The Hour Record attempt by Jens Voigt (18.09.2014)

[jens_attacks]

bad luck because eurosport already invited him to be part of the team

i think he should take a 5 year break too, it's de marchi time now

 

[markene2]

not anymore, there were two

uci recognizes now all of them in the same category but for one reason, sosenka's is regarded as the official record.

sosenka said that he wants to challenge cancellara he's waiting for him to set the first serious record

Are you serious? That would be Awsome!!

 

[Cannavaro]

I think a fair comparism is the 51.840 km effort of Moser in 1994.

Moser retired in 1987 and celebrated the the tenth anniversary of his hour record by another attempt. If Voigt cannot beat this, it is nothing more than a joke for me. Although i must admit that Moser was assisted by Michele Ferrari.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

According to many posters here, it would seem that Usain Bolt's 100m WR should not stand, as he was not wearing a woollen vest, tweed jodphurs and leather brogues as the first record breakers did (well, might have done). Records are about progression, and progression is in the science of the sport, training, facilities, nutrition and equipment.

Should those trying to break Merckx' record only need pass the drug-testing regime to which Merckx was subjected?

If some people want to try to do museum cycling to see how they compare with those who used what was at the time the best equipment and preparation they could, that is fine, and maybe there will be interest and willing sponsors, but don't confuse that with a record.

If a record attempt is on a track, then any thing that is permissable on a track time trial (and only that which is permissible on a track time trial) should be allowed. If, over time, what is allowed changes, well so be it.

 

[Echoes]

You don't get it really, Armchair ... Besides I thought doping discussions were tabu (sic) on this section?

Article 31 of the UCI ruling in 1914 clearly tolerates any kind of technological advancement AS LONG AS they are not devices to cut wind resistance. Whether you like it or not, it's the way it always went in cycling from Oscar Egg to Eddy Merckx. This means that Merckx had a more advanced bike than Coppi did (much lighter) but no device to cut wind resistance were added to it and hence it was legal. It means that Boardman was entitled to use clipless pedals during his Hour performance, even if Merckx had clips because this new tech didn't cut air resistance.

If this rule was not enforced, Merckx, Coppi, Archambaud, Rivière, Bracke, etc would have had to use a faired recumbent to break the Hour because the performances that they had set were NOT the fastest performances in an hour in their time, and so no records by your reasoning. Marcel Berthet and Francis Faure covered longer distances in the 1930's.

I don't see why Berthet's and Moser's bikes should be treated differently. They were both motivated by research in aerodynamics. Only there had been evolution in 50 years but the idea was the same.

And if I'm breaking all the fun, then I'd have to reply that Cookson did it before me. Cancellara was on his way to breaking the Hour record, the real one, the only one and Cookson stopped him from doing so because of his shameless reform. I would have loved to see Cancellara going for it. Why did Cookson do that, just at that time ???

If anything should be permissible on a bike, then we may as well add an electric engine to it and then even my granny can break it.

 

[avanti]

That of course, I agree.

In your opinion, is this an honest and serious attempt, or just a marketing/attention seeking stunt?

It is both.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You don't get it really, Armchair ... Besides I thought doping discussions were tabu (sic) on this section?

Article 31 of the UCI ruling in 1914 clearly tolerates any kind of technological advancement AS LONG AS they are not devices to cut wind resistance. Whether you like it or not, it's the way it always went in cycling from Oscar Egg to Eddy Merckx. This means that Merckx had a more advanced bike than Coppi did (much lighter) but no device to cut wind resistance were added to it and hence it was legal. It means that Boardman was entitled to use clipless pedals during his Hour performance, even if Merckx had clips because this new tech didn't cut air resistance.

If this rule was not enforced, Merckx, Coppi, Archambaud, Rivière, Bracke, etc would have had to use a faired recumbent to break the Hour because the performances that they had set were NOT the fastest performances in an hour in their time, and so no records by your reasoning. Marcel Berthet and Francis Faure covered longer distances in the 1930's.

I don't see why Berthet's and Moser's bikes should be treated differently. They were both motivated by research in aerodynamics. Only there had been evolution in 50 years but the idea was the same.

And if I'm breaking all the fun, then I'd have to reply that Cookson did it before me. Cancellara was on his way to breaking the Hour record, the real one, the only one and Cookson stopped him from doing so because of his shameless reform. I would have loved to see Cancellara going for it. Why did Cookson do that, just at that time ???

If anything should be permissible on a bike, then we may as well add an electric engine to it and then even my granny can break it.

My essential premise is that a record attempt on a track ought to allow anything that is allowed in track time trialling, and only those things: your response totally ignored that.

 

[oldcrank]

If anything should be permissible on a bike, then we may as well add an electric engine to it and then even my granny can break it.

There is also a UCI Derny-paced Hour Record, my friend.
I am not aware of any woman attempting it, so in the
name of gender equality perhaps your Granny could
set a bench mark for other women to follow. She may
have to be on the bio-passport though.

 

[Echoes]

1) you were caricaturing my post and I don't like that.

2) All these ugly bike should not be permitted in track ITT either.

Benotti summed up my thought nicely: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1575489&postcount=281

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

1) you were caricaturing my post and I don't like that.

2) All these ugly bike should not be permitted in track ITT either.

Benotti summed up my thought nicely: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1575489&postcount=281

Cycling is a sport that is about performance, not aesthetics. Its about being fastest within the rules, not about looking pretty.

 

[kingjr]

Cycling is a sport that is about performance, not aesthetics. Its about being fastest within the rules, not about looking pretty.

A professional sport is about whatever the audience wants it to be about. If it's not, then no one watches.

 

[King Boonen]

Funny how people always moan about silly, antiquated rules the UCI stick to, then get all uppity about them not sticking to one from 1914...

 

[Akuryo]

We'll have to wait until 2016 for Tony Martins attempt. He said after his extention with OPQS that he wants to give it a try shortly after Rio in 2016 if everything goes as planned.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

uci recognizes now all of them in the same category but for one reason, sosenka's is regarded as the official record.

Given they appear to be permitting use of a bike that meets individual pursuit bike rules (which is in fact not clear from their own new rules), then it is a rather strange decision. Boardman set the IP and world hour record using same bike set up rules in a short space of time.

Even Merckx's hour record bike didn't meet the recently changed hour bike rules.

And what about altitude's impact on such records? Why is that not also a consideration given it has a massive impact on speed?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I keep repeating like a parrot but pseudo cycling fans will never hear me that the article 31 of the UCI ruling in 1914 clearly defined what a bike is:
...

Which roughly translates by (I'm speaking under francophone posters' control):

Machines of all kinds are legal, equipped or not of components such as gear shifting, freewheels, etc on the ground that they are functioning by the only strength of man, that it does not require any appendix or device to cut wind resistance and that it does not exceed a length of 2m and a width of 75cm. This applies to the machines with only one cyclist who occupies only one line.”

Given that ordinary handlebars enable one to change position on a bike and result in an ability to cut wind resistance, then should not handlebars also be banned under this antiquated definition?

It says nothing about recumbents. Most would easily fit within the 2m x 75cm rule and other definitions there.

 

[Echoes]

Funny how people always moan about silly, antiquated rules the UCI stick to, then get all uppity about them not sticking to one from 1914...

Okay dude, you'll have to show me where I said that rules the UCI stick to are ... antiquated because all I've rather said is that the current guys who run the UCI are dangerous modernists, in every aspects.

And yeah the spirit behind this 1914 rule has to be kept. Should be revised because it's old ??? Okay so now, torture has been abolished in the 18th century. That is too old, I suggest re-establishing torture ...

Oh and if you want to find contradictions in my reasoning, I can strike back. I'm sure that many of my contradictors would often moan at Cookson for whatever reasons but this discussion shows that when it matters, they always swear allegiance to whom it must ...

Given that ordinary handlebars enable one to change position on a bike and result in an ability to cut wind resistance, then should not handlebars also be banned under this antiquated definition?

Well dropped bars had existed since the early days of professional cycle racing... I don't know if you are being facetious but dropped bars have always been legal, no other devices to cut wind resistance were allowed. That's how it always went.

Besides, according to this website (author being in favour of aerodynamics): 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. (though well, the diving funny frames should be illegal as well)

It says nothing about recumbents. Most would would easily fit within the 2m x 75cm rule and other definitions there.

I did not wish to talk about recumbent here because it would have been too long and off-topic but yeah they modified the ruling in 1934 after Francis Faure "broke" Oscar Egg's record on a recumbent and in order to cancel it.

It was a time when the UCI still had some authority and gave credibility to this Hour contest ...

 

[King Boonen]

Not every post is about you Echoes.


People (not you specifically, people) moan about level saddles in TTs, non-modification rules like grip tape or lawyer tabs, bike weights etc. but now the UCI are being slightly progressive and allowing modern tech people are up in arms.

I do not understand why people always want to compare everything to Merckx. Life has moved on, cycling has, technology has.

 

[yespatterns]

Obviously trek wants to sell bikes, and Jens loves attention. Which is fine. I like the idea of a traditional spec'd time (think keirin/njs) for the purists, and best human effort for the spectacle and bike company pr. Btw there should really be a 'shut up Jens' option in the poll.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well dropped bars had existed since the early days of professional cycle racing... I don't know if you are being facetious but dropped bars have always been legal, no other devices to cut wind resistance were allowed. That's how it always went.

Besides, according to this website (author being in favour of aerodynamics): 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. (though well, the diving funny frames should be illegal as well)



I did not wish to talk about recumbent here because it would have been too long and off-topic but yeah they modified the ruling in 1934 after Francis Faure "broke" Oscar Egg's record on a recumbent and in order to cancel it.

It was a time when the UCI still had some authority and gave credibility to this Hour contest ...

My point is that the rules are arbitrary and at what point something is/is not permitted is also arbitrary. So saying that one bike set up rule is right and another is wrong is highly subjective and really only a matter of opinion.

Since air resistance accounts for 90% of the resistance forces of a riding during an hour record attempt, then it's not simply a matter of who is most powerful, but who is also the slickest through the air.

Some rider's are more aerodynamically gifted than others, in the same way that some are more aerobically powerful than others.

Some riders gain a greater advantage moving from standard mass start set up to a TT style set up than others will. So "Merckx" rules favour some while "TT/pursuit style" bike rules favour others. Which is fairer? You really can't say as it's so subjective.

It's all so arbitrary, and saying that one set of bike rules is a superior test to compare riders is pretty meaningless. Likewise comparing riders who used substantially different rules is also meaningless.

But because of the dominant impact of aerodynamics, even very small differences in equipment rules can have significant impact on the outcome. e.g. no event would be permitted today without using a helmet. Clothing today is not the same as used 40 years ago. Pedals. Spokes. Tyres. and so on it goes. All subtle differences which have not insignificant impacts when metres count.

Where do you draw the line? Even Merckx's hour record bike didn't meet "modern Merckx bike" rules.

Why do we not consider altitude, or the the track surfaces used, or the environmental controls used in indoor velodromes nowdays? These are also major factors that affect outcomes. Why are they not controlled for as well?

 

[ralphbert]

Cycling is a sport that is about performance, not aesthetics. Its about being fastest within the rules, not about looking pretty.

You must be a Froome fan!

 

[ralphbert]

I am a fan of creating the new rules allowing a modern bike without being stupid about it. Yens will have his work cut out for him, I can only imagine how wild his concrete mixer pedal stroke will be for the last 10min. Merckx said his attempt took years off his life and he would never attempt it again. So yeah, Yens might be telling more than his legs to shut up.

 

[jaylew]

According to many posters here, it would seem that Usain Bolt's 100m WR should not stand, as he was not wearing a woollen vest, tweed jodphurs and leather brogues as the first record breakers did (well, might have done). Records are about progression, and progression is in the science of the sport, training, facilities, nutrition and equipment.

Should those trying to break Merckx' record only need pass the drug-testing regime to which Merckx was subjected?

If some people want to try to do museum cycling to see how they compare with those who used what was at the time the best equipment and preparation they could, that is fine, and maybe there will be interest and willing sponsors, but don't confuse that with a record.

If a record attempt is on a track, then any thing that is permissable on a track time trial (and only that which is permissible on a track time trial) should be allowed. If, over time, what is allowed changes, well so be it.

I do not understand why people always want to compare everything to Merckx. Life has moved on, cycling has, technology has.

I agree with these. So glad they're allowing TT bikes. Times change

 

[Jancouver]

I am a fan of creating the new rules allowing a modern bike without being stupid about it. Yens will have his work cut out for him, I can only imagine how wild his concrete mixer pedal stroke will be for the last 10min. Merckx said his attempt took years off his life and he would never attempt it again. So yeah, Yens might be telling more than his legs to shut up.

You can be sure that they have already run some tests prior to announcing this attempt. Jens and Trek would never attempt this on real "Merckx" bike but I guess the aero advantage from his bike/helmet/skinsuit is so great that even Jens has a shot at Sosenka's record.

I''m OK with the rule change but I think it would be epic to see Cancellara or Wigo riding the "traditional" bike. Too bad we will never witness that

 

[Mountain Goat Cyclist]

I am very much undecided on how Jensie will go with this attempt. I think there is a fair chance that he may not be able to break Sosenka's record - but nevertheless I have tipped him to go 50-51km in the hour.

There is no greater person than old Jensie to make this attempt though, and kickstart epic battles in the future.

I really hope that people like Wiggins, Cancellara and Martin follow suit.

 

[Mountain Goat Cyclist]

I agree with these. So glad they're allowing TT bikes. Times change

It's taken some convincing but I think that if it takes the UCI changing the rules to get current professionals having a genuine attempt at this again, then as fans we are much better off.

Comparisons to past legends would be ideal on the Merckx bike, but of course never really possible as times change like you said.