Merckx's comments a few years back were to the effect of "I could win the Tour now on the bike I had then". He was saying this as a bike manufacturer.
If Contador & Froome were here they would have ridden much faster and Nibali would have kept up as well. But boy did they ride slow today. It was like a Sunday group ride with the Dad's.CycloAndy said:First 'clean' winner of Hautacam in years
They had SRM data from all his training, so had a pretty good idea of his capability and aerodynamics and rolling resistance, as well as environmental conditions for each attempt.Dear Wiggo said:I thought those figures were estimated?
But there is also this:At the speeds typically attained during time trials on a velodrome, decreased aerodynamic drag provides a more substantial benefit. In theory, this more than compensates for the reduction in V. O2max up to approximately 3200 to 3500m, which is the optimal altitude for 2 to 40km time trials, allowing times 4 to 4.5% faster than at sea level.
But both studies are a little old.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Nov;31(11):1665-76.
Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data.
Bassett DR Jr1, Kyle CR, Passfield L, Broker JP, Burke ER.
The world hour record in cycling has increased dramatically in recent years. The present study was designed to compare the performances of former/current record holders, after adjusting for differences in aerodynamic equipment and altitude. Additionally, we sought to determine the ideal elevation for future hour record attempts.
The first step was constructing a mathematical model to predict power requirements of track cycling. The model was based on empirical data from wind-tunnel tests, the relationship of body size to frontal surface area, and field power measurements using a crank dynamometer (SRM). The model agreed reasonably well with actual measurements of power output on elite cyclists. Subsequently, the effects of altitude on maximal aerobic power were estimated from published research studies of elite athletes. This information was combined with the power requirement equation to predict what each cyclist's power output would have been at sea level. This allowed us to estimate the distance that each rider could have covered using state-of-the-art equipment at sea level. According to these calculations, when racing under equivalent conditions, Rominger would be first, Boardman second, Merckx third, and Indurain fourth. In addition, about 60% of the increase in hour record distances since Bracke's record (1967) have come from advances in technology and 40% from physiological improvements.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:
To break the current world hour record, field measurements and the model indicate that a cyclist would have to deliver over 440 W for 1 h at sea level, or correspondingly less at altitude. The optimal elevation for future hour record attempts is predicted to be about 2500 m for acclimatized riders and 2000 m for unacclimatized riders.
The Mexico City track was at 2300mMerckx index said:This is a very interesting talk by David Epstein, author of The Sports Gene, a book which I have discussed here before. He points out that Eddy Merckx’s hour record was extended only 10 m by Boardman, when he was restricted to a similar bike. Sosenka later added about 250 m to that, but he also tested positive several years before and after that record. Merckx did set his record at over 2000 meters altitude, which would provide a significant aerodynamic advantage, though some of that would be lost because of the reduced oxygen levels. I think the most favorable estimates are that he might have gained 2-3% in speed, though most subsequent attempts have been at sea level, by choice of the riders.
Rogers' peak 20 minute power came during the climb up the Porte de Balés where he held 441 watts, 6.09w/kg. During the entire climb Rogers held 428 watts, 5.91w/kg. for 35:16
He was 23 years old and had just done the Giro (where he got 11th while being a dom), so that's a really stupid remark. You don't measure one's prior level by picking a bad performance, instead you should measure his better/best early performances and compare those with his currently better/best performances.Race Radio said:Some like to say that Nibali is winning now that the race is slower (Less doping) that he has always been at this level......He was 4 minutes slower in 2008.
Valverde talked about a headwind today, likely true in the 2nd 1/2 of the climb
13th on the day (though hardly matters).hrotha said:Was it a bad performance, though? He was 9th (12th if you include the CERA guys).
Oh brotherNetserk said:He was 23 years old and had just done the Giro (where he got 11th while being a dom), so that's a really stupid remark. You don't measure one's prior level by picking a bad performance, instead you should measure his better/best early performances and compare those with his currently better/best performances.
I expected as much from Benotti, but I honestly thought you wouldn't post such garbage.
Here's a different data point for you: in 2007 he rode faster up Zonc (where drafting doesn't mean all that much) than everyone else did in 2010 and 2011 except Basso and Anton. That means he was faster than Evans, Scarponi, Contador and himself. He was 22 years old and it was his first GT.
23 year old does his 2nd and 3rd GT back-to-back and isn't great in the 3rd. Then you use a single performance from that 3rd GT to show he has had a massive improvement (compared to his perhaps single best climbing performance ever), despite the fact that he had performed much better before that.Race Radio said:Oh brother
Given your habit for cherry picking and obfuscation your outrage over comparing the same rider on the same climb is comical.
Belief in a flat earth is a myth. But there were very compelling scientific arguments for geocentrism back in the day, which made perfect sense with the data they had at the time.acoggan said:I don't believe that there was ever any scientific evidence that the Earth was flat. Even if there was, however, it didn't expire simply due to old age - science just doesn't work that way.
The correct response would have been this as it would add context to the discussion......instead you made it personal, tossing out insults like "Stupid" and "Garbage".Netserk said:23 year old does his 2nd and 3rd GT back-to-back and isn't great in the 3rd.
I called your post stupid, not you. Truth is that your post was stupid and it was garbage, as I said something I expected from Benotti, not you, as I actually don't think you're stupid. Great thing you showed how it was done, instead of (as the only one) responding with an ad hominem. I see that in your two responses so far, you haven't addressed the content of my posts.Race Radio said:The correct response would have been this as it would add context to the discussion......instead you made it personal, tossing out insults like "Stupid" and "Garbage".
That science marches on, or not, but doesn't just die of old age.hrotha said:Belief in a flat earth is a myth. But there were very compelling scientific arguments for geocentrism back in the day, which made perfect sense with the data they had at the time.
Same could apply to old, especially pioneering studies on this field. Science marches on.
Not sure what you're arguing to be honest.
Yes, but, huh, no one argued it did. "That study is old so take it with a grain of salt"="As more data has been looked at since it was published, its findings may not be valid anymore or may need to be qualified".acoggan said:That science marches on, or not, but doesn't just die of old age.