# Eddy Merckx & The Hour Record



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

Eddy Merckx & The Hour Record, is it a record for all time? Since Eddy Merckx set the hour record in 1972 of 49.431 kilometers, the new record by Ondřej Sosenka in 2005 of 49.700 kilometers nets a difference of .261 kilometers, or a little over a 1/4 kilometer. 

I have to ponder. I would think with all the knowledge we have found since 1972, the hour record would have been outdistanced by more than a little over 1/4 a kilometer. Think of all we know now about training, and nutrition in the last 33 years. 

Sure the hour record now requires you to use a bike like the one used by Eddy Merckx at the time he set the record, but what is compensation for the advances in training, and the body in general?


----------



## rockdude (Apr 3, 2008)

It shows you how little we really know & how good Merckx was.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Are we sure Merckx wasn't a doper?


----------



## vetboy (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm not convinced things are all that different than they were 30-40 years ago. I'm sure Merckx ate protein, carbs and fats in a very similar amounts to "modern" athletes. I'd also bet he trained pretty similar to "modern" athletes - tons of miles w some intervals thrown in for fun. His bike probably weighed alittle more, but the aerodynamics of a man on a drop bar bike haven't changed. His record is what it is because he no doubt had/has a HUGE engine. I suspect that if Merckx grew up in our modern era, his hour time would be pretty similar to what it was in 1972.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

vetboy said:


> I'm not convinced things are all that different than they were 30-40 years ago. I'm sure Merckx ate protein, carbs and fats in a very similar amounts to "modern" athletes. I'd also bet he trained pretty similar to "modern" athletes - tons of miles w some intervals thrown in for fun. His bike probably weighed alittle more, but the aerodynamics of a man on a drop bar bike haven't changed. His record is what it is because he no doubt had/has a HUGE engine. I suspect that if Merckx grew up in our modern era, his hour time would be pretty similar to what it was in 1972.


Actually the bike weighed considerably less. Merckx's mechanic drilled out just about ever component on his bike while Sosenka added weight to his wheels to maintain momentum.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

old_fuji said:


> Are we sure Merckx wasn't a doper?


Well...he was caught on several occasions through failed drug tests...So, it's safe to say, yes he was.

Now...In before the move


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

A quarter of a KM seems like quite a bit to me. Yeah it's nothing if we are comparing two random cyclists but when were talking about the edge of human capability I think it's a pretty big leap.

It would be impossible to do an apples to apples comparison but I'd be interested to see how this compares to swimming and running records.

It's a shame about the drugs because that makes this much less interesting and as much a conversation about advancements in drugs and advancements in testing for drugs for particular events as it is about fitness.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

If we are talking long standing records - my friend Bruce Kidd, set the Canadian Junior 5000M record in 1960 which has not been beaten to this day.

Profile of Bruce Kidd, former star athlete and fitness advocate - thestar.com


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Jay Strongbow said:


> A quarter of a KM seems like quite a bit to me. Yeah it's nothing if we are comparing two random cyclists but when were talking about the edge of human capability I think it's a pretty big leap.
> 
> It would be impossible to do an apples to apples comparison but I'd be interested to see how this compares to swimming and running records.


Seems like damn little to me. It's faster by about half a percent. For rough comparison, records in the mile run and marathon have increased speeds by roughly an order of magnitude greater than that. The mile record was 3:51 in 1975, it's 3:43 now, about 3.5% faster. The marathon in 1970 was 2:09:28, now it's 2:03:38, about 4.8% faster.

Merckx has alien DNA.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

JCavilia said:


> Seems like damn little to me. It's faster by about half a percent. For rough comparison, records in the mile run and marathon have increased speeds by roughly an order of magnitude greater than that. The mile record was 3:51 in 1975, it's 3:43 now, about 3.5% faster. The marathon in 1970 was 2:09:28, now it's 2:03:38, about 4.8% faster.
> 
> Merckx has alien DNA.


Talking about Alien DNA. Although he did hold the record for a couple months in 1994, Too bad Miguel Indurain didn't attempt it with a standard track bike. I mean he was regarded as extra-terrestrial



> "Miguel Indurain, Stage 9 Time-trial Tour de France 1992
> 
> The stage nine 65 km time trial in Luxembourg was the first major rendezvous for all the Tour contenders in 1992. Miguel Indurain, defending Tour champion was the favourite for the time trial but what nobody expected was the way he would totally demolish the entire field. His nearest challenger was French team-mate Armand de las Cuevas at three minutes. Everybody else was over 4 minutes or further back.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Percentages*



JCavilia said:


> Seems like damn little to me. It's faster by about half a percent. For rough comparison, records in the mile run and marathon have increased speeds by roughly an order of magnitude greater than that. The mile record was 3:51 in 1975, it's 3:43 now, about 3.5% faster. The marathon in 1970 was 2:09:28, now it's 2:03:38, about 4.8% faster.
> 
> Merckx has alien DNA.


Because of aerodynamics, a half percent speed increase at 30 mph is a 1.5% power increase.


----------



## bkwitche (Jun 4, 2011)

vetboy said:


> I suspect that if Merckx grew up in our modern era, his hour time would be pretty similar to what it was in 1972.


I'm fairly certain the hour _time_ he was working with back then was exactly the same hour we have now.


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

bkwitche said:


> I'm fairly certain the hour _time_ he was working with back then was exactly the same hour we have now.


People are shocked that my personal hour record is exactly the same time as Merckx's.


----------



## markrhino (Nov 28, 2011)

there is a book written by Michael Hutchinson called The hour. Good read and gives a good insight into how difficult it is to beat this record/how good Merckx is/how the UCI protects this record - ie no digital watches allowed, bike geometry tightly controlled, bike is/was to be made of steel(not sure if thats still the case.


----------



## iclypso (Jul 6, 2011)

Undecided said:


> People are shocked that my personal hour record is exactly the same time as Merckx's.


I see what you did there.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> Seems like damn little to me. It's faster by about half a percent. For rough comparison, records in the mile run and marathon have increased speeds by roughly an order of magnitude greater than that. The mile record was 3:51 in 1975, it's 3:43 now, about 3.5% faster. The marathon in 1970 was 2:09:28, now it's 2:03:38, about 4.8% faster.
> 
> Merckx has alien DNA.


Ok, let's talk about humans. Ole Ritter set his record at 48.653 km in 1968. The difference with the Sosenka's record is just above 2%.

PS Sosenka was a doper too. Merckx and Sosenka, they're even.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

markrhino said:


> there is a book written by Michael Hutchinson called The hour. Good read and gives a good insight into how difficult it is to beat this record/how good Merckx is/how the UCI protects this record - ie no digital watches allowed, bike geometry tightly controlled, bike is/was to be made of steel(not sure if thats still the case.


I would be glad to see modern road racers on bikes controlled by UCI in a similar way. These ugly modern TT machines destroy the sporting side of the sport.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

old_fuji said:


> Are we sure Merckx wasn't a doper?


Are you sure that Ondřej Sosenka wasn't a doper? 

Anyway, all the record proves is that it's about the engine. Merckx could have beaten anyone on this forum riding a Walmart bike while we all rode the highest tech bikes we could find. Merckx may have dope but he had a superior engine. He got on a bike for the first time in over 20 years when a bunch of young reporters decided to do a news story about him now that he was retired, old and fat, not one young punk could keep up with him! Also the Tour de France back when Merckx rode used harder routes then they do today, something they kind of keep unannounced.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

Even if Eddy Merckx was doping back in the day, there was different dope back then and it wasn't as effective as modern day dope. Back in the Merckx era, I think the main doping agents were amphetamines and blood packing. Nowadays, there are EPO, steroids, HGH as well as stuff available back then. Plus, I am not convinced that Merckx was doping or that he did it more than anyone else during that period.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

tarwheel2 said:


> Even if Eddy Merckx was doping back in the day, there was different dope back then and it wasn't as effective as modern day dope.


Well...You can say it wasn't as effective, and likely wasn't...however, if you read the stories about what they were using it made a huge difference compared to those that were not doping. 

FYI...They still use "Blood Packing", which is why Contador was caught...so it's effectiveness must be very good considering all the other options available today.




> I am not convinced that Merckx was doping or that he did it more than anyone else during that period.


LOL...He turned positive test results "THREE" Times!!! ... Yea, he wasn't a doper, he just couldn't stop turning in positive drug tests :mad2:

Did he do it more than anybody else during his era? Likely not...but then neither did Armstrong, Pantani, Hinault, Indurain, etc.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

Well, without drugs, that means that we hit the pinnacle of fitness 40 years ago.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

old_fuji said:


> Well, without drugs, that means that we hit the pinnacle of fitness 40 years ago.


Go back farther than 40 years...:thumbsup:


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Wookiebiker said:


> He turned positive test results "THREE" Times!!! ... Yea, he wasn't a doper, he just couldn't stop turning in positive drug tests


Maybe he was just really into steak.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

All of this about controlling the circumstances around the record is BS. Merckxx was great, far and away the undeniable best of his time. I don't need an hr record to prove or add to that. t actaully doesn't add much at all, rather, it's the other, very many and harder wins that he achieved that make him amazing.


----------



## zacolnago (Feb 15, 2006)

I read one of Joe Friel's books, where he mentions how Coni helped Moser break the hour record through advanced training techniques, even though he was an inferior athlete to Merkx. 

The hour record takes a lot out of an athlete. and could result in a couple of months recovery. I reckon that Cancelara with todays advanced training methods could break the record, but I doubt if he would risk trying.


----------



## Benjamin Less (Apr 9, 2012)

dot said:


> I would be glad to see modern road racers on bikes controlled by UCI in a similar way. These ugly modern TT machines destroy the sporting side of the sport.


I was reading that Merckx's 1972 hour record was trailing one of his best *win season* averages at almost 40%. In 1971 he had a 45% win rate. For a cyclist [Merckx] to go out against the hour after riding and winning in a full season is impressive. In comparison sake. to the likes of Broadman who went after the record using Merckx's traditional bike set-up managed to only milk 10 metres out of it retired and dedicated to that one event.

Before reading about the drugs and doping ...I had a lot more to add about aerodynamics, altitude preparation, etc ...but it's disenchanting reading of my childhood hero who doped. Leaves a terrible taste off one's bar tape. 

Sad.


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Wookiebiker said:


> Well...You can say it wasn't as effective, and likely wasn't...however, if you read the stories about what they were using it made a huge difference compared to those that were not doping.
> 
> FYI...They still use "Blood Packing", which is why Contador was caught...so it's effectiveness must be very good considering all the other options available today.
> 
> ...


How can you put Hinault in the same sentence as Pantani? Has there ever been any suspicion about Hinault?


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

tarwheel2 said:


> Even if Eddy Merckx was doping back in the day, there was different dope back then and it wasn't as effective as modern day dope. Back in the Merckx era, I think the main doping agents were amphetamines and blood packing. Nowadays, there are EPO, steroids, HGH as well as stuff available back then. Plus, I am not convinced that Merckx was doping or that he did it more than anyone else during that period.


He has publicly admitted to doping, but like you said they all were back then, and they still do today their just better at hiding it. 

But I wouldn't be upset with learning he doped, he's human, he was forced to do so because his competitors were, so to even the playing field he doped. Even if no one had doped, including Merckx, the result would have been the same howbeit a tad slower, but Merckx still would have won all the races he did and set the world record, nothing would have changed in the fact he still would have ended up the worlds best cyclist of all times...so far.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

froze said:


> Even if no one had doped, including Merckx, the result would have been the same howbeit a tad slower, but Merckx still would have won all the races he did and set the world record, nothing would have changed in the fact he still would have ended up the worlds best cyclist of all times...so far.


That is actually somewhat debatable as people respond to drugs differently. If he was a "Super Responder" and his competitors were not...he gained a decided advantage from doping that his competitors didn't.

The likelihood is that he would have still been as good...but it's far from certain.

You can go back and look at all the past champions and question whether they would have won as much as they did with a "Non Drug" using peloton or not. I would say Idurain wouldn't have been nearly as good without massive doses of EPO. He was too big of a rider to have pulled it off in the mountains without doping.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Wookiebiker said:


> That is actually somewhat debatable as people respond to drugs differently. If he was a "Super Responder" and his competitors were not...he gained a decided advantage from doping that his competitors didn't.
> 
> The likelihood is that he would have still been as good...but it's far from certain.
> 
> You can go back and look at all the past champions and question whether they would have won as much as they did with a "Non Drug" using peloton or not. I would say Idurain wouldn't have been nearly as good without massive doses of EPO. He was too big of a rider to have pulled it off in the mountains without doping.


Maybe, but that can never be proven. What if he wasn't a "super responder"? You don't know that for sure. And over 20 years later after not riding at all in that time, being old and fat, he still left the young reporters dying on the side of the road, and this is 20 plus years after he stopped doping. Personally I think it has a lot more to do with genetics then it does whether or not he was a "super responder". So since it was genetics he would have still been in the same position if he had not doped.


----------



## dudigrinfeld (Aug 18, 2010)

Sorry if it's a pretty dumb comment but what is the route for each of the records? Was it measured on same route...?


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

dudigrinfeld said:


> Sorry if it's a pretty dumb comment but what is the route for each of the records? Was it measured on same route...?


It's done on a Velodrome...usually indoors to eliminate weather variables.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

some of you guys really need to face the facts about drugs. As someone who spent considerable time idolizing baseball players and their records I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but the fact is very few if any cycling records are about human fitness and skill alone thus aren't really worth any time and energy discussing.


----------



## Benjamin Less (Apr 9, 2012)

Jay Strongbow said:


> some of you guys really need to face the facts about drugs. As someone who spent considerable time idolizing baseball players and their records I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but the fact is very few if any cycling records are about human fitness and skill alone thus aren't really worth any time and energy discussing.


Yea, I read Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage too.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Benjamin Less said:


> Yea, I read Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage too.


never heard of it.


----------



## Benjamin Less (Apr 9, 2012)

Double Post.


----------



## CurbDestroyer (Mar 6, 2008)

Let me throw this out there, how much difference would it have made if Eddy had access to a PowerTap,or something similar?... not to mention a heart rate monitor.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

CurbDestroyer said:


> Let me throw this out there, how much difference would it have made if Eddy had access to a PowerTap,or something similar?... not to mention a heart rate monitor.


Honestly...Not a whole lot, if any.

Chances are they already knew his power output as you can calculate that through climbing as long as you know the total weight, speed and climb rate.

Training hasn't changed as much as some people would like to think and though Powermeters make it easier for the average Joe to train, for the Pro's it's a tool but many don't ever look at the data, even though they ride with them (and it sounds like their coach's don't look at it either).

The other aspect is some guys train harder/better without Powermeters and such...they are in "Tune" with their body and know how hard and how long they can push themselves...I have a feeling Eddy was one of these guys. Modern technology might have helped a small amount, but I'm talking less than 1% to overall performance (if that). Heck, it might have hurt him if he listened to it too much as he could have lost some of the edge he had.

It's always hard to compare athletes from decade to decade as things change...People want to, but the comparisons are all but impossible to make...it does however make good discussion


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

CurbDestroyer said:


> Let me throw this out there, how much difference would it have made if Eddy had access to a PowerTap,or something similar?... not to mention a heart rate monitor.


I agree, I don't think it would have matter a lot if any. He still holds the record of most wins and fastest time trial, so I don't think that would have changed any. Just as I don't think if the playing field was honest and no doping the results would have still been the same, perhaps a tad slower but end results would have still equaled wins and records.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Wookiebiker said:


> Honestly...Not a whole lot, if any.


Well that's probably true, I think a power meter would have helped his pacing, as it was significantly sub-optimal. He went out way too hard to attain the best hour he could have on the day.

It's also possible Eddie would have been able to improve his aerodynamics a bit with access to an on bike power meter.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

If "Eddy in his prime" raced today, he might not win as many races... but he would still be #1.


----------

