Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-17-05, 10:30 PM   #1
cyclezen
OM boy
Thread Starter
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,010
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Watts of the Titans

feeling guilty that I inadventantly hijacked the "Is wattage output directly linked to calories burned?" thread, so moving it here for anyone else interested in these impressive performances...
here's posts todate:

Back to 'Watts of the Titans' of the hour record...
Found this way cool page on Hour Record Holders, has great tech numbers for all the hour record holders.
the numbers just blow me away! and then I scroll down to Eddy's Numbers - gawd...
I remember reading about all of them, since Ole Ritter's record in 68, its been great to follow these when they were announced. Shame they regressed the record back, tech innovation is part of the sport. it certainly doesn't negate Ole or Eddy's efforts. Cycling is about man and machine and as each improves, so should the distances...
Anyway, my next fun project is to accummulate a full series of pics with each of the Hour Holders on the equipment they used - would be a fun comparo...
-----------
posted by Fuzzthebee:
Indurain averaged 510 watts for his 1 hr record, and he weighed 81 kilos.
-----------
then posted by moi:
This would be HUGE numbers if so. Where did these come from?
A fairly large disparity between whats listed on the page, for both Mig's avg wattage and his lsited weight at the attempt.
I can only assume the Bikecult page directly quotes UCI listed stats; since there are no references listed and the Biblio page is not done - who really knows where these numbers come from. Although the actual hour record numbers are as i;ve read from other sources.

BTW, near the bottom of the page, Jeannie Longo's numbers are no less impressive, especially in prespective of her size. I couldn't imagine any guy close to her size coming up with the numbers she produced.
cyclezen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-05, 10:51 PM   #2
spunky
Senior Member
 
spunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Check out the weight of Eddy's bike: 5.75 kilos? That's gotta' be a typo. That's only 12.65 lbs. They must mean 7.55 kilos.
spunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-05, 04:56 PM   #3
fuzzthebee
bzzzz
 
fuzzthebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Bikes:
Posts: 360
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I believe the power outputs were estimated in those days. Anyways here is a link to a paper on Indurain's record:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...591&query_hl=4
fuzzthebee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-05, 11:12 AM   #4
sch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain Brook. AL
Bikes:
Posts: 2,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
The weight is likely correct. These are track bikes after all, single speed gearing, no shifters, no brakes, no cables. Even then light weight road bikes were made in the 17# range, so 12.7# after taking off all auxiliary parts is quite believable.
Steve
sch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-05, 12:24 AM   #5
spunky
Senior Member
 
spunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 473
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sch
The weight is likely correct. These are track bikes after all, single speed gearing, no shifters, no brakes, no cables. Even then light weight road bikes were made in the 17# range, so 12.7# after taking off all auxiliary parts is quite believable.
Steve
Maybe so. But all the other bikes are in the 7 kg range and up. Doesn't make sense why Eddy's would be 2kg lighter back in the day when the technology wasn't changing as fast as it is today.
spunky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-05, 11:25 AM   #6
sch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mountain Brook. AL
Bikes:
Posts: 2,976
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
After looking at the charts you were getting your info from one other thing occurred. There was a LOT of experimentation in the 80's and 90's with aero equipment: addons on the bike, full disc wheels, fancy frames and bars etc all of which add weight to the bike. One bike was listed at 11kg! Eddy, otoh used a standard DF track bike with spoked wheels that was optimized for light weight without loss of strength. As many have commented weight of the the bike is most significant in acceleration and hour riders accelerate only once. A bike with an extra 5# weight but 3-5% lower drag will go a lot further at speeds above 30mph over an hour. The UCI became alarmed at the technology involved and for that reason disallowed one of Chris Boardman's records and promulgated rules as to bike appearance and weights defining limits on "official UCI bikes". Pix of some of the bikes shows how extreme they became before these rules were put into effect. Eddy Merckx and Ole Ritter rode 'standard bikes'. Most of the others were optimized for aero purposes in some way. This is why the bike weights are so different.
Steve

Last edited by sch; 11-23-05 at 11:02 AM.
sch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-05, 09:45 AM   #7
cyclezen
OM boy
Thread Starter
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Bikes: a bunch
Posts: 3,010
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sch
After looking at the charts you were getting your info from one other thing occurred. There was a LOT of experimentation in the 80's and 90's with aero equipment: addons on the bike, full disc wheels, fancy frames and bars etc all of which add weight to the bike....
... Eddy Merckx and Ole Ritter rode 'standard bikes'. Most of the others were optimized for aero purposes in some way. This is why the bike weights are so different...
Steve
Being an old codger, and having been, and still afflicted with cycling for quite a few decades; I have accumulated stacks of 'old' stuff; including some of the most important things (to me) - articles and writeups on stuff going back to the early 70's
Ran across the Bicycling article - July 74 - covering Merckx's Hour Record Ride and his bike...
and since I post at least one of these articles on a weekly basis in 'Vintage Forum' - here's a link to the article - Eddy's Record Ride & Bike
a search for 'vintage word' will prolly scare up some of the other stuff I've posted there...
cyclezen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-05, 02:43 PM   #8
bing181
Gios
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: France
Bikes: Pinarello Rokh, Look 586, Merckx Corsa 01
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spunky
Check out the weight of Eddy's bike: 5.75 kilos? That's gotta' be a typo. That's only 12.65 lbs. They must mean 7.55 kilos.
No, no typo. I read a recent article with Ernesto Colnago in which he says that that hour-record bike was about the best bike he ever built (or words to that effect .. can't find it now).

FWIW, Merckx was asking for mods and changes to the bikes constantly. Colnago says that in one year he built him 22 different bikes, each built for a specific race.
bing181 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:19 AM.