# Hour Record Holders and Performance Values



## F1nut

*Eddie Merckx, 1972*. 

He was at 7,350 feet or so altitude then. I had *363 watts *for his hour. There is much less drag at that altitude and you dont lose much O2, statistics show someone can do 96% of their normal FTP at 3000 meters.












*Ondřej Sosenka*, (49.700km (30.882 mi).[/B]

Sosenka was using a 54 x 13 gearing, a 3.2 kg wheel and 190 mm cranks.










*493 watts *at near sea-level 

This was in Moscow.* Moscow is at an altitude of 179 meters.*
In the past, the man has failed a heamatocrit test. Indicating blood doping or r-EPO use. He also has tested positive for meth.










He weighs apparently, 85 kg and is 200 cms tall. So a big drag. He is 6 feet 6 inches tall.








*Fausto Coppi * big drag coefficient in 1942. 42 pound tank for a bike. 45.9 k's. 



395 watts. By FAR THE MOST IMPRESSIVE PERFORMER INDEED.



















-No EPO
-No advanced Corticoids
-Maybe amphetamines
-Caffeine LOL.








*Chris Boardman*: 49.700km standard bike obviously. I think he did it at sea level in Manchester. 
*494 watts *using 170mm cranks. He might have had longer cranks?



















Certainkly before the days of blood alteration it was a lot, "slower."


I see 360-395 watts in everyone, then a big jump in peformance to 500 watts all of a sudden.


----------



## davidka

That math doesn't work out. There's no way that there would be a 130 watt difference between Boardman's performance and Merckx's, altitude or not. They were within 10 meters of each other. Boardman and Sosenka turning the same distance at the same wattage at the same altitude despite Boardman being much smaller and lighter?


----------



## safetyguy

F1... I think you are starting to see it - doesn't running these numbers make you want to go hmmmmmmm????? Got some other fun ones fro you - Run Indurains record and then Romingers - (UCI Best effort hour), Do their watts.


----------



## Guest

davidka said:


> That math doesn't work out. There's no way that there would be a 130 watt difference between Boardman's performance and Merckx's, altitude or not. They were within 10 meters of each other. Boardman and Sosenka turning the same distance at the same wattage at the same altitude despite Boardman being much smaller and lighter?



Exactly, the way the numbers are presented here Merkcx would have had to be more aero than Boardman which doesn't match the facts of their equipment, the air of Mexico City cannot account for that much of a difference.

363 vs 494 is a massive performance difference for an hour


----------



## function

davidka said:


> That math doesn't work out. There's no way that there would be a 130 watt difference between Boardman's performance and Merckx's, altitude or not. They were within 10 meters of each other. Boardman and Sosenka turning the same distance at the same wattage at the same altitude despite Boardman being much smaller and lighter?


The math is totally off, Boardman's hour record was at approximately 440W. F1Nut's Merckx estimate can in no way be correct too but i don't have a number at hand.

Indurain's hour record was done at 510W http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11007591?dopt=Abstract


----------



## PhatTalc

These numbers are wrong. There are many papers on the hour record, I can give you some examples (from memory):

Merckx 365W at 7300ft... he was not acclimatized. An acclimatized athlete will be 7-8% down on their sea level power due to the lower air pressure, whereas an unacclimatized athlete has to make do with sea level physiology and 25% less air pressure. One could speculate he could produce 450 or so W at sea level, but probably less (this would get him into the 6 W/kg area).

Boardman: superman position, sea level, estimated at 435W. He was 69 Kg, and records 6.3 W/kg- but note he had trained all season for that record, and was in top condition. 

Boardman: Athletes record (done on a normal bike, the record where he went 10m beyond Merckx). Here he is estimated at 400W. The decline in power is mostly due to the fact he was past his best (I believe).

Boardman is considered clean in the same way that Lemond is considered clean- and I beleive they were both clean. He was an excellent time trialist, superb at judging his effort, which is why is time was so good.

Tony Rominger comes out at 465 W, and as already noted, Indurain was estimated for 510W. The thing to remember about indurain is that from lab work done with him, he shold have been capable of around 500W, which shows a close correlation between the maths and the experiment. For the record, Indurain had a VO2 Max of 79, was 81kg and produced 6.45 W/kg for an hour. These numbers can be found in Padilla's paper which I think Function has linked to.

In 1958 Charly Gaul and Bahamontes climbed Mt Ventoux, in a TdF time trial, in circa 1hr 2 minutes. This required 6.1 W/kg. 

The conclusion is that none of these results prove or disprove EPO use- we know that the pre 1980 results were performed with pretty much normal human physiology.


----------



## safetyguy

PhatTalc said:


> These numbers are wrong. There are many papers on the hour record, I can give you some examples (from memory):
> 
> Merckx 365W at 7300ft... he was not acclimatized. An acclimatized athlete will be 7-8% down on their sea level power due to the lower air pressure, whereas an unacclimatized athlete has to make do with sea level physiology and 25% less air pressure. One could speculate he could produce 450 or so W at sea level, but probably less (this would get him into the 6 W/kg area).
> 
> Boardman: superman position, sea level, estimated at 435W. He was 69 Kg, and records 6.3 W/kg- but note he had trained all season for that record, and was in top condition.
> 
> Boardman: Athletes record (done on a normal bike, the record where he went 10m beyond Merckx). Here he is estimated at 400W. The decline in power is mostly due to the fact he was past his best (I believe).
> 
> Boardman is considered clean in the same way that Lemond is considered clean- and I beleive they were both clean. He was an excellent time trialist, superb at judging his effort, which is why is time was so good.
> 
> Tony Rominger comes out at 465 W, and as already noted, Indurain was estimated for 510W. The thing to remember about indurain is that from lab work done with him, he shold have been capable of around 500W, which shows a close correlation between the maths and the experiment. For the record, Indurain had a VO2 Max of 79, was 81kg and produced 6.45 W/kg for an hour. These numbers can be found in Padilla's paper which I think Function has linked to.
> 
> In 1958 Charly Gaul and Bahamontes climbed Mt Ventoux, in a TdF time trial, in circa 1hr 2 minutes. This required 6.1 W/kg.
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion is that none of these results prove or disprove EPO use- we know that the pre 1980 results were performed with pretty much normal human physiology.



Phat - a most excellent analysis! It seems that indeed humans can hold 6+w for at least an hour (and well above that for a shorter time 5 - 20 minutes). So performance alone cannot prove/disprove epo (type) use - we leave that to our most esteemed regulatory agencies...

I think the human body to be the most amazing thing - I marvel at some of the things I have seem people do in extreme situations and even in routine settings (such as martial arts performance or even the circus - and guys who can run 18 min 5k hungover (couldn't resist)). 

I hope some of you understand the difference between probability and possibility... My point is that while it is highly probable that LA and his contemporaries are on some type of blood vector program - it is possible that - some - of them are not. 

...Again nicely done Phat.


----------



## F1nut

kytyree said:


> Exactly, the way the numbers are presented here Merkcx would have had to be more aero than Boardman which doesn't match the facts of their equipment, the air of Mexico City cannot account for that much of a difference.
> 
> 363 vs 494 is a massive performance difference for an hour



Plug it into analytical cycling.... 7,300 feet makes a HUGE difference, absolutely HUGE.

Eddie Merckx's "trick" was to do it at altitude, that way he'd have the "record" forever. He didnt though, because a bunch of guys did it completely jacked....


----------



## F1nut

PhatTalc said:


> These numbers are wrong. There are many papers on the hour record, I can give you some examples (from memory):
> 
> Merckx 365W at 7300ft... he was not acclimatized. An acclimatized athlete will be 7-8% down on their sea level power due to the lower air pressure, whereas an unacclimatized athlete has to make do with sea level physiology and 25% less air pressure. One could speculate he could produce 450 or so W at sea level, but probably less (this would get him into the 6 W/kg area).
> 
> *USING your logic, Mercks lost 8% of his 450 watts, so thats 414. Not 363... I had him a 363 and thats pretty close I do believe... I gave him very typical drag for a stock rider without any aerobars, or wheels or any of that....*
> Boardman: superman position, sea level, estimated at 435W. He was 69 Kg, and records 6.3 W/kg- but note he had trained all season for that record, and was in top condition.
> 
> *He was in top condition and jacked on epo bro! No way 435 watts is clean on anyone! That reguires a super freaky VO2 max of like 96ml/kg-min for someone weighing 69kg!*
> 
> Boardman: Athletes record (done on a normal bike, the record where he went 10m beyond Merckx). Here he is estimated at 400W. The decline in power is mostly due to the fact he was past his best (I believe).
> 
> *Estimated from what?? Show me some sources! No way 400 watts gets you to 30.8 mph on a stock bike **EVER*!
> 
> Boardman is considered clean in the same way that Lemond is considered clean- and I beleive they were both clean. He was an excellent time trialist, superb at judging his effort, which is why is time was so good.
> 
> *No way Boardman was clean, he has 40 watts higher a FTP and a much higher watts per kilo than LeMond had! He never won 3 Tour de France titles. How do you explain that?*
> 
> Tony Rominger comes out at 465 W, and as already noted, Indurain was estimated for 510W. The thing to remember about indurain is that from lab work done with him, he shold have been capable of around 500W, which shows a close correlation between the maths and the experiment. For the record, Indurain had a VO2 Max of 79, was 81kg and produced 6.45 W/kg for an hour. These numbers can be found in Padilla's paper which I think Function has linked to.
> 
> *NO WAY WAS INDURAINS VO2 max 79 putting down 505 watts at his FTP. He had a VO2 max of like 98 for that! Maybe un-doped it was 79!!
> 
> In 1958 Charly Gaul and Bahamontes climbed Mt Ventoux, in a TdF time trial, in circa 1hr 2 minutes. This required 6.1 W/kg.
> 
> Mount Ventoux has winds blowing in excess of 300km/hr!! It has the highest windspeed in france at 193 mph!
> 
> How can you judge FTP/Kilo from such a stairstep climb?
> 
> Kilometre Average gradient Kilometre Average gradient
> 1 1.9 % 12 10.1 %
> 2 2.8 % 13 9.2 %
> 3 3.8 % 14 9.4 %
> 4 5.8 % 15 8.8 %
> 5 5.6 % 16 6.9 %
> 6 3.1 % 17 6.6 %
> 7 8.6 % 18 6.8 %
> 8 9.4 % 19 7.4 %
> 9 10.5 % 20 8.3 %
> 10 10.1 % 21 9.1 %
> 11 9.3 % 22 10.0 %
> 
> The conclusion is that none of these results prove or disprove EPO use- we know that the pre 1980 results were performed with pretty much normal human physiology.*


*

Yeah, and Greg LeMond kept winning the Tour de France with 5.8 w/kg!*


----------



## F1nut

davidka said:


> That math doesn't work out. There's no way that there would be a 130 watt difference between Boardman's performance and Merckx's, altitude or not. They were within 10 meters of each other. Boardman and Sosenka turning the same distance at the same wattage at the same altitude despite Boardman being much smaller and lighter?


Got To Analytical Cycling

And plug in the altitude difference.

Merckx Did it in Mexico City, Mexico at 2,140 meters or so.

Sosenka did it in Moscow, Russia at about 140 meters.

Boardman did it at Manchester which is basically sea level add the distance of a ladder.

The "trick" was to do it at altitude so no one could beat him for a long time.

*People dont, "realize this." Nobody has had yet an "an Actualization, or an "Epiphany."* You go faster at altitude, even if your not acclimized. You wont really notice it when just cruising down the road, but there is a massive wattage difference at really high speeds where drag makes up 90% of the resistance.

If Lance would have gone up to La Paz, and attempted the record he would have smashed it completely jacked as he was. His whole hour record deal was to distract from the fact he was working with Ferrari.


----------



## davidka

Merckx kept his record for ~10 years, until it was beaten by Francesco Moser who also rode at altitude. Boardman and Obree both rode at sea level and I strongly doubt Obree doped with EPO if only because it was unlikely that he could have afforded it.

Boardman's final Althete's record showed that aerodynamics was playing the biggest role in that generation's breaking of the hour record. On an aero bike he was SLAUGHTERING the old records, on a traditional bike he was lucky to beat it at all.

I don't disagree that thinner air makes a difference, just not a 130 watt difference in drag. For his power to be down an estimated 7-8% because of altitude would indicate that he was an unremarkable rider which he obviously wasn't.

Armstrong openly admitted that he worked with Ferrari. There was no need to hide it with testing for an hour record.


----------



## F1nut

function said:


> The math is totally off, Boardman's hour record was at approximately 440W. F1Nut's Merckx estimate can in no way be correct too but i don't have a number at hand.
> 
> Indurain's hour record was done at 510W http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11007591?dopt=Abstract


Indurain's record was done close to sea level, same as Boardman. You have no sources whatesoever on Boardman or Merckx! I used 7,300 feet of elevation on Merckx because thats where he was, 7,300 feet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

No way did Boardman do 30.8 miles and 32 mph times splits with just 440 watts at SEA LEVEL!

His average was like 494 watts and he had like 80ml/kg sustained oxygen per minute and his VO2 max was like 96ml/kg-min completely jacked on EPO.


----------



## Guest

F1nut said:


> Plug it into analytical cycling.... 7,300 feet makes a HUGE difference, absolutely HUGE.
> 
> Eddie Merckx's "trick" was to do it at altitude, that way he'd have the "record" forever. He didnt though, because a bunch of guys did it completely jacked....



If you want to waste your time plugging numbers into analytical cycling be my guest. And seeing as your calculations are wrong, IMO a waste of yours.

Why not just admit that you were wrong?


----------



## F1nut

davidka said:


> Merckx kept his record for ~10 years, until it was beaten by Francesco Moser who also rode at altitude. Boardman and Obree both rode at sea level and I strongly doubt Obree doped with EPO if only because it was unlikely that he could have afforded it.
> 
> Boardman's final Althete's record showed that aerodynamics was playing the biggest role in that generation's breaking of the hour record. On an aero bike he was SLAUGHTERING the old records, on a traditional bike he was lucky to beat it at all.
> 
> I don't disagree that thinner air makes a difference, just not a 130 watt difference in drag. For his power to be down an estimated 7-8% because of altitude would indicate that he was an unremarkable rider which he obviously wasn't.
> 
> Armstrong openly admitted that he worked with Ferrari. There was no need to hide it with testing for an hour record.



Everyone knew Pharmstrong was with Ferrari, he needed a distraction of such, Ferrari was the hour-record specialist along with Conconi. Both of them BLOOD DOPED MOSER to his hour record.


----------



## F1nut

kytyree said:


> If you want to waste your time plugging numbers into analytical cycling be my guest. And seeing as your calculations are wrong, IMO a waste of yours.
> 
> Why not just admit that you were wrong?


Why not *show some sources *and shut me up? 

Maybe its because I'm right!


----------



## F1nut

kytyree said:


> Merkcx would have had to be more aero than Boardman which doesn't match the facts of their equipment,363 vs 494 is a massive performance difference for an hour


It is a massive difference.... Its the difference of EPO!!!

You dont have to be more aero when your at 7,300 feet anyways....!










Looks a heckuva lot more aero than me on my stock Road Bike!










Looks a he$$ of a lot more talented than the cocaine and EPO addict Boonen who COULNT GET OUT OF HIS OWN WAY at Redlands and Sea Otter as a young rider! Someone who cant beat a bunch of cat 1's and 2's now wins the hardest one day races in the world?

Call that a super-responder to drugs!


----------



## asgelle

F1nut said:


> Why not *show some sources *and shut me up?


Padilla et al. J. Appl. Phsiol. 89:1522 (2000)
Name Year CdA (m^2) Power (W)
Merckx 1972 0.2618 380
Moser 1984 0.2481 400
Indurain 1994 0.2441 510
Obree 1994 0.1720 359
Rominger 1994 0.1932 456
Boardman 1996 0.1838 462


----------



## PhatTalc

*Boardman was Jacked? Bollocks he was!*

F1 Nut,

I said Merckx was unacclimatized. If he was acclimatized, he gets 414 W, but it's said he set the record days after ariving in Mexico from Europe - so he gets 363 W as stated. 

Second: Boardman's 400W comes from High tech cycling by ed Burke, page 192. You can find the discussion in doing a google search with "athletes hour and record power estimates" and the relavent book pages are the 5 entry in the search results.

The claim that Boardman was Jacked on EPO if pretty f-ing cheeky. YOU need to back that up. Boardman was as clean- no cleaner than Lemond. No question. He was a GREAT time trialist. He was also a model amateur and professional racer.

Finally, you keep going on and on about Lemond and his 5.8 W/kg FTP, but you keep ignoring the fact that the 1958 champion (Charly Gaul) made 6.1W/kg up Mt Ventoux. You have to include this in your analysis, because it happened way before the EPO era. Lemond himself produced a stellar performance for that 1989 time trial- I speculate that that was much more than 5.8W/kg for about 27 minutes...


----------



## bikesarethenewblack

F1Nut, you're onto to something, but I would be remiss to think you're not missing something.

Yes at higher altitude drag is less - I recall a exhibit at the smithsonian where they have rods and you lift them to feel the difference in drag - they show it with a soccer ball, too. So you are correct, higher altitude means less drag. However, I'm not sure it's as much as what you're saying. There are other variables, too, a longer crank means more torque. 

My point, there are a myriad of variables, but, yea, there are a lot of dopers, too.


----------



## PhatTalc

bikesarethenewblack said:


> F1Nut, you're onto to something, but I would be remiss to think you're not missing something.
> 
> Yes at higher altitude drag is less - I recall a exhibit at the smithsonian where they have rods and you lift them to feel the difference in drag - they show it with a soccer ball, too. So you are correct, higher altitude means less drag. However, I'm not sure it's as much as what you're saying. There are other variables, too, a longer crank means more torque.
> 
> My point, there are a myriad of variables, but, yea, there are a lot of dopers, too.


The decrease in air resistance with altitude is offset by the decline in aerobic power output with increased atlitude. It turns out that 7000-7500ft is the point where you get the maximum speed (on the flat!). Any higher and the lungs can't pull in enough O2; any lower and there is too much air to push through.


----------



## F1nut

PhatTalc said:


> F1 Nut,
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, you keep going on and on about Lemond and his 5.8 W/kg FTP, but you keep ignoring the fact that the 1958 champion (Charly Gaul) made 6.1W/kg up Mt Ventoux. You have to include this in your analysis, because it happened way before the EPO era. Lemond himself produced a stellar performance for that 1989 time trial- I speculate that that was much more than 5.8W/kg for about 27 minutes...


And you ignore the recorded, *193 mph windgust on MOunt Ventoux*. It is one of, if not *THE WINDIEST PLACE IN EUROPE*. Some of the windgusts are as strong as an F-$$$$$ Tornado...... The top is a bare Landscape, nothing to block the wind except ground level rocks. 

_Comparing times on that mountain is like comparing Hurricane Categories_.










And Merckx's 363 watts average in Mexico City which You accept. 

I see a 7% difference in performance at atlitude.

How does someone then, go from 450 watts- 363 watts an 18.4% decrease??  

Merckx's FTP at sea level was 380. At 7,300 feet it was 363. Get over it. He did it without EPO.


----------



## F1nut

bikesarethenewblack said:


> F1Nut, you're onto to something, but I would be remiss to think you're not missing something.
> 
> Yes at higher altitude drag is less - I recall a exhibit at the smithsonian where they have rods and you lift them to feel the difference in drag - they show it with a soccer ball, too. So you are correct, higher altitude means less drag. However, I'm not sure it's as much as what you're saying. There are other variables, too, a longer crank means more torque.
> 
> My point, there are a myriad of variables, but, yea, there are a lot of dopers, too.


I used Analytical Cyling, which is VERY accurate in air density and drag.


----------



## PhatTalc

F1nut said:


> And you ignore the recorded, 193 mph windgust on MOunt Ventoux.
> 
> And Merckx's 363 watts average in Mexico City which You accept.
> 
> I see a 7% difference in performance at atlitude.
> 
> How does someone then, go from 450 watts- 363 watts an 18.4% decrease??
> 
> Merckx's FTP at sea level was 380. At 7,300 feet it was 363. Get over it. He did it without EPO.


Read my post. Carefully! an acclimatized athlete will decline only 7-8%. Unacclimatized it's 20%- the same as the pressure drop! What I am claiming is that Merckx was unacclimatized.
By the way- i used to live in New Mexico at 7400ft. Coming back from sea level took about 2-4 weeks to get used to.

The prevailing Ventoux wind is against the riding direction. I have never heard a report where someone said "riding Ventoux was a breeze. We had a tailwind". Also, your making out that the Ventoux time trial was wind assisted. Prove it. Prove also Boardman did drugs.


----------



## F1nut

No WAY. You dont have a clue.

I have: Francesco Moser aged 32 at Mexico City 51.151kms without aero bars BLOOD DOPED.


----------



## function

F1nut said:


> Indurain's record was done close to sea level, same as Boardman. You have no sources whatesoever on Boardman or Merckx! I used 7,300 feet of elevation on Merckx because thats where he was, 7,300 feet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Check out the link to the padilla paper i posted...


----------



## PhatTalc

And Merckx's 363 watts average in Mexico City which You accept. 

I see a 7% difference in performance at atlitude.

How does someone then, go from 450 watts- 363 watts an 18.4% decrease??  

Merckx's FTP at sea level was 380. At 7,300 feet it was 363. Get over it. He did it without EPO.[/quote]

By the way, I read the abstract. The paper is a study about how one can add oxygen to athletes who are performing intervals at 1840m. One group have the normal air, the other have the extra oxygen, both groups are already at 6000ft (Coloraod springs). It doesn't support your argument.


----------



## F1nut

PhatTalc said:


> Read my post. Carefully! an acclimatized athlete will decline only 7-8%. Unacclimatized it's 20%- the same as the pressure drop! What I am claiming is that Merckx was unacclimatized.
> By the way- i used to live in New Mexico at 7400ft. Coming back from sea level took about 2-4 weeks to get used to.
> 
> The prevailing Ventoux wind is against the riding direction. I have never heard a report where someone said "riding Ventoux was a breeze. We had a tailwind". Also, your making out that the Ventoux time trial was wind assisted. Prove it. Prove also Boardman did drugs.


Boardman was jacked through the roof with a higher FTP/Kilo than Greg LeMond, Hinault, Merckx and Fingon WON THE TOUR DE FRANCE WITH.

We could sit and compare Hurricanes all day on Mt. Ventoux. Do you think every hurricane has the same windspeed? You must be living in the Land of the absurd if you think so!! :thumbsup:


----------



## F1nut

*Strait out of Eddie Merckx's MOUTH*:

_"I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. *I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude*. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me. Speaking as a bike enthusiast I would have liked to have had a go on the equipment they used for the record in later years, though. Also I would have gone further on a modern indoor track. In Mexico it was outdoors, where the wind is always a problem. You wait for the best conditions, but in the end you have to take what there is."_


HE WAS ACCLIMATIZED FOR SURE SINCE HE WAS TRAINING WITH A MASK!!!!!!!





"Merckx's bike only weighed about 12lb and was shod with 24 hole rims and silk tyres!"


----------



## function

Sadly, F1nut a lot of your recent posts have been of the format;

So and so did 400W OMG they're DOPING!

It'd be a service to everyone if there was at least some discussion worthy consequential evidence. This is getting tired.


----------



## F1nut

function said:


> Sadly, F1nut a lot of your recent posts have been of the format;
> 
> So and so did 400W OMG they're DOPING!
> 
> It'd be a service to everyone if there was at least some discussion worthy consequential evidence. This is getting tired.


How does the greatest rider on EARTH (Eddie Merckx) put down *20% less power* than some jack in the box man from Great Britain (Chris Boardman)*????*

The greatest thing Chris EVER did was win the prolougue of the Tour de France.

Merckx WON the Tour de France *5 times*.

*Merckx had 80 wins as an amateur.*

*-Three time WORLD ROAD RACE CHAMPION*

*Milan-Sanremo, 7 wins
Ronde van Vlaanderen, 2 wins
Paris-Roubaix, 3 wins
Liège-Bastogne-Liège, 5 wins
Giro di Lombardia, 2 wins
Super Prestige Pernod International, 7 wins*

I have this man at 363 watts, ACCLIMIZED; and Chris Boardman who never won 95% the races Merckx won, at 494 watts.


*Now, THAT IS SAD.*


----------



## F1nut

*STRAIT* Out of Eddie Merckx's MOUTH, again since you dont seem to notice:

_"I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me. Speaking as a bike enthusiast I would have liked to have had a go on the equipment they used for the record in later years, though. Also I would have gone further on a modern indoor track. In Mexico it was outdoors, where the wind is always a problem. You wait for the best conditions, but in the end you have to take what there is."_


----------



## PhatTalc

F1nut said:


> Boardman was jacked through the roof with a higher FTP/Kilo than Greg LeMond, Hinault, Merckx and Fingon WON THE TOUR DE FRANCE WITH.
> 
> We could sit and compare Hurricanes all day on Mt. Ventoux. Do you think every hurricane has the same windspeed? You must be living in the Land of the absurd if you think so!! :thumbsup:


Apparently, I'm posting on the board of the absurd.


----------



## davidka

F1nut said:


> How does the greatest rider on EARTH (Eddie Merckx) put down *20% less power* than some jack in the box man from Great Britain (Chris Boardman)*????*
> 
> .


This is an example of the problem with the numbers. I don't think Merckx _did_ put down 20% less power. I think the numbers are wrong. The link you posted about altitude presents an extreme example where the difference in altitude between the two rides could produce in excess of 20% less drag but is that realistic? If we're conservative, we can't assume that much a difference in air density therefore, it's not very likely that they produced a power output that differed by 20% and arrived at nearly the same distance.

Boardman was no Jack in the Box, he was one of his era's finest TT riders, not winning the Tour doesn't make that any less true.


----------



## PhatTalc

F1nut said:


> *STRAIT* Out of Eddie Merckx's MOUTH, again since you dont seem to notice:
> 
> _"I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me. Speaking as a bike enthusiast I would have liked to have had a go on the equipment they used for the record in later years, though. Also I would have gone further on a modern indoor track. In Mexico it was outdoors, where the wind is always a problem. You wait for the best conditions, but in the end you have to take what there is."_


So what he saying is, he trained high, lived low. The exact opposite to what you're meant to do. It basically shows how poor his preperation was, apart from the superb attention to mechanical detail. In order to get the extra red blood vessels, one has to live and sleep at altitude. Strapping on a mask and restricting air supply has the effect of increasing training intensity, not forcing an adaption to high altitude.


----------



## function

F1nut said:


> How does the greatest rider on EARTH (Eddie Merckx) put down *20% less power* than some jack in the box man from Great Britain (Chris Boardman)*????*
> 
> I have this man at 363 watts, ACCLIMIZED; and Chris Boardman who never won 95% the races Merckx won, at 494 watts.


He carried out his hour record attempt a few days after arriving in Mexico and was in no way acclimatized. Merckx was doing 420-450W for 30minutes in lab tests, which is in line with the other hour record holder's FTPs. Just apply some logic, do you honestly think that he could have won that many races with an FTP of 360W?


----------



## F1nut

function said:


> He carried out his hour record attempt a few days after arriving in Mexico and was in no way acclimatized. Merckx was doing 420-450W for 30minutes in lab tests, which is in line with the other hour record holder's FTPs. Just apply some logic, do you honestly think that he could have won that many races with an FTP of 360W?


At sea Level? he had about 380-390. Losing 7% power ACCLIMATIZED he had 363.

Are you literate?

"_I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me. Speaking as a bike enthusiast I would have liked to have had a go on the equipment they used for the record in later years, though. Also I would have gone further on a modern indoor track. In Mexico it was outdoors, where the wind is always a problem. You wait for the best conditions, but in the end you have to take what there is."_

- Eddie Merckx


*In 1970's there was no blood vectoring.* Races were won on natural talent. Races were lost on LACK of natural talent. Merckx was a 3-time World Road Race Champion with an FTP of about 380-390 watts at 160 pounds.


*Merckx was World Amateur Champion at 18 years old. He had 80 amateur wins and over 500 wins as a Pro.*
Where are all of Pharmsrong's other wins besides the Tour? ? ? ? ? ? ?


----------



## F1nut

*Send me a reputable 1970's lab test link to him holding 450 watts for 30 minutes.....*

*Maybe he could have gotten it to 420 over 30 minutes.*

30 min. TT is a LOT different than a 60 minute TT.

Someone can hold about 110% of their FTP for 30 minutes!


----------



## F1nut

davidka said:


> This is an example of the problem with the numbers. I don't think Merckx _did_ put down 20% less power. I think the numbers are wrong. The link you posted about altitude presents an extreme example where the difference in altitude between the two rides could produce in excess of 20% less drag but is that realistic? If we're conservative, we can't assume that much a difference in air density therefore, it's not very likely that they produced a power output that differed by 20% and arrived at nearly the same distance.
> 
> Boardman was no Jack in the Box, he was one of his era's finest TT riders, not winning the Tour doesn't make that any less true.


I used the air density of 2,400 meters on Analytical Cycling.

Boardman was PEANUTS compared to Merckx, PEANUTS!!!

*Merckx had more natural talent in his little toe than CHris Boadrman has in his entire spirit and soul.*


----------



## F1nut

function said:


> Check out the link to the padilla paper i posted...


Indurain rode at an average power of 510 watts at Sea Level completely jacked on EPO. What does else does that prove?  

I have Sosenka doing the current record at an average of 494 watts at 6 feet 6 inches tall and 200 pounds also completely jacked. Whats so different?  

Being a little bit smaller doesnt decrease your drag that much. Bigg people go faster on the flats than little people. *THis is very basic knowledge*.

Boardman, at 152 pounds and 5 foot 8 is still 80% the size of Sosenka and 86% the size of Indurain. There is no way he had just 80% the power output as these two, as you ridiculously state. Otherwise, little people like Marco Pantani with his 6.8 watts per kilo would out- time trial big people like INdurain with his 6.2 watts per kilo!

Absurd. You guys are creeps! What do you want? Cow blood forever?!


----------



## asgelle

F1nut said:


> No WAY. You dont have a clue.
> 
> I have: Francesco Moser aged 32 at Mexico City 51.151kms without aero bars BLOOD DOPED.


You do know blood boosting was legal in 1984, yes?


----------



## bigpinkt

asgelle said:


> You do know blood boosting was legal in 1984, yes?


And that makes it OK?


----------



## F1nut

asgelle said:


> You do know blood boosting was legal in 1984, yes?


It doesnt matter if it was legal or illegal. F-$$$ I dont care if pot, crack, and coke was legal then. What matters is that Conconi took somebodies packed blood, hooked Moser up to an IV, and pumped somebody else's RBC's into Moser (Who had about as much talent as Eddie Merckx's pinky fingernail) so he could "break" Merckx's record.


----------



## bigpinkt

function said:


> Check out the link to the padilla paper i posted...


The paper is interesting....but do you know who Sabino Padilla is? He was Indurains doping doctor. Indurain teammate Thomas Davy testified under oath that Padilla ran a team wide doping program at Banesto. When Padilla went to Athletic Bilbao's two of his players tested positive. The head of the club slammed him for injecting the players with HGH. He was fired and went to work for the Portuguese cycling team Benfica.....where Sergio Ribeiro tested postive for EPO under his care. 

Not saying his numbers are not right but those 509 watts were needle enhanced.


----------



## asgelle

bigpinkt said:


> And that makes it OK?


Why not? If Moser set his record with the aid of blood boosting, he did it within the rules just as Obree, Boardman et al. would use positions which were perfectly legal at the time though were later banned. Would you say they cheated by using those positions?


----------



## bigpinkt

asgelle said:


> Why not? If Moser set his record with the aid of blood boosting, he did it within the rules just as Obree, Boardman et al. would use positions which were perfectly legal at the time though were later banned. Would you say they cheated by using those positions?


You sound like Dr. Ferrari, "If it does not appear in controls is is not doping" You are confusing a pair of bars with dope? 

There is a reason that they UCI has two hour records....are you saying they should have three? The UCI record, the "Best human record" and the doped up record?


----------



## F1nut

All those records were removed from the actual, "Best Human Performance." They have all these F-$$$$$$ different categories.

Moser-Sosenka were all jacked through the roof. They didnt follow the rules. Almost no one did. LeMond did and was humbled by doctors prescribing EPO, Testosterone, hGh, and Insulin.

"Never tested positive." LOL


----------



## asgelle

bigpinkt said:


> You are confusing a pair of bars with dope?


You are confusing the rules under which athletic competitions are conducted with a set of morals known only to you. Should there be two sets or rules for competition: the official UCI rules and the bigpinkt addendum for what is really legal and not? 

In terms of the rules in place in 1984, putting blood into your body to improve performance was no different than carrying a water bottle to remain hydrated to improve performance. It is only your personal opinion that would characterize one as doping and the other not.


----------



## asgelle

F1nut said:


> All those records were removed from the actual, "Best Human Performance."


What in the world are you talking about?


----------



## bigpinkt

asgelle said:


> You are confusing the rules under which athletic competitions are conducted with a set of morals known only to you. Should there be two sets or rules for competition: the official UCI rules and the bigpinkt addendum for what is really legal and not?
> 
> In terms of the rules in place in 1984, putting blood into your body to improve performance was no different than carrying a water bottle to remain hydrated to improve performance. It is only your personal opinion that would characterize one as doping and the other not.


Not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of the UCI and almost every other sporting body that it is doping. Just because Conconi was ahead of the UCI does not mean it is OK. Slavery used to be legal....does that mean it was OK?

Equating ejecting bags of stored blood with a water bottle only serves to enhance the absurdity of your position.


----------



## bigpinkt

asgelle said:


> What in the world are you talking about?


Do some research about the Hour Record.


----------



## asgelle

bigpinkt said:


> Do some research about the Hour Record.


You mean like the fact that prior to 1996, the UCI recognized a single record for the greatest distance covered in an hour regardless of equipment, but then, created a new definition for the hour record; one in which only equipment roughly equivalent to Merckx's 1972 bike could be used? At the same time, they created a new designation for the furthest distance covered in an hour using any UCI legal bike? This was designated the Best Human Effort. Hour records set between 1972 and 1996 were reclassified Best Human Efforts?

In light of this, F1nut's statement makes no sense since no one's record was removed form the record books, and those that were reclassified were put into the Best Human Effort category not removed from it. (I'll ignore the slight mistake in the name of the record.)


----------



## bigpinkt

asgelle said:


> You mean like the fact that prior to 1996, the UCI recognized a single record for the greatest distance covered in an hour regardless of equipment, but then, created a new definition for the hour record; one in which only equipment roughly equivalent to Merckx's 1972 bike could be used? At the same time, they created a new designation for the furthest distance covered in an hour using any UCI legal bike? This was designated the Best Human Effort. Hour records set between 1972 and 1996 were reclassified Best Human Efforts?
> 
> In light of this, F1nut's statement makes no sense since no one's record was removed form the record books, and those that were reclassified were put into the Best Human Effort category not removed from it. (I'll ignore the slight mistake in the name of the record.)


I congratulate you on your ability to use Google

They also have a recumbent world hour record, a unicycle world hour record, a tandem world hour record. Normally when cyclist talk about the world hour record they are referring Moser and Merckx, not your tandem riding friends.


----------



## asgelle

bigpinkt said:


> They also have a recumbent world hour record, a unicycle world hour record, a tandem world hour record. Normally when cyclist talk about the world hour record they are referring Moser and Merckx, not your tandem riding friends.


That's a nice story, but F1nut was talking about the best human performance [sic] record, not the Hour. So I don't see what your post has to do with the original claim that records were removed form the "Best Human Performance" which is false on two counts; no records were removed, and records were moved into, not out of the best human effort category.


----------



## F1nut

asgelle said:


> That's a nice story, but F1nut was talking about the best human performance [sic] record, not the Hour. So I don't see what your post has to do with the original claim that records were removed form the "Best Human Performance" which is false on two counts; no records were removed, and records were moved into, not out of the best human effort category.


Were talking about the Stock Bike world record here. :mad2:


----------



## F1nut

As far as I'm concerned Dr. Ferrari's and Dr. Conconi's records are a joke.

hgH, egH, IGF-1, Amgen and BioPure products dont count for sh$$.

*This is MY thread.*


----------



## bigpinkt

To learn more about Conconi you may want to read Sandro Donati testimony. 

http://www.ergogenics.org/donati.html

Conconi, and his assistants Ferrari and Cecchini used more then just bags of blood. He also writes how death of Fulvio Costa was probably the result of a bad blood transfusion....but that's OK because it wasn't against the rules at the time. Costa's parents may feel differently.


----------



## F1nut

Have a discussion on Power output values and their relation to BLOOD and EPO or it means NOTHING.

*I get the feeling none of you race a bike for Sh$$*.

*Either that or 80% of you are in love with blood vectoring and sharing a centrifuge with your lovers. *


----------



## F1nut

Princeton.edu A Guide To Altitude Safety.

_"This process is known as acclimatization and generally takes 1-3 days at that altitude."_


*Merckx's Record was done on the fourth day.* Thin air makes you go faster. Get over it.

Being jacked on EPO is worthless and an F-$$$$ joke.

*Anything else is Dr. Ferrari's absurdity.*



_"The major cause of altitude illnesses is going too high too fast. Given time, your body can adapt to the decrease in oxygen molecules at a specific altitude. This process is known as acclimatization and generally takes 1-3 days at that altitude. For example, if you hike to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), and spend several days at that altitude, your body acclimatizes to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters). If you climb to 12,000 feet (3,658 meters), your body has to acclimatize once again. A number of changes take place in the body to allow it to operate with decreased oxygen."

The depth of respiration increases. 
Pressure in pulmonary arteries is increased, "forcing" blood into portions of the lung which are normally not used during sea level breathing. 
The body produces more red blood cells to carry oxygen, 
The body produces more of a particular enzyme that facilitates 
the release of oxygen from hemoglobin to the body tissues." _


----------



## Bry03cobra

Jesus,
Some of you guys need to stop spending hours studying numbers to accuse guys of doping and go ride your bike :shocked:. I thought the obsession was with only Lance???? The weather sucks here in NJ, but thats what the trainer is for.:thumbsup:


----------



## lookrider

Bry03cobra said:


> Jesus,
> Some of you guys need to stop spending hours studying numbers to accuse guys of doping and go ride your bike :shocked:. I thought the obsession was with only Lance???? The weather sucks here in NJ, but thats what the trainer is for.:thumbsup:


Is there still snow on the ground?

If that's the case, I understand you riding the trainer, but hey, I'm a soft Floridian and I rode for the whole month of December in NY.

In all seriousness or not. Why does it bother you so much that people spend time on here?


----------



## Bry03cobra

lookrider said:


> Is there still snow on the ground?
> 
> If that's the case, I understand you riding the trainer, but hey, I'm a soft Floridian and I rode for the whole month of December in NY.
> 
> In all seriousness or not. Why does it bother you so much that people spend time on here?


I'm in south jersey near philly, its dark when I leave for work, dark when I get home. Have a hard time getting outside on the bike, usually will do a trainer session. Then follow it up with a 4.5 mile run around the hood.

It doesn't really bother me, I just can't see spending that much time staring at a screen. Most of my posts are from my blackberry. I also think (I'm no shrink) that those who get so worked up about doping, would be much happier not looking at the sport under a microscope and just enjoyed their time on THEIR bike. A friendly debate now and then is fine. But obsessing about such negitives isn't healthy. :thumbsup:


----------



## lookrider

Bry03cobra said:


> I'm in south jersey near philly, its dark when I leave for work, dark when I get home. Have a hard time getting outside on the bike, usually will do a trainer session. Then follow it up with a 4.5 mile run around the hood.
> 
> It doesn't really bother me, I just can't see spending that much time staring at a screen. Most of my posts are from my blackberry. I also think (I'm no shrink) that those who get so worked up about doping, would be much happier not looking at the sport under a microscope and just enjoyed their time on THEIR bike. A friendly debate now and then is fine. But obsessing about such negitives isn't healthy. :thumbsup:


Yeah, I forgot it got dark up there so early. People had their lights on at like 3:30 in the middle of December. Sunset here is now 5:45 and we have light till about 6. I'm also unemployed right now and may be living in the street in a couple of months so I'm going to need the warm weather.:cryin: 

You know your second paragraph is a good reminder to me to get the heck off this forum and get myself in gear. Later.


----------



## function

F1nut said:


> Have a discussion on Power output values and their relation to BLOOD and EPO or it means NOTHING.
> 
> *I get the feeling none of you race a bike for Sh$$*.
> 
> *Either that or 80% of you are in love with blood vectoring and sharing a centrifuge with your lovers. *


Edited, no point in wasting more bandwidth.


----------



## ttug

*nope*



F1nut said:


> Were talking about the Stock Bike world record here. :mad2:


Merckxs bike was not stock, I mean if you want to pick, fine.


----------



## F1nut

ttug said:


> Merckxs bike was not stock, I mean if you want to pick, fine.


Stock as in no aero bars. If you race bicycles in sanctioned races and do time trials, they will have a "stock" and an, "open" category. Disk wheels and tri-spoke whees not allowed. Sometimes they'll have a miniumum number of spokes.

One thing you guys maybe failed to mention is that Merckx and company all used Toe Clips!!!!!!!! There's a power difference between clipless pedals and old toe clips. I dont know what it is. You guys could come up with a Dr. Ferrari article on how there is a 25% power gain with clipless pedals I'm sure..... LOL  just playin'.


----------



## ttug

*hmmmmm*



F1nut said:


> Stock as in no aero bars. If you race bicycles in sanctioned races and do time trials, they will have a "stock" and an, "open" category. Disk wheels and tri-spoke whees not allowed. Sometimes they'll have a miniumum number of spokes.
> 
> One thing you guys maybe failed to mention is that Merckx and company all used Toe Clips!!!!!!!! There's a power difference between clipless pedals and old toe clips. I dont know what it is. You guys could come up with a Dr. Ferrari article on how there is a 25% power gain with clipless pedals I'm sure..... LOL  just playin'.


Ernesto made the bike for Eddy. It was a tad lighter than the current "stock" machine today.


----------



## lookrider

F1nut said:


> Stock as in no aero bars. If you race bicycles in sanctioned races and do time trials, they will have a "stock" and an, "open" category. Disk wheels and tri-spoke whees not allowed. Sometimes they'll have a miniumum number of spokes.
> 
> One thing you guys maybe failed to mention is that Merckx and company all used Toe Clips!!!!!!!! There's a power difference between clipless pedals and old toe clips. I dont know what it is. You guys could come up with a Dr. Ferrari article on how there is a 25% power gain with clipless pedals I'm sure..... LOL  just playin'.


Don't Laugh. LA says bikes are 10% faster with deep dish aero wheels..Also he was riding a 21Lb bike in the '99 tour. It's all on the Pro cycling RBR forum.


----------



## asgelle

F1nut said:


> If you race bicycles in sanctioned races and do time trials, they will have a "stock" and an, "open" category.


I don't know who "they" is but USCF and UCI have no classes named stock or open.


----------



## F1nut

They will categorize you based on your overall time and category.

cat 1 on any bike
cat 3 on any bike
cat 5 on any bike

Then a separate over Stock mens/womens separate 
1
2
3
etc

Separate overall on mens open/ Womans open.
1
2
3
etc.

Lots of TT organizers like to do this, its not, "required" at all. 


*But*, if you try to break the UCI Hour Record it has to be with a standard bike that meets the specifications: No time trial helmets, disc or tri-spoke wheels, aerodynamic bars and monocoque frames.


----------



## F1nut

Your out of touch with American TT terminology, obviously either from a different part of the world or your American and not a rider.


----------



## PhatTalc

F1nut said:


> Princeton.edu A Guide To Altitude Safety.
> 
> _"This process is known as acclimatization and generally takes 1-3 days at that altitude."_
> 
> 
> *Merckx's Record was done on the fourth day.* Thin air makes you go faster. Get over it.
> 
> Being jacked on EPO is worthless and an F-$$$$ joke.
> 
> *Anything else is Dr. Ferrari's absurdity.*
> 
> 
> 
> _"The major cause of altitude illnesses is going too high too fast. Given time, your body can adapt to the decrease in oxygen molecules at a specific altitude. This process is known as acclimatization and generally takes 1-3 days at that altitude. For example, if you hike to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), and spend several days at that altitude, your body acclimatizes to 10,000 feet (3,048 meters). If you climb to 12,000 feet (3,658 meters), your body has to acclimatize once again. A number of changes take place in the body to allow it to operate with decreased oxygen."
> 
> The depth of respiration increases.
> Pressure in pulmonary arteries is increased, "forcing" blood into portions of the lung which are normally not used during sea level breathing.
> The body produces more red blood cells to carry oxygen,
> The body produces more of a particular enzyme that facilitates
> the release of oxygen from hemoglobin to the body tissues." _


For Pete's sake, it takes 2-4 weeks to get fully adapted to 7500ft altitude. What they are talking about here is the acclimatization needed to hike safely at altitude, not to perform as well as you can at altitude which is a different thing altogether. 

http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/acclimatization-to-altitude.html

In 4 days, you will have simply not rested too much due to the altitude compromising sleep. You obviously have never raced at altitude.


----------



## PhatTalc

safetyguy said:


> ...Again nicely done Phat.


Thanks for the compliment!


----------



## ttug

*ya know*



F1nut said:


> *Send me a reputable 1970's lab test link to him holding 450 watts for 30 minutes.....*
> 
> *Maybe he could have gotten it to 420 over 30 minutes.*
> 
> 30 min. TT is a LOT different than a 60 minute TT.
> 
> Someone can hold about 110% of their FTP for 30 minutes!


Have you, YES or NO ever seen Eddy warm up on a bike?

There is a video on youtube, which I did see on TV and the film isd not edited and its amazing to see his form, his speed and the power he must have generated. This talk of watts is a tad strange as we do have folks who have done sub minuted kilos and there are folks who worshipped Eddy who have had max watt ratings well over 1500. Thats right, 1500, its a max rating, but yes, it has been meaured. I recall Marty Nothstein stating he had cracked 2000 watts.

As to the TT question, lets see, on a 1999 Bianchi Brava, a triple, using a 52x14, with quite heavy CXP triple laced wheels, I could still do a sub hour 40K TT, and a sub 5 hour solo century on the same bike. I am not doped, I weighed187, on a 20 + pound bike. I was 36, former 4 pack a day smoker and oh yeah, I used to weigh 305 pounds.

IF I could do my times, on my POS bike, WHY wouldnt a guy, who is possibly the most physically gifted cyclist out there, be able to maintian the watts discussed. Have you seen the watts needed at 110 rpm, in a 52x14 to make the distance he did? Recall that a model is only as good as the data given. I very very much doubt the data you can get on the web, or even from colleagues is what Merckx knew and published on that day.


----------



## asgelle

F1nut said:


> Your out of touch with American TT terminology, obviously either from a different part of the world or your American and not a rider.


You really don't have a clue do you. I'm an ACA and former USCF official.


----------



## ttug

*ding ding ding*



asgelle said:


> You really don't have a clue do you. I'm an ACA and former USCF official.


YOU ARE CORRECT SIR!


----------



## F1nut

PhatTalc said:


> For Pete's sake, it takes 2-4 weeks to get fully adapted to 7500ft altitude. What they are talking about here is the acclimatization needed to hike safely at altitude, not to perform as well as you can at altitude which is a different thing altogether.
> 
> http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/acclimatization-to-altitude.html
> 
> In 4 days, you will have simply not rested too much due to the altitude compromising sleep. You obviously have never raced at altitude.


From that article, quote:

_"Maximal oxygen uptake begins to decrease significantly above an altitude of 1600m (5249ft). For every 1000m (3281ft) above that VO2 max drops by approximately 8-11%."_

At 7,300 feer thats a 10% drop Statistically.

The difference on Mercks if his VO2 max went from 480 watts to 432 watts is as I have *ALREADY* stated.

Merckx's sea Level FTP would be 380-390. His Altitude Level would be 345-355. If he could gain 11% like the article said the HIGHEST his FTP would EVER be would be 402 watts. And thats if the hour record was conducted at 8,400 feet. It was not, it was 7,300 feet and his VO2 max was 9% lower than normal. Your truthful source vindicates me yet again, not that that means anything to the knuckle-heads on here.


----------



## F1nut

ttug said:


> Have you, YES or NO ever seen Eddy warm up on a bike?
> 
> There is a video on youtube, which I did see on TV and the film isd not edited and its amazing to see his form, his speed and the power he must have generated. This talk of watts is a tad strange as we do have folks who have done sub minuted kilos and there are folks who worshipped Eddy who have had max watt ratings well over 1500. Thats right, 1500, its a max rating, but yes, it has been meaured. I recall Marty Nothstein stating he had cracked 2000 watts.
> 
> As to the TT question, lets see, on a 1999 Bianchi Brava, a triple, using a 52x14, with quite heavy CXP triple laced wheels, I could still do a sub hour 40K TT, and a sub 5 hour solo century on the same bike. I am not doped, I weighed187, on a 20 + pound bike. I was 36, former 4 pack a day smoker and oh yeah, I used to weigh 305 pounds.
> 
> IF I could do my times, on my POS bike, WHY wouldnt a guy, who is possibly the most physically gifted cyclist out there, be able to maintian the watts discussed. .


25 mph is about 300 watts. I can do that too fo an hour and then some. But cant we all? I've ridden 86 miles, in freezing cold; when it was 12 degrees F; in 5 hours on a stock road bike. Thermal jacket, ski mask; no chemical warmers, not going all that hard either. Stopped once and almost fell over flat.

I went to a health club the other day, kept up 360-400 watts for 5 minutes, toe clips and tennis shoes :nonod: ; almost made the elderly lady next to me pass out. :devil:


----------



## PhatTalc

F1nut said:


> From that article, quote:
> 
> _"Maximal oxygen uptake begins to decrease significantly above an altitude of 1600m (5249ft). For every 1000m (3281ft) above that VO2 max drops by approximately 8-11%."_
> 
> At 7,300 feer thats a 10% drop Statistically.
> 
> The difference on Mercks if his VO2 max went from 480 watts to 432 watts is as I have *ALREADY* stated.
> 
> Merckx's sea Level FTP would be 380-390. His Altitude Level would be 345-355. If he could gain 11% like the article said the HIGHEST his FTP would EVER be would be 402 watts. And thats if the hour record was conducted at 8,400 feet. It was not, it was 7,300 feet and his VO2 max was 9% lower than normal. Your truthful source vindicates me yet again, not that that means anything to the knuckle-heads on here.


Look, F1nut, I don't want to seem like I am nit picking... but you will only get a 8% drop in performance at 7300ft *if you are acclimatized*. If you are not acclimatized you will see a much larger drop in power- basically the same as the drop in air pressure. Mercks would have done much better had he been at altitude for 2-4 weeks. My source does not vindicate you- because I used it to explain that 4 days at altitude is insufficient to acclimatize.
Interestingly, after 4 weeks he would have started to suffer because the hypoxic environment would have started to eat away at his aerobic base- but that is for a training environment.

I'd like to say something else: calling people who disagree with you knuckle heads, attacking them becuase they are not racers or simply disregarding their input is not going to win this argument- or any friends. The science is simply not as clear cut as you suggest.

Just so you know where I stand: I don't beleive that all the recent racers were clean riders, and I do not support drug use. 
Further, I believe there are several riders who took no drugs at all: Lemong, Mottet (finished ahead of Lemond in '91) and Chris Boardman. Say what you will, but Chris Boardman has always been considered squeaky clean.


----------



## mtbbmet

F1nut said:


> 25 mph is about 300 watts. I can do that too fo an hour and then some. But cant we all? I've ridden 86 miles, in freezing cold; when it was 12 degrees F; in 5 hours on a stock road bike. Thermal jacket, ski mask; no chemical warmers, not going all that hard either. Stopped once and almost fell over flat.
> 
> I went to a health club the other day, kept up 360-400 watts for 5 minutes, toe clips and tennis shoes :nonod: ; almost made the elderly lady next to me pass out. :devil:



I'm starting to think the F1Nut is only using this to justify his sub-par wattage output. Or perhaps using it as a forum to brag about what he thinks are good numbers.
Either way, I'm unimpressed.
And wow, you were able to hold 27.5km/hr for 5 hours in the cold. Good for you, 'round here we do that at least once a week from now till May. And you are right, it's not going hard. Most people call them base miles.


----------



## F1nut

mtbbmet said:


> Either way, I'm unimpressed.
> And wow, you were able to hold 27.5km/hr for 5 hours in the cold. Good for you, 'round here we do that at least once a week from now till May. And you are right, it's not going hard. Most people call them base miles.



I'll brag all I want about Eddie Merckx's 525 career wins and his 390 watts FTP at sea level that humbles my 310. Lets race Mt Met, which race do you want to do with me this summer? We can make it anonomous.


----------



## mtbbmet

double post. sorry


----------



## mtbbmet

F1nut said:


> I'll brag all I want about Eddie Merckx's 525 career wins and his 390 watts FTP at sea level that humbles my 310. Lets race Mt Met, which race do you want to do with me this summer? We can make it anonomous.


We don't need to race. I know from your numbers that you have posted that I would crush you.


----------



## F1nut

mtbbmet said:


> We don't need to race. I know from your numbers that you have posted that I would crush you.


Whoops I meant to type in 1,310 watts for my FTP. I'm still up for grabs. Criterium, TT, Road Races, Stage races?


----------



## mtbbmet

F1nut said:


> Whoops I meant to type in 1,310 watts for my FTP. I'm still up for grabs. Criterium, TT, Road Races, Stage races?


Wow, 1300W. That's enough peak power to come in 5th or 6th in a cat1 race. You should upgrade.

You 310W FTP is about average for a Cat3 male. Congratulations, you are as fast as a few 10's of thousands of other people.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

To all posters, Personal Attacks are not allowed. Repeat violators will be treated appropriately. 

Thanks for your understanding.


----------



## safetyguy

F1nut said:


> Whoops I meant to type in 1,310 watts for my FTP. I'm still up for grabs. Criterium, TT, Road Races, Stage races?


Lets say we have a a 45 YO male who weighs exactly 222 lbs, he is 6'3" tall exactly. His bike weighs 18 lbs He can hit 40.5 mph at full sprint (out of the saddle in a 53x12). 

Same male, same bike. he does a climb at 5% average. He can do this this climb in 20 minutes (seated in the saddle hands on bars - not drops). His cadence is ~90.

How many watts is he producing during the sprint and climb. What do you think this guy could do in an hour in a velodrome. Based upon your analysis is he doped or natural. And would you race this guy for props.


----------



## mtbbmet

I think our resident wattage-calculation-expert is currently unable to respond.
Plus, you did not give enough info. Was this 20min climb 1km or 10km?


----------



## safetyguy

mtbbmet said:


> I think our resident wattage-calculation-expert is currently unable to respond.
> Plus, you did not give enough info. Was this 20min climb 1km or 10km?


You are right I forgot to give either speed or distance - let's give time 20 min, 5% avg incline, speed = 18 (I guess that makes distance 6 miles).


----------



## lookrider

safetyguy said:


> You are right I forgot to give either speed or distance - let's give time 20 min, 5% avg incline, speed = 18 (I guess that makes distance 6 miles).



That's extraterrestrial. You're not Basso because he's 3" shorter and 70lbs lighter.

I'll be like Woody Harrelson in Kingpin signing you up!


----------



## mtbbmet

I got, roughly, peak power in a sprint at 1350W.
For the climb I came up with about 570W. That's quite a bit.
I used a big frontal area, and a 177.5 crank length.
I dont know how acurate Analytical Cycling really is though, or even if I used it properly.


----------

