• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Hour Record Rules Revisted/Revised

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 3, 2011
1,837
0
0
Pack Fodder said:
Why not just have two track records - two valid techniques and specs - one called the "Merckx' hour and the other the 'Modern' hour?
exactly! more records, more fun, media coverage, money, love and world peace

maybe they should also add categories like "superman", "obreeman", "lyingman", and several levels of aerodynamic covers (something like paralympic handicaps reversed) - and using nowadays computer modelling technology one can even calculate the "headstart coefficient" and compare them
 
Suedehead said:
Some people gain relatively less improvement than others do in aerodynamics (speed) when moving from a regular bike set up to a TT bike set up, so it's no surprise that the bike standard chosen will favour different riders.

It's possible that FC might have the W/CdA needed on the standard bike to do better than 49.x km, but not the W/CdA required on a pursuit rig to do 56.x km (which although not the official record to beat, I think is the one most people would consider to be the distance to beat).
 
May 8, 2009
767
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Some people gain relatively less improvement than others do in aerodynamics (speed) when moving from a regular bike set up to a TT bike set up, so it's no surprise that the bike standard chosen will favour different riders.

It's possible that FC might have the W/CdA needed on the standard bike to do better than 49.x km, but not the W/CdA required on a pursuit rig to do 56.x km (which although not the official record to beat, I think is the one most people would consider to be the distance to beat).
No way is anyone beating 56.375 when Boardman had cdA values reported between 0.17 and 0.185. Even you yourself have (I think) estimated Boardman's W/cdA on this site as ~2400, which would require >500W for Cancellara to come close to
 
Mar 31, 2009
232
0
0
Released New Rules!

New ruling released, any legal track bike record will stand.
So why is Sosenska listed as number one?
I though Pierce beat his record with legal track bike.
He rode a Felt bike. Why doesn't his record count?
 
I think you are confused, my friend. Colby Pearce
(if that is who you are talking about) did two
'hours' last October. The 49.8km was full aero,
the other, 46.3km, was Athlete/Merckx rules.

EDIT: actually one hour was in late September,
and one ride was early October and the 'Merckx
rules' distance Colby achieved was 46.452km.
according to the USA Cycling web-site.
 
TShame said:
New ruling released, any legal track bike record will stand.
So why is Sosenska listed as number one?
I though Pierce beat his record with legal track bike.
He rode a Felt bike. Why doesn't his record count?
Putting aside the need for notification to UCI and UCI international commissaire to oversee the attempt, the attempt was made before the rule change was announced.

Are the new rules published yet? I'm assuming they mean pursuit bike set up will be what's permitted, but it's not clear to me from the press release that's actually the case. The rule might mean any legal mass start track bike. There's quite a difference in bike set up rules for different track events.

What's strange is that the pursuit record Boardman set in 1996 using same set up as his 56.375km hour record, stood until Bobridge set a new pursuit record in 2011, yet the hour record has been set to Sosenka's mark.

That makes no sense to me, and is why I am wondering if the actual rules for the hour might be mass start bike rule, and not pursuit bike rule, i.e. permitting aero frames and wheels, but not aero bars or helmets.
 
Mar 31, 2009
232
0
0
oldcrank said:
I think you are confused, my friend. Colby Pearce
(if that is who you are talking about) did two
'hours' last October. The 49.8km was full aero.
The 'full aero' bike that he used (as I stated) was a Felt bike. It was a legal track bike with a legal saddle/handlebar position. You may be confusing it with his previous record (over 50k) on the Lotus bike.
 
Mar 31, 2009
232
0
0
What's strange is that the pursuit record Boardman set in 1996 using same set up as his 56.375km hour record, stood until Bobridge set a new pursuit record in 2011, yet the hour record has been set to Sosenka's mark.
That is because Boardman's bike and handlebar position is illegal under 2014 rules. Same with Obree, Rominger, and Indurain.

Was Moser's bike legal according to today's rules? No. It would be disqualified for illegal tube bends and non-standard front wheel.
 
TShame said:
That is because Boardman's bike and handlebar position is illegal under 2014 rules. Same with Obree, Rominger, and Indurain.
Then why did Boardman's 1996 4km pursuit record remain in the UCI record books for 15 years until 2011 when Bobridge broke it? It was the same set up as the hour record bike and similarly not compliant with 2014 rules.

Based on that logic we must discount all previous records whenever bike set up rules change, which they have done again this year, twice.
 
TShame said:
The 'full aero' bike that he used (as I stated) was a Felt bike. It was a legal track bike with a legal saddle/handlebar position. You may be confusing it with his previous record (over 50k) on the Lotus bike.
Yes, my friend, the Felt he rode 49.8 km. on was legal
for the Masters Hour. I thought you meant it was legal
for the Athlete's/Merckx Hour rules that where in effect
at the time of his ride (for which, of course, it was not
legal).
 
Of course we all know Sir Brad likes having a little
fun at the expense of the media, but if it turns out
that he does go for the Hour in 2015 on a Pinarello,
(as he indicated today at a Pinarello event in Italy)
I will be very, very interested to see what kind of
masterpiece Fausto and Co. come up with for the
occasion, knowing that it will supposedly also need
to be available to the general (well-heeled) public.
 
Jan 12, 2012
215
0
9,030
Alex Simmons/RST said:
BTW - the new hour bike rules are still ambiguous and need clarification.
And not only the bike rules:

&quot said:
For the last few months (since the UCI change the rules) Matt Bottrill has been training for an attempt at the hour record. We have combed the rules and we have a bike, equipment and position which are UCI legal thanks to his sponsors. As you have all seen he is in the form of his life and from the testing we have done 52-53km looks possible.
But we have now been told by the UCI that because of a requirement that is not in the rules we cannot make the attempt and neither can 99.999% of cyclists. You need to be on the biological passport system (which only World Tour and Continental Professional cyclist are on). For any other world record on the UCIs books - 200m, kilo, 4km pursuit an amateur cyclist could set the record and there is no requirement for a biological passport at the time you set the record (although you might be required to join it at some point). It seem that the UCI are making the rules up as they go along in order to make sure only their golden boys like Tony Martin, Bradley Wiggins and Fabian Cancellara are the only people who can attempt it. Where would Chris Boardman and especially Graeme Obree be if they didnt have the hour record to springboard their careers?
Today Matt is going to start a twitter conversation with Brian Cookson to try an find out why they dont tell people what the rules are clearly on the UCI's website. Isn't that the point of publishing the rules? Why the rules for this record are different to the others? Why they dont want amateur cyclists to attempt world records if they are capable of setting them? It all smacks of the crony-ism that thwarted Obree and that Cookson was elected to try and root out.
So if you are on twitter please follow Matt and retweet his questions so the UCI and media pick up on it.
https://twitter.com/BottrillMatthew
Bob
 
Yes, I was aware that was coming as well.

It's a nonsense. UCI (or perhaps just the President) is not following/upholding their own rules.

For reference with respect to doping control and world records, UCI rules 3.5.009, 3.5.010 and 3.5.018 apply. They are pretty clear.

At present there is no requirement that a rider attempting or seeking to have a UCI WR validated needs to be part of the bio-passport program (which includes the hour record and other world records as defined in that section of the UCI rulebook).

Just to be clear: I'm totally OK if the UCI wants to change its rules and I'm not against the idea of the bio-passport per se, but:

i. the UCI must go through proper process to obtain agreement on the change and notify of the rule change, as is required for all UCI rules

ii. the rules must be published for all to see, not be something made up on a whim, or applied to some and not to others

iii. the rule must apply equally to all records and all licence holders

At the moment, it appears the President has decided to make a rule up.

The UCI published changes to the hour record rules recently with some minor fanfare. A Bio-passport requirement was not one of those changes. It's not like the world record rules don't already have doping clauses to remind them to consider such things.
 
May 20, 2010
694
0
0
Ad-hoc rules management

I understand that the Bio passport is not open to all and therefore is exclusive.

It is also effectively a retrospective excluding requirement. As such it should only be applied in the future with sufficient notice. This notice, accompanied by other suitable amendments, would allow "qualified" * parties to make a valid attempt at the record.

In the alternative the UCI sits on its hands and allows an inequitable/marginalizing rule structure to remain.

*party with appropriate resources.
 
Night Rider said:
Perfectly legal at the time a well, it wasn't until much later that smaller size front wheels were banned.
It was definitely illegal!



http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm
Starting in 1982 Kyle and others developed the technical configuration for the US Olympic Cycling Team for the '84 olympics in Los Angeles. Some aerodynamic components already existed beforehand, e.g. the aero helmets of the Czechoslovakian team. But now for the first time the complete system of the bicycle and rider was aerodynamically optimized. UCI regulations specify a conventional seating position and also forbid any aerodynamic accessories. Not forbidden, however, is the aerodynamic arrangement of functionally necessary components.
This means for example that covering a spoked wheel with plastic sheet is forbidden, since this has no basic function - it serves only aerodynamics. It is different however, if the wheel has so few spokes that it is not sufficiently stable in itself for racing applications and sufficient stiffness can be achieved only by the additional basic function of the disk (made from composite material).
 
Mar 31, 2009
232
0
0
Matthias Brändle

So now we are up to Matthias Brändle's attempt. He plans to attack the 52 k mark. For Wiggins, yes. I think this will prove a bit much, probably leading for 20 minutes, a plateau for another 10, then a bit of a crash, spiraling down to maybe barely keeping afloat of Jens. Jens is by far not the fastest and he didn't use super aero technology. The opportunity is there. But there is a huge difference in doing 52 on the road and 52 on the track, especially a 200 track over a 250. More turns equals more lost meters each lap. I'm excited to watch though. I'm curious when the super long helmets come out.
 
TShame said:
More turns equals more lost meters each lap.
Not necessarily. The length of turns are about the same as a 250 track, the straights are a lot shorter.

If you can ride good lines you actually get an advantage in the turns as your centre of mass travels a shorter distance than the wheels, and it's at the COM where most of the resistance force is applied.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
shaines Track Cycling 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS