The Hour Record attempt by Jens Voigt (18.09.2014)

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

Jen's would want to at least beat the current masters fattie hour record (set using pursuit bike regs) which is 49.361km.


Years off your life? It's one hour at threshold. I'd suggest there are worse things than that for one's life expectancy.

 

[murali]

after reading 5 pages of this thread, i just dont understand what all this fuss is really about.

jensie wants to ride bike, profile is flat, eurosports is showing it live. what more do you guys want?

 

[yespatterns]

after reading 5 pages of this thread, i just dont understand what all this fuss is really about.

jensie wants to ride bike, profile is flat, eurosports is showing it live. what more do you guys want?

I'd like Jens to go away.

 

[jaylew]

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:

If you want people to hear you, you might start with not insulting them.

 

[murali]

Impossible. now on, we will be listening to jensie along with kirby and magnus.

i just hope that he wont say more stupid things than them.

 

[jaylew]

So many grumpy, jaded people around here. Maybe the guy became a bit of a caricature in the last year or so but he provided us with a lot of entertainment over the years so I'm certainly willing to cut him some slack. He won some tough races and was never afraid to do what most people around here say they want to see riders do - go on the attack. He's the perfect guy to renew some interest in the event among the public before the heavy hitters give it a go over the next few years.

Go Jens!

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

You must be a Froome fan!

Wrong, and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Echoes]

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.

Apologies but reading your former post, I had reasons to think it was about me, since I'm about the only one to defend the real rule regarding the Hour.

Again, I'm pretty liberal regarding grips, bike weight, etc. What matters in this thread are devices that cut air resistance and nothing but that. Again I don't recall anybody in the UCI having said anything about clipless pedals. Since 1984 the UCI has always been progressive, lax and liberal. It's amazing that you consider them conservative.

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

Again if we stick to the topic - the Hour record -, the Merckx record had been re-instated because the "next" ones by Francesco Moser broke the rule on aerodynamics. It's not because it was Merckx. I saw this comment as a reply to the CN article re Voigt: "Why should every bit in cycling be measured by "Merckx"?" As if his record was re-instated because of his personality...

And sorry but this slogan "life moves on, technology moves on" kinda bores me. As if we were to accept everything new. Then why not accept sneaking an electric engine into the saddle tube? How dare you slow down Progress? Some new tech might be ethical and permitted and others not. Aerobars, disc wheels, "funny frame", aero helmets should never have been permitted.

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.

I rather agree with that but it's the choice that the UCI has made a century ago and it's essential to stick to it for the sake of consistency. Coppi, Merckx, Ritter, etc were not allowed to aero bikes while some already existed in their era, so why should modern riders be?

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.

ITT should favour the aerodynamically gifted riders. It's obvious.

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.

Again there has never been any rules by the UCI re these topics (to my knowledge). Though race organizers did set up rules.

The UCI only combatted aerodynamics, until 1984.

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?

I was waiting for the altitude argument but even though it gives a significant advantage to the rider compared to his predecessors, altitude has never been illegal. The ruling only regarded devices on the bike, not on the planet. When Ritter made his attempt in Mexico, the contemporaries thought it was a revolution. As a matter of fact, there was a precedent: Willie Hamilton in 1896.

Why aren't these factors not controlled? I actually don't know. I just accept the fact that they are not and never have been while aerodynamics has been controlled for a century.

 

[M Sport]

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:

"Les machines de tous types sont légales, équipées ou non de composants tels que changement de vitesse, roues libres, etc., à condition qu'elles fonctionnent seulement par la force de l'homme, qu'elles ne requièrent pas d'appendice ou dispositif pour réduire la résistance de l'air et qu'elles n'excèdent pas les dimensions de 2 mètres en longueur et 75 centimètres en largeur. Ceci s'applique aux machines à un seul cycliste qui occupent une seule file".

It's ok being a parrot when you are right, but when you are wrong you just sound like a stuck record.

The rule forbid additional aerodynamic components/accessories. Wheels are not additional components. An additional accesory under the 1914 rules was something like a fairing.

The discussion around the legality of disc wheels was done to death in the 80's and 90s (1984 onwards). Merckx lost the protest under the rules of the day and the Moser bike was deemed legal, as were others that broke the record subsequent to Moser, and track teams that used discs on the track that year.

They (aero wheels) were retrospectively banned years later, and now made legal again this year. Today they are as legal as they were in 1984 with just some clarification around what makes a 'legal' disc.

 

[Echoes]

Wheels are essential components to a bike, that is true and the rule forbids additional components, that is also true.

But the discs are not. Moser's wheels had spokes and the discs covered them (if I trust the article that I posted above). So they were additional and only intended to minimize air turbulence. The wheels were functional without them.

Merckx lost the protest because the UCI were too lax with their own rules, if not corrupt. There must be a reason if his performance was re-instated and not any other.

Merckx claimed he was supplied with similar wheels in 1972 and not given permission. I don't know if it's true but it can be verifiable, I think.

Also the differentiate wheels were these legal?

 

[doperhopper]

Jensie option: goes to a crazy suicidal breakaway and gest caught.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The rule forbid additional aerodynamic components/accessories. Wheels are not additional components. An additional accesory under the 1914 rules was something like a fairing.

You can both be right. You just have to pick a year to be right.

These kinds of rules are mind numbing and vary over time, but something the UCI must manage. It just depends on what they decide to enforce.

All of this is made triply complex because critical components can be fared to ridiculous levels, thus creating more rules.

 

[53x11 in DC]

Wrong, and irrelevant to the discussion.

The joke was actually funny, in an innocent way. Lighten up.

 

[contador977]

The hour record at the end of a career by a 40+ yr old? I dont understand the logic here. A 60 minute Trek TV commercial is what this is.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Jen's would want to at least beat the current masters fattie hour record (set using pursuit bike regs) which is 49.361km.


Years off your life? It's one hour at threshold. I'd suggest there are worse things than that for one's life expectancy.

Yeah, I always thought the same thing. Hard burst like during a classic wear you out a lot faster than riding at threshold. Obree did the hour twice in less than 24 hours so make of that what you will.

 

[avanti]

The hour record at the end of a career by a 40+ yr old? I dont understand the logic here. A 60 minute Trek TV commercial is what this is.

Why not? It is good for Jens, good for Trek, good for TV coverage, and good for cycling (especially track racing). It will be the beginning of a blitz on the hour record around the world. Oh yes - good for cycling fans - I once watched a successful hour record attempt; it was a great experience.

 

[ralphbert]

Doubling up a post from ahem "the Clinic":

Using this tool:
http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/timetrialanalysis.aspx

It has a CdA for Yens @ 0.2492 = 408.43W to break the record, at the crank, selecting a wooden track. So possible but wow, it is going to hurt. So yeah, that's not going to be much fun.

I'm not sure where there CdA's are from or how accurate they are but interesting none the less.

 

[ralphbert]

Yeah, I always thought the same thing. Hard burst like during a classic wear you out a lot faster than riding at threshold. Obree did the hour twice in less than 24 hours so make of that what you will.

Yes you would think that but when you ride over threshold you quickly crack and can then recover. Riding at threshold for extended periods you can push deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. Merckx did plenty of classics and he said he would never attempt an hour record again. Boardman said it was the hardest thing he had ever done. Obree has wires missing in his head (in a good way).

In not saying it is going to kill anyone but don't underestimate how hard it is. The Hour by Michael Hutchinson is a great book on his (failed) attempted.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Yes you would think that but when you ride over threshold you quickly crack and can then recover. Riding at threshold for extended periods you can push deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole. Merckx did plenty of classics and he said he would never attempt an hour record again. Boardman said it was the hardest thing he had ever done. Obree has wires missing in his head (in a good way).

In not saying it is going to kill anyone but don't underestimate how hard it is. The Hour by Michael Hutchinson is a great book on his (failed) attempted.

Well anyone that rides flat TTs of about an hour's duration and puts in maximal effort will know how hard riding a longish TT is. Of course it's hard when you are trying to wring every last cent out of yourself, but you can only do what you can do and it's hardly life threatening. Guys do these sorts of maximal hour long efforts every week. Just not as fast as top pros because they are not as talented.

Having coached three of the current master's hour records, I have a pretty fair idea of what they do come race day, and it's not that much different to what they regularly do in training. The difficulty is as much psychological as it is physiological.

No such thing as a race day miracle. Jens and his team should have a pretty fair idea by now of the achievable target. If not, then I'm available for some specialist consulting advice on preparation

 

[King Boonen]

Apologies but reading your former post, I had reasons to think it was about me, since I'm about the only one to defend the real rule regarding the Hour.

Again, I'm pretty liberal regarding grips, bike weight, etc. What matters in this thread are devices that cut air resistance and nothing but that. Again I don't recall anybody in the UCI having said anything about clipless pedals. Since 1984 the UCI has always been progressive, lax and liberal. It's amazing that you consider them conservative.

It was a general point, because people constantly pick at the UCI rules on here, rightly sometimes but mostly wrongly.

I don't consider the UCI conservative, although in some cases I think they are, I consider the fans conservative. Always harking back to the past and wanting to compare everything to the riders who have come before. That's fine, but it shouldn't get in the way of allowing the sport to progress.

Again if we stick to the topic - the Hour record -, the Merckx record had been re-instated because the "next" ones by Francesco Moser broke the rule on aerodynamics. It's not because it was Merckx. I saw this comment as a reply to the CN article re Voigt: "Why should every bit in cycling be measured by "Merckx"?" As if his record was re-instated because of his personality...

Sorry, didn't read the article, but I'm sure the fact that it was Merckx had just a little bit to do with it.

And sorry but this slogan "life moves on, technology moves on" kinda bores me. As if we were to accept everything new. Then why not accept sneaking an electric engine into the saddle tube? How dare you slow down Progress? Some new tech might be ethical and permitted and others not. Aerobars, disc wheels, "funny frame", aero helmets should never have been permitted.

What about carbon frames? Or even aluminium ones? It seems very obvious what technology and advances should be allowed and want shouldn't. making comments about motors is just hyperbole.

 

[Pantani_lives]

What's more likely to happen on Thursday?

A. Jens Voight breaks the hour record.
B. Scotland votes for independence.

 

[ralphbert]

Having coached three of the current master's hour records, I have a pretty fair idea of what they do come race day, and it's not that much different to what they regularly do in training. The difficulty is as much psychological as it is physiological.

You obviously have more experience the matter, I bow to your opinion

 

[Bumeington]

Doubling up a post from ahem "the Clinic":

Using this tool:
http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/timetrialanalysis.aspx

It has a CdA for Yens @ 0.2492 = 408.43W to break the record, at the crank, selecting a wooden track. So possible but wow, it is going to hurt. So yeah, that's not going to be much fun.

I'm not sure where there CdA's are from or how accurate they are but interesting none the less.

That looks a typical CdA for a non aerobar set up, will be much easier with new rules, only ~360W required

 

[Boeing]

If jens does it imagine what Tony Martin would do to this record? Like double it?

 

[Bavarianrider]

This"record" is beyond pathetic, he'll only need to go about 380Watts to break the Sosenka record on his areo TT bike. There are like 500riders in the world who could do that without any special preparation.