Originally Posted by
Maelochs
Except, of course, that flexibility on a track and in steady-state riding (even at massive power output) is nothing at all like road riding---smooth track, smooth pedalling, minimal longitudinal acceleration ...... nothing like sprinting, or climbing at max power ..... so your data input is a meaningless as anyone else's.
So far this whole thread is basically, "Yes, because I said so .... No, because I said so" repeated continually.
By the way ... maybe if he had been riding a modern Merckx bike that hour record would be significantly faster.
Originally Posted by
63rickert
Merckx did first kilo in 1:12. Try doing that, then tell me about steady state riding. Would also note here that for the way he was trained and the way racers rode back then Merckx was massively overgeared to be accomplishing such a quick first kilo.
Okay ... the old "if you can't do it you can't understand it" fallacy. So a physicist and a physician who can measure every aspect of a barbell, and the weightlifter, can track with video and sensors the entire performance of the bar and the lifter, and can do all the math to fully understand how the lift was done, how fast the bar was moving at a given time, how much it flexed, how much the lifter's body changed shape under load ... not to mention heart rate, BP, respirat6ion, whatever else .... don't know crap because they cannot make the lift.
Right.
Secondly .... YES, as you chose to overlook most likely because you had no logical refutation and had already blown your illogical refutation above ... there is No Direct Correlation between frame stiffness and frame "performance" in those very different examples. You can choose not to see stuff, but it doesn't go away, sorry.
On top of all that ....
Originally Posted by
63rickert
The Eddy Merckx hour record, still unbeaten after 49 years, was done on a Colnago built with Reynolds 22/28 butted tubes. In old style skinny diameter. Converting British wire gauge to metric gives wall thickness of 0.711/0.376mm. Of course Reynolds never produced anything accurate to 0.001mm, that is just how the nominal converts. But the skinny belly of the tube was less than 0.4mm. Every Category 6 rider knows that such a frame is impossibly flexible and noodly. What was good enough for Eddy would be laughed out of current market. When you can put out 750-800 watts continuously for an hour get back to me.
Originally Posted by
GhostRider62
Who needs logic with obvious errors of fact.
1. The record has been broken
2. The bike used Columbus tubing
3. The power was not close to 750-800 watts. He might have needed 400 watts at that altitude.
So basically you were completely wrong from the very start …. On just about every important point of your post.
Yeah, I think I won’t take your word as authoritative, eh?
Let’s move on.