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

Norman Alvis - Master's Hour Recoed

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re:

yaco said:
Norman is a great man who won the Herald Sun tour in the 1980's - Actually another forum favorite Shane Sutton won the Herald Sun Tour.
I used to occasionally train with Norm back in the '80s when we both lived in Sacramento. Guy has always been a serious motor. And a really nice guy to boot.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Great to hear your view Kevin, again very much appreciated.
Love your final paragraph there. To simply laugh at them would indeed be the best response.

Keep it up.
 
Apr 10, 2011
63
0
0
Colorado call-out.

Any pro cyclists from Boulder going to try an hour event while the circus tent is up in Colorado Springs?
Control temp, humidity, HVAC and have geriatric personnel with 02 tanks at high flow etc....time to empty the 'fridge, ha!
Certainly going to be someone trying, as a New Zealand master & US junior set marks there last winter.
Not everyone can be excited about CX.....
 
Oct 4, 2011
614
0
0
Re: Re:

nslckevin said:
sniper said:
Much appreciated, Kevin.

Would be interested in your views on the motor issue.
Do you think it is at all an issue, or is it much ado about nothing?
If cyclists can be tempted to stick needles in their arms, certainly they can be tempted to put a motor in their bike, too, especially seeing as there is hardly any testing?
In your view, is motordoping worse than 'old school' doping?
Is there mutual trust among the guys you compete with or are there guys out there you are suspicious of?
I think that motor doping is even more pitiful than drugs. At least a drug doper is still doing to work to get strong (though drug assisted) and doing all of the work themselves on the bike.

On the other hand, I think that e-bikes are a great thing. A friend of mine got his hip replaced and was able to ease back into riding and training on an e-bike where he could still commute without having to generate a whole lot of power. Also a couple of months ago passed a hand cycle on Mt. Diablo that had electric assist. I can't even imagine how hard a 10 mile climb is on a hand cycle and I think the electric assist is great as it opens up more places for those bike to realistically ride.

I am sure that some of the masters guys I race against, whether it's local, nationals or worlds are on the scooby snacks. I have no idea who and my feeling is to not care or think about it. Not that I don't want them to either stop or get busted, but I'm not going to "go there" in races and worry about who is or isn't doping. Some people basically seem to have their local version of the "Millar line" where they just assume that anybody who win's must be cheating. If that's the way a person feels, why even bother? If I get beat, I just assume that on that day somebody, or many somebody's ;-) were better than me that day. If I start to think "they are on drugs", then all I'm doing is giving myself an excuse for losing and giving up. **** that.

I'd be shocked if anybody I race against is motor doping. I think if I found out that somebody was I'd just laugh at them.

Kevin
And you don't think we should question a rider who only has a 2kmph difference over rides 20 yrs apart..
Thats a 34 yr old setting a record at 51.5 km in 1997...then 20 yrs later doing 49.3
Thats a small percentage drop over time, I'm not buying it
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
nslckevin said:
sniper said:
Much appreciated, Kevin.

Would be interested in your views on the motor issue.
Do you think it is at all an issue, or is it much ado about nothing?
If cyclists can be tempted to stick needles in their arms, certainly they can be tempted to put a motor in their bike, too, especially seeing as there is hardly any testing?
In your view, is motordoping worse than 'old school' doping?
Is there mutual trust among the guys you compete with or are there guys out there you are suspicious of?
I think that motor doping is even more pitiful than drugs. At least a drug doper is still doing to work to get strong (though drug assisted) and doing all of the work themselves on the bike.

On the other hand, I think that e-bikes are a great thing. A friend of mine got his hip replaced and was able to ease back into riding and training on an e-bike where he could still commute without having to generate a whole lot of power. Also a couple of months ago passed a hand cycle on Mt. Diablo that had electric assist. I can't even imagine how hard a 10 mile climb is on a hand cycle and I think the electric assist is great as it opens up more places for those bike to realistically ride.

I am sure that some of the masters guys I race against, whether it's local, nationals or worlds are on the scooby snacks. I have no idea who and my feeling is to not care or think about it. Not that I don't want them to either stop or get busted, but I'm not going to "go there" in races and worry about who is or isn't doping. Some people basically seem to have their local version of the "Millar line" where they just assume that anybody who win's must be cheating. If that's the way a person feels, why even bother? If I get beat, I just assume that on that day somebody, or many somebody's ;-) were better than me that day. If I start to think "they are on drugs", then all I'm doing is giving myself an excuse for losing and giving up. **** that.

I'd be shocked if anybody I race against is motor doping. I think if I found out that somebody was I'd just laugh at them.

Kevin
And you don't think we should question a rider who only has a 2kmph difference over rides 20 yrs apart..
Thats a 34 yr old setting a record at 51.5 km in 1997...then 20 yrs later doing 49.3
Thats a small percentage drop over time, I'm not buying it
If environmental conditions and aerodynamics were the same, that speed difference represents a drop of 12% in power output. It was the same rider at the same track so at least the baseline for both is reasonably similar.

Athletes who continue to train as they age experience around a 5-6% drop in VO2max per decade after the age of 30, so that's bang in line with the expected performance difference due to ageing alone.
 
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
nslckevin said:
sniper said:
Much appreciated, Kevin.

Would be interested in your views on the motor issue.
Do you think it is at all an issue, or is it much ado about nothing?
If cyclists can be tempted to stick needles in their arms, certainly they can be tempted to put a motor in their bike, too, especially seeing as there is hardly any testing?
In your view, is motordoping worse than 'old school' doping?
Is there mutual trust among the guys you compete with or are there guys out there you are suspicious of?
I think that motor doping is even more pitiful than drugs. At least a drug doper is still doing to work to get strong (though drug assisted) and doing all of the work themselves on the bike.

On the other hand, I think that e-bikes are a great thing. A friend of mine got his hip replaced and was able to ease back into riding and training on an e-bike where he could still commute without having to generate a whole lot of power. Also a couple of months ago passed a hand cycle on Mt. Diablo that had electric assist. I can't even imagine how hard a 10 mile climb is on a hand cycle and I think the electric assist is great as it opens up more places for those bike to realistically ride.

I am sure that some of the masters guys I race against, whether it's local, nationals or worlds are on the scooby snacks. I have no idea who and my feeling is to not care or think about it. Not that I don't want them to either stop or get busted, but I'm not going to "go there" in races and worry about who is or isn't doping. Some people basically seem to have their local version of the "Millar line" where they just assume that anybody who win's must be cheating. If that's the way a person feels, why even bother? If I get beat, I just assume that on that day somebody, or many somebody's ;-) were better than me that day. If I start to think "they are on drugs", then all I'm doing is giving myself an excuse for losing and giving up. **** that.

I'd be shocked if anybody I race against is motor doping. I think if I found out that somebody was I'd just laugh at them.

Kevin
And you don't think we should question a rider who only has a 2kmph difference over rides 20 yrs apart..
Thats a 34 yr old setting a record at 51.5 km in 1997...then 20 yrs later doing 49.3
Thats a small percentage drop over time, I'm not buying it
If environmental conditions and aerodynamics were the same, that speed difference represents a drop of 12% in power output. It was the same rider at the same track so at least the baseline for both is reasonably similar.

Athletes who continue to train as they age experience around a 5-6% drop in VO2max per decade after the age of 30, so that's bang in line with the expected performance difference due to ageing alone.
Same velodrome (Colorado Springs), but the velodrome is now covered. So, no wind and he gets to ride a front disk. Add in modern skin suits, chain prep, bike, etc. The raw fitness difference is bigger than it looks I think.
 
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:


See, this is the problem with threads like this. You either have no idea of the context of those two numbers or are willfully ignoring them.

1997 - Norm as a pro. OUTDOORS on 1997 technology. No front disk wheel, 1997 skinsuit, etc.
2017 - Norm as a 54 year old. Same velodrome, but covered. INDOORS. i.e. no wind whatsoever. FRONT DISK. FRONT DISK!!! Modern skin suit, modern chain prep a la Wiggins. Modern bike. Ceramic bearings, etc. I'm sure that most of those differences are fairly minor, but they add up. A good skin suit can be worth something like 1 sec/km. That's .33 seconds per lap. That works out to be about 500 meters over the course of an hour.

I don't have a good number for the value of a front disk, but I think that 1 kph is probably pretty reasonable. I'd say it's pretty easy to come up with 1.5-2kph of speed difference based on equipment.

I can tell you from my own experience that equipment changes over the last 20 years have made a huge difference in time trial times. For instance, in NorCal our state TT championship has been on a course in Sattley, CA (altitude 4900' above sea level) since I started racing in 1985. It has recently moved to a different course, but in that same valley, in fact the turn around points of the two courses are probably about 2 miles apart as the crow flies.

Anyway, I set my PR and at the time a course record of 50:57 in about 1995 or so on a Trek road bike w/ disk, tri-spoke front, aero bars, aero helmet, etc. I later got a modern for the time TT bike, but was never able to match that time. Weather, fitness, etc. But in 2009 I upgrade to a Specialized Transition and later a Shiv. At the age of 49 I beat my PR with a 50:11, then 50:17 the next year (national record as I had just turned 50) and two years after that on a magic day weather wise, 49:27, followed up just this year with a 50:16 on a cold windy day.

I can tell you for sure that I am not the cyclist I was in 1995. I go and play with the young kids in some of the hard road races and it's obvious that I don't have the power I once did. As you'd expect. But I improved my 40km time by about 90 seconds at the age of 51. Another data point in that is that back in the day I won the elite state TT 3 times, but now if all the big hitters are out, I'm close to 2 minutes off the pace. The current best time on the Sattley course is just outside John Frey's national record and the best time on the Loyalton course actually beat it but the course wasn't surveyed so no record. It has since been surveyed.

By speeds and time, I am a significantly better time trialist than I was back in my prime 20-25 years ago. But of course, I'm not. Especially when measured against my competition. But the complete package of me + my equipment IS better. I spent 25 years hoping to break 50 minutes for 40 km. As I got older I knew it was a three variable equation of fitness, weather and equipment. In general my equipment was on an upward trend most of those years. My fitness and weather were more variable. I kept hoping for one year I'd show up with the right fitness and the weather would cooperate. In 2013 it did. Arguably I think I had a better ride this last June, but the weather was for *** and I was 49 seconds off my PR.

In the first few years I did that race ('85, '86) I basically rode my normal road bike. 32 spoke box section rims. I'd kind of like to go back and do that again on my current road bike with similar wheels to see what the difference really is. BTW, that first year, a local rider Ron Miller turned a 52:40 on a road bike with spoked wheels (16 front, 18 back I think). That was within about 40 seconds of the national record at the time.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Fantastic post Kevin. Very informative.

However, all this time relatively easy motor tech is available and bike testing is wholly absent. Are you worried about that and have you thought about a solution?
How can you trust those guys who are putting minutes into you? If the cheating is so easy you can bet on it that some will be trying. And those who do try will have a huge advantage over those who dont. That's a simple fact.
I certainly don't see any reason to trust any top TT results. Do you? And to be sure it pisses me off.
The Feds are asleep behind the wheel. Credible cycling is not in sight. What do you think?
 
Re: Re:

movingtarget said:
MarkvW said:
TrackCynic said:
Is there a reason we have age-specific "world records" at all? Surely, the whole point of a world record is it is the very best in the world - if you start adding criteria to it then it all becomes a bit diluted. Now, I realize here in California, masters cycling is more important than elite cycling (but that's another story) but having records for age groups strikes me as a bit needy.
Is there a reason we have old people at all? Surely the whole point of living is domination--if you start considering old people as valuable then it all becomes a bit diluted. Now, I realize there in California, old people are a little more respected than elsewhere (but that's another story) but caring about old people at all strikes me as a bit needy.
When you become old you may think differently. Maybe everyone should be sent to Valhalla when they reach 30 a la Logans Run ?
I'm 50, I couldn't agree with him/her more. Age group record is fine. Age group World Record Strikes me as missling the point. Great to see guys staying fit and competitive. Just don't see the point of calling age group records "World Records". Devalues the term to my mind. Gender distinction I see differently but agree it's subjective.
 
Re: Re:

red_flanders said:
movingtarget said:
MarkvW said:
TrackCynic said:
Is there a reason we have age-specific "world records" at all? Surely, the whole point of a world record is it is the very best in the world - if you start adding criteria to it then it all becomes a bit diluted. Now, I realize here in California, masters cycling is more important than elite cycling (but that's another story) but having records for age groups strikes me as a bit needy.
Is there a reason we have old people at all? Surely the whole point of living is domination--if you start considering old people as valuable then it all becomes a bit diluted. Now, I realize there in California, old people are a little more respected than elsewhere (but that's another story) but caring about old people at all strikes me as a bit needy.
When you become old you may think differently. Maybe everyone should be sent to Valhalla when they reach 30 a la Logans Run ?
I'm 50, I couldn't agree with him/her more. Age group record is fine. Age group World Record Strikes me as missling the point. Great to see guys staying fit and competitive. Just don't see the point of calling age group records "World Records". Devalues the term to my mind. Gender distinction I see differently but agree it's subjective.
The UCI doesn't classify nor call them world records.

They are all called "Masters Best Performances".

UCI World Records are reserved for elite performances and the requirements for establishing and verifying WRs are different to the that required for a "Masters Best Performance" ride.

Here is the current listing for men, which might not be completely up to date with Norm's ride as that would still be going through validation process:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/News/16/60/58/20171010_MastersBestPerformances_MenMasters_Neutral.pdf
 
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re:

sniper said:
Fantastic post Kevin. Very informative.

However, all this time relatively easy motor tech is available and bike testing is wholly absent. Are you worried about that and have you thought about a solution?
How can you trust those guys who are putting minutes into you? If the cheating is so easy you can bet on it that some will be trying. And those who do try will have a huge advantage over those who dont. That's a simple fact.
I certainly don't see any reason to trust any top TT results. Do you? And to be sure it pisses me off.
The Feds are asleep behind the wheel. Credible cycling is not in sight. What do you think?
I'm 56 years old. The guys putting minutes into me are 20-30 years younger than me and at the top of their game. They BETTER be putting a minute or two into me.

I'm sure that there are people who I race against that are taking PEDs. I doubt that it is a huge factor in NorCal level results though. I just can't get worked up about the possibility that occasionally a guy who beats me did it because of drugs. I'm a 56 year old masters racer. I race because it's fun and I like competing and testing myself. Nobody is cheating me out of a paycheck and if somebody gets the $20 prize, or bottle of wine over me because they doped I just don't care that much. If they are, I'd love for them to get caught, or at least quit doping, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That said, I'd love it if USADA showed up 2-3 times per year at local races so that the threat of getting tested felt more real to riders. I think that might scare some people off who might otherwise take PEDs. For the most part now, the only real threat to getting tested is winning at nationals. If you're not going, or going, but know you won't win, you will likely get away with it.

I just don't see any reason to mistrust amateur level results in the US on a large scale. Drug testing now is so much more common than it used to be. I raced as an elite back in the mid-80's to early 90's. I think I once was at a race when there was drug testing. I did a number of western US NRC level stage races, elite nationals, pan am trials and the '88 olympic trials and to my memory there wasn't drug testing. Fast foward to the 90's when I started doing master's races, I did the '96 olympic track trials and there was drug testing there. But I won a number of master's track championship in the 90's. No drug testing. There was drug testing at master's road nationals in 2007, but just a few. 2008 track nationals, none. Starting in about 2010 they got a bit more serious and started testing more of the winners, in 2011, they tested all of the winners in the RR and TT at master's nationals. The following year they tested 1st and 2nd in the RR and TT. Since that time they have been testing most if not all winners at nationals. I haven't been to track nationals since 2008, but they have been doing a significant amount of testing as long as they have on the road side. Also, in recent years they have started showing up at the occasional local race.

I never got tested until I turned 50. Since then I've been tested 9 times, include 4 tests this year. (40km TT record, hour record, 2km record and world track championships team pursuit). Can USADA/USAC do better? Sure. But I think they are making a reasonable stab at it given realistic funding levels.

Go to the USADA website athlete test history: https://www.usada.org/testing/results/athlete-test-history/

Choose 2017, all quarter's, cycling and leave the athlete name fields blank and you'll get a list of all of the USADA tests this year. It is illuminating. And note that this is only tests performed by or at the behest of USADA. i.e., if USADA asks the French anti doping federation to test rider x while they are in France it will show up here. But if rider x wins a UCI race and is tested by the UCI, or WADA, or the French federation it won't show here. In my case, only 1 shows as two of my tests were performed by the Mexican anti doping federation in Aguascalientes and the worlds test was performed by the UCI.

This is a sampling of those results. Note the number of tests on some retired riders (Abbot, Horner, Gaimon, Zirbel), suspended riders (Tommy D)

Athlete Name Test Count
Mara Abbott 4
Norman Alvis 2
Brent Bookwalter 9
Robin Carpenter 5
Katherine E Compton 11
G Lawson Craddock 9
Tom S Danielson 9
Joseph Dombrowski 9
Tyler L Farrar 7
Phillip Gaimon 5
Megan Guarnier 9
Katharine Hall 5
Sarah K Hammer 11
Adrian Hegyvary 5
Daniel Holloway 7
Christopher B Horner 9
Alexander Howes 9
Evan Huffman 5
Colin Joyce 6
Travis McCabe 8
Kevin Metcalfe 1
Amber L Neben 7
Danny Pate 11
Taylor Phinney 6
Jeremy Powers 9
Kiel Reijnen 8
Coryn Rivera 4
Skylar Schneider 6
Lauren Stephens 8
Peter Stetina 9
Andrew Talansky 5
Jennifer Valente 8
Tejay VanGarderen 9
Tayler Wiles 6
Ruth Winder 10
Tom Zirbel 3

I think that USAC/USADA are doing a reasonable job considering the financial constraints. Drug tests are expensive. Each of my tests in Mexico cost me $450 for the lab in Canada to process the samples! I don't think Mexico has a certified lab... They could certainly do more testing, but somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Kevin Metcalfe
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Great stuff Kevin, again very insightful, thanks.
You sound sincere and I do see where you're coming from when you say you're just in it for your own entertainment so why worry too much about what the others are doing.

I'll be rooting for you.
Any races coming up?
 
Re: Re:

nslckevin said:
sniper said:
Fantastic post Kevin. Very informative.

However, all this time relatively easy motor tech is available and bike testing is wholly absent. Are you worried about that and have you thought about a solution?
How can you trust those guys who are putting minutes into you? If the cheating is so easy you can bet on it that some will be trying. And those who do try will have a huge advantage over those who dont. That's a simple fact.
I certainly don't see any reason to trust any top TT results. Do you? And to be sure it pisses me off.
The Feds are asleep behind the wheel. Credible cycling is not in sight. What do you think?
I'm 56 years old. The guys putting minutes into me are 20-30 years younger than me and at the top of their game. They BETTER be putting a minute or two into me.

I'm sure that there are people who I race against that are taking PEDs. I doubt that it is a huge factor in NorCal level results though. I just can't get worked up about the possibility that occasionally a guy who beats me did it because of drugs. I'm a 56 year old masters racer. I race because it's fun and I like competing and testing myself. Nobody is cheating me out of a paycheck and if somebody gets the $20 prize, or bottle of wine over me because they doped I just don't care that much. If they are, I'd love for them to get caught, or at least quit doping, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That said, I'd love it if USADA showed up 2-3 times per year at local races so that the threat of getting tested felt more real to riders. I think that might scare some people off who might otherwise take PEDs. For the most part now, the only real threat to getting tested is winning at nationals. If you're not going, or going, but know you won't win, you will likely get away with it.

I just don't see any reason to mistrust amateur level results in the US on a large scale. Drug testing now is so much more common than it used to be. I raced as an elite back in the mid-80's to early 90's. I think I once was at a race when there was drug testing. I did a number of western US NRC level stage races, elite nationals, pan am trials and the '88 olympic trials and to my memory there wasn't drug testing. Fast foward to the 90's when I started doing master's races, I did the '96 olympic track trials and there was drug testing there. But I won a number of master's track championship in the 90's. No drug testing. There was drug testing at master's road nationals in 2007, but just a few. 2008 track nationals, none. Starting in about 2010 they got a bit more serious and started testing more of the winners, in 2011, they tested all of the winners in the RR and TT at master's nationals. The following year they tested 1st and 2nd in the RR and TT. Since that time they have been testing most if not all winners at nationals. I haven't been to track nationals since 2008, but they have been doing a significant amount of testing as long as they have on the road side. Also, in recent years they have started showing up at the occasional local race.

I never got tested until I turned 50. Since then I've been tested 9 times, include 4 tests this year. (40km TT record, hour record, 2km record and world track championships team pursuit). Can USADA/USAC do better? Sure. But I think they are making a reasonable stab at it given realistic funding levels.

Go to the USADA website athlete test history: https://www.usada.org/testing/results/athlete-test-history/

Choose 2017, all quarter's, cycling and leave the athlete name fields blank and you'll get a list of all of the USADA tests this year. It is illuminating. And note that this is only tests performed by or at the behest of USADA. i.e., if USADA asks the French anti doping federation to test rider x while they are in France it will show up here. But if rider x wins a UCI race and is tested by the UCI, or WADA, or the French federation it won't show here. In my case, only 1 shows as two of my tests were performed by the Mexican anti doping federation in Aguascalientes and the worlds test was performed by the UCI.

This is a sampling of those results. Note the number of tests on some retired riders (Abbot, Horner, Gaimon, Zirbel), suspended riders (Tommy D)

Athlete Name Test Count
Mara Abbott 4
Norman Alvis 2
Brent Bookwalter 9
Robin Carpenter 5
Katherine E Compton 11
G Lawson Craddock 9
Tom S Danielson 9
Joseph Dombrowski 9
Tyler L Farrar 7
Phillip Gaimon 5
Megan Guarnier 9
Katharine Hall 5
Sarah K Hammer 11
Adrian Hegyvary 5
Daniel Holloway 7
Christopher B Horner 9
Alexander Howes 9
Evan Huffman 5
Colin Joyce 6
Travis McCabe 8
Kevin Metcalfe 1
Amber L Neben 7
Danny Pate 11
Taylor Phinney 6
Jeremy Powers 9
Kiel Reijnen 8
Coryn Rivera 4
Skylar Schneider 6
Lauren Stephens 8
Peter Stetina 9
Andrew Talansky 5
Jennifer Valente 8
Tejay VanGarderen 9
Tayler Wiles 6
Ruth Winder 10
Tom Zirbel 3

I think that USAC/USADA are doing a reasonable job considering the financial constraints. Drug tests are expensive. Each of my tests in Mexico cost me $450 for the lab in Canada to process the samples! I don't think Mexico has a certified lab... They could certainly do more testing, but somebody is going to have to pay for it.

Kevin Metcalfe
Thanks, Kevin! you have no idea how refreshing it is to hear a rider such as yourself talk openly and intimately about your experience.

Sounds like you've had a long and successful riding career, good luck at your next race!

Cheers :)
 
Apr 10, 2011
63
0
0
Let's rally behind Norm to go to Aguascalientes next year!
Don't let go of that bike yet Alvis. Get a pair of space legs for Christmas and hire Colby P. instead of Tommy D.
Proven to be a faster track and you have the experience from 2 this year. Bring on wind tunnel testing and the CA anti-aging supplies that are legal.
Tell wifey its a vacation & you'll get the pass for sure.
Should i kickstart the crowdfunding?
 
Oct 4, 2011
614
0
0
Re: Re:

nslckevin said:
noddy69 said:


See, this is the problem with threads like this. You either have no idea of the context of those two numbers or are willfully ignoring them.

1997 - Norm as a pro. OUTDOORS on 1997 technology. No front disk wheel, 1997 skinsuit, etc.
2017 - Norm as a 54 year old. Same velodrome, but covered. INDOORS. i.e. no wind whatsoever. FRONT DISK. FRONT DISK!!! Modern skin suit, modern chain prep a la Wiggins. Modern bike. Ceramic bearings, etc. I'm sure that most of those differences are fairly minor, but they add up. A good skin suit can be worth something like 1 sec/km. That's .33 seconds per lap. That works out to be about 500 meters over the course of an hour.

I don't have a good number for the value of a front disk, but I think that 1 kph is probably pretty reasonable. I'd say it's pretty easy to come up with 1.5-2kph of speed difference based on equipment.

I can tell you from my own experience that equipment changes over the last 20 years have made a huge difference in time trial times. For instance, in NorCal our state TT championship has been on a course in Sattley, CA (altitude 4900' above sea level) since I started racing in 1985. It has recently moved to a different course, but in that same valley, in fact the turn around points of the two courses are probably about 2 miles apart as the crow flies.

Anyway, I set my PR and at the time a course record of 50:57 in about 1995 or so on a Trek road bike w/ disk, tri-spoke front, aero bars, aero helmet, etc. I later got a modern for the time TT bike, but was never able to match that time. Weather, fitness, etc. But in 2009 I upgrade to a Specialized Transition and later a Shiv. At the age of 49 I beat my PR with a 50:11, then 50:17 the next year (national record as I had just turned 50) and two years after that on a magic day weather wise, 49:27, followed up just this year with a 50:16 on a cold windy day.

I can tell you for sure that I am not the cyclist I was in 1995. I go and play with the young kids in some of the hard road races and it's obvious that I don't have the power I once did. As you'd expect. But I improved my 40km time by about 90 seconds at the age of 51. Another data point in that is that back in the day I won the elite state TT 3 times, but now if all the big hitters are out, I'm close to 2 minutes off the pace. The current best time on the Sattley course is just outside John Frey's national record and the best time on the Loyalton course actually beat it but the course wasn't surveyed so no record. It has since been surveyed.

By speeds and time, I am a significantly better time trialist than I was back in my prime 20-25 years ago. But of course, I'm not. Especially when measured against my competition. But the complete package of me + my equipment IS better. I spent 25 years hoping to break 50 minutes for 40 km. As I got older I knew it was a three variable equation of fitness, weather and equipment. In general my equipment was on an upward trend most of those years. My fitness and weather were more variable. I kept hoping for one year I'd show up with the right fitness and the weather would cooperate. In 2013 it did. Arguably I think I had a better ride this last June, but the weather was for **** and I was 49 seconds off my PR.

In the first few years I did that race ('85, '86) I basically rode my normal road bike. 32 spoke box section rims. I'd kind of like to go back and do that again on my current road bike with similar wheels to see what the difference really is. BTW, that first year, a local rider Ron Miller turned a 52:40 on a road bike with spoked wheels (16 front, 18 back I think). That was within about 40 seconds of the national record at the time.

I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that the reduction in performance is right in line with published science on athlete's aerobic capacities as they age, even without considering improvements in equipment. Hence my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2206690#p2206690
 
Oct 4, 2011
614
0
0
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that the reduction in performance is right in line with published science on athlete's aerobic capacities as they age, even without considering improvements in equipment. Hence my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2206690#p2206690
As I said could be wrong- but find it hard to believe Gustav Larson rides 50.016 and you still do over 49 no matter what the circumstances. Unfortunately that's where I'm at as a cycling fan. Think a few others on here probably feel the same- they just get a bit star struck when challenged.
Ultimately you know how you did it and my opinion doesn't count for records.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that the reduction in performance is right in line with published science on athlete's aerobic capacities as they age, even without considering improvements in equipment. Hence my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2206690#p2206690
As I said could be wrong- but find it hard to believe Gustav Larson rides 50.016 and you still do over 49 no matter what the circumstances. Unfortunately that's where I'm at as a cycling fan. Think a few others on here probably feel the same- they just get a bit star struck when challenged.
Ultimately you know how you did it and my opinion doesn't count for records.
You do realise that the W/CdA demand for riding 49km at COS is nearly 20% lower than that required to do 50km at Manchester?
 
Oct 4, 2011
614
0
0
Re: Re:

Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that the reduction in performance is right in line with published science on athlete's aerobic capacities as they age, even without considering improvements in equipment. Hence my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2206690#p2206690
As I said could be wrong- but find it hard to believe Gustav Larson rides 50.016 and you still do over 49 no matter what the circumstances. Unfortunately that's where I'm at as a cycling fan. Think a few others on here probably feel the same- they just get a bit star struck when challenged.
Ultimately you know how you did it and my opinion doesn't count for records.
You do realise that the W/CdA demand for riding 49km at COS is nearly 20% lower than that required to do 50km at Manchester?
Yep- No matter what the circumstances covers that part.
 
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
Alex Simmons/RST said:
noddy69 said:
I'm not ignoring them. The difference in equipment for speed has to be noted but I'm not buying that's all it is. Good detailed answer but doesn't really answer deteriation of stamina/power over a 20 year period into ones 50's. Just my opinion and if its wrong so be it, its just with cycling its usually the easy answer that's correct.
Yet you are ignoring the fact that the reduction in performance is right in line with published science on athlete's aerobic capacities as they age, even without considering improvements in equipment. Hence my earlier post:

viewtopic.php?p=2206690#p2206690
As I said could be wrong- but find it hard to believe Gustav Larson rides 50.016 and you still do over 49 no matter what the circumstances. Unfortunately that's where I'm at as a cycling fan. Think a few others on here probably feel the same- they just get a bit star struck when challenged.
Ultimately you know how you did it and my opinion doesn't count for records.
You do realise that the W/CdA demand for riding 49km at COS is nearly 20% lower than that required to do 50km at Manchester?
Yep- No matter what the circumstances covers that part.
I think that Alex and I are wasting our time, but what the heck...

Here is some data from a one hour test run I did last December at Hellyer Velodrome in San Jose, CA. (Outdoor velodrome)

At the time the WR for my age group (55-59) was 47.773km. The US record was 45.019. I went 45.57km that day. Rob Van Houweling was there with his Kestrel weather station and laptop based timing system. I gave him my power data and he crunched the numbers. The results are in the spreadsheet below. Long story short all else being equal the models said that in Aguascalientes that ride would translate to 49.07 to 49.51 depending on the model. That is without acclimatization. When I went to Aguascalientes last July I ended up riding 49.121. All that to give you some real data to back up the model.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2j2tha6jqe4u9ke/Speed_Power_SeaLevel_Altitude_Kevin.xls?dl=0

If Gustav Larson did his ride in CoS of Aguascalientes he would have gone a hell of a lot farther than 50km.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.
 
Re: Re:

noddy69 said:
Yep- No matter what the circumstances covers that part.
It clearly does not.

I get it, there is a trust deficit in sports. But just because someone has unsupported suspicions doesn't mean the sciences of physics and physiology are nonsense. You don't just get to hand wave such things away.

I've coached and assisted many hour rides and know that of those, three were masters who all did in the 48-48.5km range at sea level. They were all capable of 49.7-50.2km at Aguascalientes.

And to add to Kevin's data I also have data from another rider (I'll leave their name out of it as it's a disservice to have their name appear in a clinic thread) who had hour rides at both LA and Aguascalientes indoor tracks with similar form, and the increase in distance attained was also right in line with the model.
 
Apr 10, 2011
63
0
0
Of the dozen pro riders who have done the 'new' hour mark in the last couple years, only Decker went to Mexico. As Kevin stated, the cost of a record attempt there is less than half the cost of 1 of their road bikes! This fact makes the riders, support crews and pro teams involved seem very irrational. What is the reason for NOT going there?
Perhaps Alex could talk some sense into Dowsett, Wiggins, et al.

I kind of like Mexico.......
 
Re:

UncleChainwhip said:
Of the dozen pro riders who have done the 'new' hour mark in the last couple years, only Decker went to Mexico. As Kevin stated, the cost of a record attempt there is less than half the cost of 1 of there road bikes! This fact makes the riders, support crews and pro teams involved seem very irrational. What is the reason for NOT going there?
Perhaps Alex could talk some sense into Dowsett, Wiggins, et al.

I kind of like Mexico.......
I can't speak for them but keep in mind you'd need several weeks to acclimate. And Wiggo sold out the velodrome in London in a matter of minutes, so there is the half a million bucks it brought in that would never happen at Aguascalietes. For other pros with team racing responsibility, being afforded the time to devote to preparation is mostly likely the main problem. It doesn't earn any UCI points.

Going to altitude is hardly novel. Merckx's hour record was set in Mexico City.
 
Apr 10, 2011
63
0
0
Re: Norman Alvis - Master's Hour Record

Mexico has fast tracks but they are NOT completely enclosed. I say go to CO Springs and bribe the HVAC techs as the tent has no windows and you got to have "some air circulation". Oh yeah, control the temperature and humidity too. Columbia and Ecuador also muy rapido. Hell, pull out all the stops and put the overlay flooring in the sprint lane and shower curtains in the curves (like Braun, Longo & Moser did}-----except this time in La Paz!
Would be glad to help. Sounds like Alex would too......
 
Jul 22, 2009
143
0
0
Re: Norman Alvis - Master's Hour Record

UncleChainwhip said:
Mexico has fast tracks but they are NOT completely enclosed. I say go to CO Springs and bribe the HVAC techs as the tent has no windows and you got to have "some air circulation". Oh yeah, control the temperature and humidity too. Columbia and Ecuador also muy rapido. Hell, pull out all the stops and put the overlay flooring in the sprint lane and shower curtains in the curves (like Braun, Longo & Moser did}-----except this time in La Paz!
Would be glad to help. Sounds like Alex would too......
Looks pretty enclosed to me...

https://www.instagram.com/p/BWg6gAtA1Jf/
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS