan 20, 2010
554
0
0
TShame said:
TAnd there isn't any bike design that can match the Lotus with the Superman position.
I would say a monocoque frame with the Obree tucked position would be quicker, the superman position was Obree's second innovation after the old faithful with tucked position was banned.

Anyway, I say let them go at it now with any legal track bike. Why the hold up? I would imagine they are deciding whether to allow the super bikes back in some way or another.
 
Feb 18, 2013
459
0
0
Night Rider said:
Anyway, I say let them go at it now with any legal track bike. Why the hold up? I would imagine they are deciding whether to allow the super bikes back in some way or another.
Yeah lets have 2 records - the 72 and the other. Lets see what modern technology and kit can do.
 
It makes little sense to have track records for kilo and pursuit using one set of rules and the hour record another.

Just normalise them to the pursuit bike rules of the day.

Even those rules changed this year.
 
Jan 20, 2010
554
0
0
Justinr said:
Yeah lets have 2 records - the 72 and the other. Lets see what modern technology and kit can do.
I would prefer they stay with legal track bikes i.e what is available now as per current track rules. Put Fabian on a similar bike that Bobridge broke the pursuit record with and get it on. If the UCI made that ruling right now you could have Cancellara, Wiggins and Martin lined up ready to break the record by the end of the year.
 
Cookson has no cycling culture !!


The UCI had already cancelled several attempts against the Hour record long before Moser.

We have the case of Marcel Berthet. It wasn't exactly cancelled because Berthet made his performances knowing full well the UCI wouldn't accept it but still...

In 1933, Marcel Berthet set hour performances of 48.600km and then 49.992km despite the age of 47. It means that he was faster than Merckx, Boardman 2000 and Sosenka.

Berthet rode on a streamlined bike, not sanctioned by the UCI of course and as I said he knew it before setting them. So it was just for fun.



In 1934, Francis Faure broke Oscar Egg's Hour record by more than 800m: 45.055km vs 44.247km. This time it was first considered a new record before the UCI decided to cancel it (I think Egg lodged a complaint but that needs verif. ;))



My point is that first those two men set the first "best hour performances" as they are known today, though that label appeared long after their death.

..and second, more importantly, if the UCI had already acted against some new technology added to a bike in a long time past, why shouldn't they act again? They had set precedents in the thirties, so why should they suddenly become more liberal?

After all lenticular wheels and funny bike frames were not sanctioned by the UCI in 1984, so normally, Moser's records are illegal. The problem is that the UCI acted 16 years later while they should've cancelled it straightway. But it remains that it was illegal and they should've done what they have done for Francis Faure.
 
Jan 20, 2010
554
0
0
Echoes said:
After all lenticular wheels and funny bike frames were not sanctioned by the UCI in 1984, so normally, Moser's records are illegal. The problem is that the UCI acted 16 years later while they should've cancelled it straightway. But it remains that it was illegal and they should've done what they have done for Francis Faure.
Can't speak for your comments about the 1930's (I wasn't around then) but as far as Moser's bike was concerned it was within rules of 1984. Take a look at the American team pursuit bikes of the 1984 Olympics for a comparison.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,165
0
0
Night Rider said:
Can't speak for your comments about the 1930's (I wasn't around then) but as far as Moser's bike was concerned it was within rules of 1984. Take a look at the American team pursuit bikes of the 1984 Olympics for a comparison.
Boardman's bike was legal at the time too. Moser's bike is illegal because of wheel sizes being unequal and 1 wheel being too big. Obree's bikes were legal for a short while too.
 
Jan 20, 2010
554
0
0
Master50 said:
Moser's bike is illegal because of wheel sizes being unequal and 1 wheel being too big.
Perfectly legal at the time a well, it wasn't until much later that smaller size front wheels were banned.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,165
0
0
Night Rider said:
Perfectly legal at the time a well, it wasn't until much later that smaller size front wheels were banned.
The Lugano charter made a lot of previously legal bikes Illegal. that part is hard to reconcile the records that were broken under them. to make things interesting I just read a brand new rule for riders taller than 1.9 meters or about 6'3". You should read about it in the next few days. This makes the Merckx bike the standard to compare records. I like the absolute record idea better. any currently legal track bike set up for time trials/pursuits.
 
Night Rider said:
Can't speak for your comments about the 1930's (I wasn't around then)
Then why don't you just google up? There's plenty of info on the whole Internet about Marcel Berthet and Francis Faure.

If Faure's record on a recumbent is not sanctioned by the UCI, I fail to see why Moser's records and all those that came after him should.
The whole contest has been falsified in 1984. I have heard comments by Theo Mathy claiming that it's always been said air penetration enhancement was prohibited. After all Merckx could have taken a recumbent to break the hour. It existed by then but was not accepted...

Night Rider said:
but as far as Moser's bike was concerned it was within rules of 1984. Take a look at the American team pursuit bikes of the 1984 Olympics for a comparison.
My source is this article by Philippe Brunel from L'Équipe ...
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2524/001qgo.jpg

It's an article about Fignon's refusal to start the GP Eddy Merckx in 1989 because UCI official Mr Ledent refused to let him use the tri-bars ... That's another story ...

But 4§ before the end Brunel says:

"Eddy Merckx se rangea du côté de Fignon, bien que le retrait de ce dernier amputait sa course d'une grande partie de son intérêt. Lui-même se souvint du malaise qu'il avait éprouvé lorsque Francesco Moser l'avait dépossédé de son record de l'heure en utilisant des roues lenticulaire bien avant qu'elles ne soient soumises à l'homologation. Quelques mois plus tard, Laurent Fignon avait enregistré une profonde désillusion dans le Giro 1984 où ce même avantage technologique avait permis au Trentinois de lui ravir le maillot rose dans la dernière étape."

Eddy Merckx sided Fignon despite the fact that the latter's retirement took off his race from a huge part of its interest. He recalled the uneasiness he felt when Francesco Moser had disowned him from his Hour record, using lenticular wheels long before they were submitted to approval. A few months later Laurent Fignon experienced a deep disillusion in the 1984 Tour of Italy in which the same technological advantage enabled Moser to take the Pink jersey from him in the last stage.


How can a technological improvement be legal when it's not submitted to approval by the UCI?
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,165
0
0
No one submitted much to the UCI back then before the Lugano charter. Frankly even during the early period of the LC the UCI was worse than incompetent at bike position. They hired a guy who was some ergonomist and pseudo engineer that could not explain anything in a manner that could be translated to a measurement. Some more recent staff changes and we start getting rational adjustments. I look forward to a bike certification program like we have for electrical products and many other things like cars. That is afoot generally for all bicycles with special programs for racing bikes.
The rules around morphology just underwent an overhaul and in the next couple of days another change for very tall riders over 190cm will give them a little more cockpit space.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Master50 said:
The Lugano charter made a lot of previously legal bikes Illegal. that part is hard to reconcile the records that were broken under them. to make things interesting I just read a brand new rule for riders taller than 1.9 meters or about 6'3". You should read about it in the next few days. This makes the Merckx bike the standard to compare records. I like the absolute record idea better. any currently legal track bike set up for time trials/pursuits.
I much prefer the idea of severely restricting the equipment. Just like the Japanese restricted keirin equipment. It cuts out the tech advantage.

However, I also follow HPV events. I'm not against improving the technology.

You might find this TED talk about tech advantage interesting:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

But you know something else? I would be willing to bet that an economic analysis of the bicycle industry over the past 40 years would tell us that the profitability of the industry as a whole has dramatically increased, BECAUSE of the tech improvements. I'd be willing to bet that a carbon frame represents way more profit - even adjusted for inflation - than even a top of the line Columbus or Reynolds steel frame.

This thought is not really OT, either. Not when you consider that many of the improvements we've seen in TT have seen bleeding edge application in record attempts.

And the profitability of the bicycle industry? How is that pertinent, you ask? The whole racing environment today is dependent, to a degree, on the profitability of the bicycle industry, no? That would include hour attempts.
 
hiero2 said:
I much prefer the idea of severely restricting the equipment. Just like the Japanese restricted keirin equipment. It cuts out the tech advantage.

However, I also follow HPV events. I'm not against improving the technology.

You might find this TED talk about tech advantage interesting:

http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger

But you know something else? I would be willing to bet that an economic analysis of the bicycle industry over the past 40 years would tell us that the profitability of the industry as a whole has dramatically increased, BECAUSE of the tech improvements. I'd be willing to bet that a carbon frame represents way more profit - even adjusted for inflation - than even a top of the line Columbus or Reynolds steel frame.

This thought is not really OT, either. Not when you consider that many of the improvements we've seen in TT have seen bleeding edge application in record attempts.

And the profitability of the bicycle industry? How is that pertinent, you ask? The whole racing environment today is dependent, to a degree, on the profitability of the bicycle industry, no? That would include hour attempts.
Yes, my friend, as I stated in the original post in this thread
it has been frame, wheel and component manufacturers that
have been pushing for a return of the Absolute Hour Record.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
oldcrank said:
Yes, my friend, as I stated in the original post in this thread
it has been frame, wheel and component manufacturers that
have been pushing for a return of the Absolute Hour Record.
That would make sense. Sorry if I missed something! What with threads going on for such long times, I get a lot of the TLDR feelin', ya know?

EDIT: Hold on, wait a sec wait a sec. This thread is only 2 pages long. Wtf? I got to this thread from somewhere else somehow and did not realize I had changed threads. For only two pages - yer right. Your OP made that specific observation. My apologies, if you feel they are due.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
Justinr said:
Yeah lets have 2 records - the 72 and the other. Lets see what modern technology and kit can do.
I agree with this position. I think let the standard hour record be on the '72 qualified equipment.

Put all the rest in a new hour record category. This is what I meant when I referred to the HPV competitions.

I also agree that Obree's tech ideas will be improved on, if people are allowed to innovate.
 
hiero2 said:
That would make sense. Sorry if I missed something! What with threads going on for such long times, I get a lot of the TLDR feelin', ya know?

EDIT: Hold on, wait a sec wait a sec. This thread is only 2 pages long. Wtf? I got to this thread from somewhere else somehow and did not realize I had changed threads. For only two pages - yer right. Your OP made that specific observation.My apologies, if you feel they are due.
Not at all, my friend, I only referenced my earlier
post to illustrate that we were in agreement.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,659
0
0
oldcrank said:
Not at all, my friend, I only referenced my earlier
post to illustrate that we were in agreement.
Well, shucks. If you agree with me, all I can say is you are a wise and intelligent person. Chapeau!
;)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
shaines General 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts