Merckx Record is dead, the Hour Record lives

[FlashUNC]

As expected, the UCI has ditched the Merckx requirements for the Hour Record:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/05/bikes-and-tech/uci-changes-hour-record-regulations-allows-modern-track-bikes_328018

Great news all around I think.

[54ny77]

i don't understand that change and who the players are, since i haven't (or don't) follow it closely.

what about moser? he was (among) the first to go full-tilt aero and break the record, no?

[FlashUNC]

Yes, but his record was subsequently broken by several folks, including Boardman. As the article states, current Hour Record holder that complies to the UCI's pursuit bike rules is Ondrej Sosenka at 49.7km.

Ondrej has also been suspended twice for doping. Take that for whatever it is.

Sadly, Boardman and Obree's marks do not stand in the record books currently, as the bikes and positions don't comply with UCI pursuit rules.

[bluesea]

Not that Merckx' record is dead, it exists within its historical context where it belongs.

[MattTuck]

Not that Merckx' record is dead, it exists within its historical context where it belongs.

I'll repeat what I've said before. The UCI has a history of monkeying with the rules every time someone gets credibly close to contesting for the record. There's no reason to think that this will not be the case in the future as well. So whatever record you go for, it may or may not be regarded as 'official' the next time they change the rules.

If I were Cancellara, I'd attempt it on the same equipment that Merckx used. Who cares about the UCI? Let public opinion and history be the determinants of the hour record -- not the UCI, a political entity able and willing to keep the rules in a constant state of flux.

[Lanterne Rouge]

I think people will still compete for the Merckx hour - I don't know why but it feels purer?

[spartanKid]

I'll repeat what I've said before. The UCI has a history of monkeying with the rules every time someone gets credibly close to contesting for the record. There's no reason to think that this will not be the case in the future as well. So whatever record you go for, it may or may not be regarded as 'official' the next time they change the rules.

If I were Cancellara, I'd attempt it on the same equipment that Merckx used. Who cares about the UCI? Let public opinion and history be the determinants of the hour record -- not the UCI, a political entity able and willing to keep the rules in a constant state of flux.


I think this is a clear and obvious move by the UCI to ensure that Cancellara/Martin/Wiggins can SMASH the record of 49.7 for the sake of publicity and newsworthiness.

[nooneline]

I think this is a good move. Here's why:

1. It's an attempt to get more people willing to take a run at the Hour Record. I mean really - Why is the most recent guy we're talking about Ondrej Sosenka? Is he really the kind of guy we say in the same breath as Eddie Merckx and Francesco Moser? Or would you rather talk about Merckx, Moser, O'bree and Boardman, Cancellara, Martin, and Wiggins?

2. It's based on applying a consistent standard. You can race it in a pursuit? Good. Then you can race it for an hour record.

3. It doesn't re-write the history books; it just contextualizes them. O'bree and Boardman held the Hour Record for a while. Sosenka held it for a while, too (albeit with a distance less than O'bree and Boardman). Reason? Different equipment rules.

4. Since you can't actually compare anybody to Merckx, well, no great loss. You can't eliminate variables, even in a track time trial. Might as well embrace contextualizing athlete's performances (in the rules/technologies available to them) rather than tilting at windmills in a doomed attempt to keep things constant.

[Admiral Ackbar]

wasn't there already a second class for "aero" bikes? couldn't they have amended the rules for that and left the mercx record open to new challengers as well? I'm not sure i understand the UCI's reasoning. but then again, it is the UCI.

atmo its kind of a shame the mercx second is no more. i would have loved to see fabs or martin have a go at, as someone else mentioned the modern bike/aero record just doesn't have the same appeal to it

[MattTuck]

I think this is a clear and obvious move by the UCI to ensure that Cancellara/Martin/Wiggins can SMASH the record of 49.7 for the sake of publicity and newsworthiness.

Yes, but that publicity will be short lived... until the next technology advancement when the UCI will again fumble with a rule change. The Merckx record rules are the appropriate yard-stick for historical comparison. There will always be an asterisk next to those records using new equipment.

Smashing the record with modern equipment for the publicity may be good for manufacturers and other sponsors, but it is tantamount to condoned doping in my opinion. Let the Why not compare yourself to the best throughout history?

All one would have to do is break the record using the Merckx rules and it would cast doubt on all attempts using new equipment. They would not be considered genuine when there is a documented record with the old rules.

[bluesea]

If I were Cancellara, I'd attempt it on the same equipment that Merckx used. Who cares about the UCI? Let public opinion and history be the determinants of the hour record -- not the UCI, a political entity able and willing to keep the rules in a constant state of flux.


That would be cool but don't think its going to happen, unless he can beat the current record at the same time.

[nooneline]

Cancellara's salary is paid by people who are trying to sell carbon superbikes. They've got nothing to gain by showing the world that he can ride 50kph on a steel bike.

You can TRY to minimize variables by insisting that everyone use a bike comparable to what Merckx used, but what else are you going to do? Mandate a certain tire, track surface, location, altitude, temperature, air pressure, and windspeed? You can't take away the variables; athletic performances are contextual, always.

[CunegoFan]

Great news all around I think.

How so? It makes the record a meaningless gauge of technology rather than athletic prowess.

[Mike Lopez]

...the Babe's home run record being broken with more games per season + drugs.... ?

[FlashUNC]

How so? It makes the record a meaningless gauge of technology rather than athletic prowess.

Because the artibrary freezing of the record with Merckx is nonsense. Merckx used the latest and greatest tech he had at the time. He sure didn't use the same bike that Fausto Coppi used for the record.

To ignore technology is to ignore a pretty significant part of the sport, imo.

Never mind that once the UCI imposed the Merckx rules, it effectively killed all interests and attempts at the record by anyone of note.

[Ti Designs]

It's simple really, idiots need a single answer to a question there is no single answer to - who is/was the best? Technology changes, results change. If you need one answer, it's 42.

[spartanKid]

Cancellara's salary is paid by people who are trying to sell carbon superbikes. They've got nothing to gain by showing the world that he can ride 50kph on a steel bike.

The current record is on a carbon bike that meets the dimensions set forth by the UCI. Even if there wasn't the rule change, he wouldn't have been aboard a steel bike with holes drilled in the stem/seatpost/crank.

[nooneline]

ah yes, you're right, i'd forgotten the precise specifics of the Merckx Hour requirements.

[Mark McM]

what about moser? he was (among) the first to go full-tilt aero and break the record, no?

Moser was hardly the first to go full-tilt aero. Bikes built for aerodynamics started to be used in the 1930s, at which point the UCI started to regulate the bikes that could be used.

However, while Moser may not have been the first to go full-tilt aero, he is still the first to admit to going full-tilt doping to break the record.

[firerescuefin]

Very good/well thought out post.:beer:


I think this is a good move. Here's why:

1. It's an attempt to get more people willing to take a run at the Hour Record. I mean really - Why is the most recent guy we're talking about Ondrej Sosenka? Is he really the kind of guy we say in the same breath as Eddie Merckx and Francesco Moser? Or would you rather talk about Merckx, Moser, O'bree and Boardman, Cancellara, Martin, and Wiggins?

2. It's based on applying a consistent standard. You can race it in a pursuit? Good. Then you can race it for an hour record.

3. It doesn't re-write the history books; it just contextualizes them. O'bree and Boardman held the Hour Record for a while. Sosenka held it for a while, too (albeit with a distance less than O'bree and Boardman). Reason? Different equipment rules.

4. Since you can't actually compare anybody to Merckx, well, no great loss. You can't eliminate variables, even in a track time trial. Might as well embrace contextualizing athlete's performances (in the rules/technologies available to them) rather than tilting at windmills in a doomed attempt to keep things constant.

[54ny77]

Well, I bet the Italian drugs tasted better than the others.

Moser was hardly the first to go full-tilt aero. Bikes built for aerodynamics started to be used in the 1930s, at which point the UCI started to regulate the bikes that could be used.

However, while Moser may not have been the first to go full-tilt aero, he is still the first to admit to going full-tilt doping to break the record.

[FlashUNC]

...the Babe's home run record being broken with more games per season + drugs.... ?

Babe's records were broken by Roger Maris and Hank Aaron, respectively.

They were on drugs?

[MattTuck]

I hear what you're saying. How about this radical concept?

Change the title from "hour record" to "hour competition", and have it renew every year.

Anyone who wants to take a crack at it in 2014, you have up until December 31st to put in your time. The person with the longest distance is the 2014 Hour Competition Champion, gets a trophy and gets some special symbol/arm bands/whatever for the following year.

Maybe, although I don't truly think it would work, you hold a week during which entrants must do the hour competition attempt at a specific location, so you can do some sponsor stuff and have critical mass around the event. Each year, people are competing on similar equipment, and you get a champion for each year -- assuming at least one person attempts it.

To me, that achieves much more contextualization AND provides more opportunities for more riders to put in an attempt with the belief that they can get some recognition -- if only for a year.

To me, the term 'record' implies some historical constant. It would be like weight lifters lifting a certain amount of weight in the plates, but being able to use a carbon fiber bar. I believe for the 'hour record', you should be limited as best as the rules allow, to comparable equipment to what previous riders had.



I think this is a good move. Here's why:

1. It's an attempt to get more people willing to take a run at the Hour Record. I mean really - Why is the most recent guy we're talking about Ondrej Sosenka? Is he really the kind of guy we say in the same breath as Eddie Merckx and Francesco Moser? Or would you rather talk about Merckx, Moser, O'bree and Boardman, Cancellara, Martin, and Wiggins?

2. It's based on applying a consistent standard. You can race it in a pursuit? Good. Then you can race it for an hour record.

3. It doesn't re-write the history books; it just contextualizes them. O'bree and Boardman held the Hour Record for a while. Sosenka held it for a while, too (albeit with a distance less than O'bree and Boardman). Reason? Different equipment rules.

4. Since you can't actually compare anybody to Merckx, well, no great loss. You can't eliminate variables, even in a track time trial. Might as well embrace contextualizing athlete's performances (in the rules/technologies available to them) rather than tilting at windmills in a doomed attempt to keep things constant.

[CunegoFan]

Because the artibrary freezing of the record with Merckx is nonsense. Merckx used the latest and greatest tech he had at the time. He sure didn't use the same bike that Fausto Coppi used for the record.

So we should allow faired recumbents. Anything else is an arbitrary rule.

How about body shape altering clothing, like conical shaped butt padding or calf extensions.

Never mind that once the UCI imposed the Merckx rules, it effectively killed all interests and attempts at the record by anyone of note.

If Merckx killed riders' desire to attempt the record it was because they knew they could not beat him without better drugs or better technology. It is not a bad thing to have a high standard set that future riders can be measured against.

[nooneline]

Baseball?

Man, how far away were the fences in old stadiums? The Polo Grounds had 480 foot fences. These days, 410 is a rough & general maximum - though stadiums have all sorts of crazy dimensions.

[nooneline]

So we should allow faired recumbents. Anything else is an arbitrary rule.

The UCI has a history of trying to keep bicycle racing looking like bicycle racing and not having it devolve into faired recumbent time trials. Really that was the impetus behind the whole Obree issue, though really, they handled that whole affair quite poorly.

Still, there is Human Powered Vehicle racing, and then there is cycling. I'm glad they're separate!

[CunegoFan]

I hear what you're saying. How about this radical concept?

Change the title from "hour record" to "hour competition", and have it renew every year.

Anyone who wants to take a crack at it in 2014, you have up until December 31st to put in your time. The person with the shortest time is the 2014 Hour Competition Champion, gets a trophy and gets some special symbol/arm bands/whatever for the following year.


Something like this is a great idea. Maybe use a several year cycle instead of one year. Keep the Merckx record.

[FlashUNC]

So we should allow faired recumbents. Anything else is an arbitrary rule.

How about body shape altering clothing, like conical shaped butt padding or calf extensions.



If Merckx killed riders' desire to attempt the record it was because they knew they could not beat him without better drugs or better technology. It is not a bad thing to have a high standard set that future riders can be measured against.

So then why Merckx? Because he's the last guy to do it on a "normal" bike?

Why not disallow his record because he did it at altitude with thinner air?

You can slice and dice it a million different ways. I personally think limiting it to Merckx-style and era equipment stifles interest in the sport long-term. It doesn't spur creating new idols and is more just wallowing in a sepia-toned past.

To think that Eddy wouldn't have used a pursuit bike position if anyone had thought of it back in the 70's is ludicrous. Just as I'm sure Fausto and Jacques and others would have totally used whatever equipment and technology Eddy had available to him. What could Anquetil have done with more current technology?

[spartanKid]

Babe's records were broken by Roger Maris and Hank Aaron, respectively.

They were on drugs?

Hank Aaron and others from that era have admitted to using amphetamines during the games

[pbarry]

If I were Cancellara, I'd attempt it on the same equipment that Merckx used. Who cares about the UCI? Let public opinion and history be the determinants of the hour record -- not the UCI, a political entity able and willing to keep the rules in a constant state of flux.

Well said. The Hour Record could remain the one true, pure athletic event in cycling.

Since Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile in running, the only thing that has changed in equipment is the shoes, and a good miler doesn't have much more padding in the heel than RB did.

More of the big guns don't attempt the HR because to fail would be a humiliation at (usually) the end of a stellar career. And, it's the most difficult mind event in cycling.

[fiamme red]

Well said. The Hour Record could remain the one true, pure athletic event in cycling.

Since Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile in running, the only thing that has changed in equipment is the shoes, and a good miler doesn't have much more padding in the heel than RB did.Well, modern synthetic tracks are much faster than the cinder track that Bannister set his record on.

[pbarry]

So are new paved roads in the grand tours. I was talking about equipment that the athletes use; that is connected to their bodies. ;)

[nate2351]

Just to throw this out there because it seems to be getting looked over. The Merckx record has since been broken twice on "athlete's hour" bikes. Boardman broke it and so did Soseka.

If you look at the history of the record it was attempted pretty regularly up until the UCI canned the aero bikes. Then it was just the guys still invested and no new commers really. Maybe this change will bring people back into it.

[sante pollastri]

Well, I bet the Italian drugs tasted better than the others.

do you want some?
I van shop to you,is the same that used Lemond & Hampsten.

[rustychisel]

do you want some?
I van shop to you,is the same that used Lemond & Hampsten.


:eek::)

Woah. I appreciate a killer low blow as much as anyone else, but you know this is going to be taken the wrong way....

:fight:

[sante pollastri]

:eek::)

Woah. I appreciate a killer low blow as much as anyone else, but you know this is going to be taken the wrong way....

:fight:

The right way is the classic route...

[oldpotatoe]

Cancellara's salary is paid by people who are trying to sell carbon superbikes. They've got nothing to gain by showing the world that he can ride 50kph on a steel bike.

You can TRY to minimize variables by insisting that everyone use a bike comparable to what Merckx used, but what else are you going to do? Mandate a certain tire, track surface, location, altitude, temperature, air pressure, and windspeed? You can't take away the variables; athletic performances are contextual, always.

Like 'world's best' in marathon..no 'world record' because all are on different 26.2 courses.

Trek is going to pay a lot of money to him for attempting the hour record on a 'technologically advanced' Trek...the pursuit type bike design rule I think is a good one..

I agree..all are contextual..is it unfair to try the record at altitude? or in clean rather than dirty air?

I say so what...when's the last time anybody attempted the hour record on any bike?..time to make it relevant again..

[jmoore]

Since Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile in running, the only thing that has changed in equipment is the shoes, and a good miler doesn't have much more padding in the heel than RB did.



This is not true. Track surfaces have surely changed and are much faster. Even going so far as to have training tracks that are softer and competition track that are purpose built for fast time at large meets.

[goonster]

So then why Merckx?
Because he's Eddy Freaking Merckx, obviously.

Every great athlete interested in their legacy would like the opportunity to compare themselves against the greats of other eras. But you can't face the same pitchers as The Babe, or step into the ring with Ali in his prime. But you can ride around a track on a bike.

Cancellara's legacy, as a dominant rider of his era, is secure. The only reason there is talk of an hour record attempt now is because he, and his sponsors, would like to place him among the all-time greats. Boardman, imho, did this successfully (with respect to the hour record), while we now that Obree was never in their class as an athlete.

Track bikes, for sprints and omnium events, have not changed that much in a very long time. You don't have to resort to museum pieces or historical reproductions to get a functional equivalent of the Merckx bike.

[FlashUNC]

Because he's Eddy Freaking Merckx, obviously.

Every great athlete interested in their legacy would like the opportunity to compare themselves against the greats of other eras. But you can't face the same pitchers as The Babe, or step into the ring with Ali in his prime. But you can ride around a track on a bike.

Cancellara's legacy, as a dominant rider of his era, is secure. The only reason there is talk of an hour record attempt now is because he, and his sponsors, would like to place him among the all-time greats.

Track bikes, for sprints and omnium events, have not changed that much in a very long time. You don't have to resort to museum pieces or historical reproductions to get a functional equivalent of the Merckx bike.

But nor would you need to for Moser. Graeme Obree built his out of freaking washing machine parts. Why not roll it back further and disallow the thin atmosphere he used and go back to Anquetil?

I'll never begrudge the greatness that was Eddy and he's head and shoulders the best of all time. But the turn of the clock back to Eddy's record was clearly meant to needlessly burnish his legacy at the expense of others who had broken the record.

[soulspinner]

I think people will still compete for the Merckx hour - I don't know why but it feels purer?

Because it is purer. When I did time trials in the 80s nobody showed up with aero anything.

[nooneline]

That's what they said about derailleurs, too.

[goonster]

But nor would you need to for Moser. Graeme Obree built his out of freaking washing machine parts.
You would, actually. The Moser and Obree bikes are not close to resembling anything other than hour record contraptions. The '84 Moser bike used some sort of non-standard, one-off rear wheel size.

Why not roll it back further and disallow the thin atmosphere he used and go back to Anquetil?
Mexico City was not Merckx' idea, it was Ole Ritter's, who had set the previous record there. Anyway, the standard is not fixed to Merckx. His record was broken by Boardman and Sosenka, who did it close to sea level.

But the turn of the clock back to Eddy's record was clearly meant to needlessly burnish his legacy at the expense of others who had broken the record.
Who's been robbed? Moser, Obree, Indurain, Rominger? Does anybody really believe Eddy's legacy has been "needlessly burnished", and the stature of the '72 record unduly elevated, at the expense of these guys?

[Mark McM]

You would, actually. The Moser and Obree bikes are not close to resembling anything other than hour record contraptions. The '84 Moser bike used some sort of non-standard, one-off rear wheel size.

Hold on a minute - Moser's and Obree's bikes were legal at the time they set their records. In fact, Obree set the record twice, with two different types of (then legal) bikes - the original 'Egg' position (arms folded under his torso, and the 'Superman' position (arms outstretched forward).

The 'Superman' position bike in particular was a not an "hour record contraption." Several cyclists used the Superman position in other track racing events (it was widely used during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics), and several cycling records were broken with it other than the hour record. Should we strike these non-hour records set with legal bikes, simply because the bikes were subsequently made illegal?

[nooneline]

Hold on a minute - Moser's and Obree's bikes were legal at the time they set their records. In fact, Obree set the record twice, with two different types of (then legal) bikes - the original 'Egg' position (arms folded under his torso, and the 'Superman' position (arms outstretched forward).

The 'Superman' position bike in particular was a not an "hour record contraption." Several cyclists used the Superman position in other track racing events (it was widely used during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics), and several cycling records were broken with it other than the hour record. Should we strike these non-hour records set with legal bikes, simply because the bikes were subsequently made illegal?

Indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YBfEsy1xO8

[goonster]

Should we strike these non-hour records set with legal bikes, simply because the bikes were subsequently made illegal?
No one has suggested any such thing. The hour record is neither an annual hour championship, nor is it a World's pursuit title.

The "Merckx standard" hour deserves its own category, and should not be subjected to exploitation of equipment loopholes. Since Eddy no longer holds that record, the claim that this is all done for his benefit will not wash. Anybody who doesn't like it is free to build a better faired recumbent.

[Mark McM]

No one has suggested any such thing. The hour record is neither an annual hour championship, nor is it a World's pursuit title.

The "Merckx standard" hour deserves its own category, and should not be subjected to exploitation of equipment loopholes. Since Eddy no longer holds that record, the claim that this is all done for his benefit will not wash. Anybody who doesn't like it is free to build a better faired recumbent.

Sorry, but your arguments are contradictory. Why dos the "Merckx standard" deserve its own category, other than for reasons of honoring Merckx? Merckx used contemporary equipment for the time he set the record, and not built to older designs that had been used by record setters from the previous half century of its history. What reason to 'stop the clock' on equipment here, if not in deference to Merckx?

Besides, this category would defeat the purpose of not using special "hour record contraptions." If a cyclist wanted to set go for the record today, could he ride a bike of the type used today for any other UCI track race? No, he'd need to get a special bike built that would have no purpose other than to set an hour record (in affect, being purely an "hour record contraption").

[nate2351]

How about we have everyone just ride computrainers to get the highest watt/kg in an hour? ;)

You know like those indoor triathlons.

[nate2351]

You know faired recumbents have their own class, they are called HPVs, they are raced on long flats not velodromes, and the record is something like 90+K.

Personally I don't see how that would be confused with pursuit bikes being raced on a velodrome.

[rain dogs]

I don't like this change.

I look at the hour record as something that is as close to a 'closed' scientific experiment as there can be. I also think the benefit of that is it allows direct comparison across eras.

I think there should be two categories (and only two)

1. THE UCI Hour Record - Same track. Same bike style (Merckx style). Everyone who wants to try can try. It's standardized human vs human performance with as many controls as possible (including doping controls) to try and reduce the variability. In theory future Merckx's could race Merckx's from 100 years prior. This is the only event with the potential to race the past on otherwise fairly equal conditions.

2. The UCI Open Hour Record - Anything goes with four conditions: 1. It has to be 100% human powered bicycle (two wheels). 2. No doping allowed 3. No outside variable factors (ie tailwinds, weather anomolies). 4. It has to be on a circular track (velodrome)

That's it. Two. Everything else can be for that Guiness book, or youtube or whatever. But for legit UCI hour records, there should be only those two IMHO.

It seems completely stupid in my mind to open the door a little to technology and only let some things through. "A TT position is ok, but superman or recumbent aren't.", "Aero bars are ok, but more than 3:1 aero frames aren't", "Any bicycle is ok, as long as it's a traditional diamond frame bicycle... BUT, not too traditional." All of that is silly. Allow tech or don't, don't say we're allowing tech influences now, as long as it's only this very limited, specific technology.

[Mark McM]

I think there should be two categories (and only two)

1. THE UCI Hour Record - Same track. Same bike style (Merckx style). Everyone who wants to try can try. It's standardized human vs human performance with as many controls as possible (including doping controls) to try and reduce the variability. In theory future Merckx's could race Merckx's from 100 years prior. This is the only event with the potential to race the past on otherwise fairly equal conditions.

2. The UCI Open Hour Record - Anything goes with four conditions: 1. It has to be 100% human powered bicycle (two wheels). 2. No doping allowed 3. No outside variable factors (ie tailwinds, weather anomolies). 4. It has to be on a circular track (velodrome)

What's special about the hour record, that it should be treated differently from other track cycling records? There are plenty of other standard events that have been contested for as long as the hour record, such as the flying 200m, 1K TT, the 4K pursuit, etc., why not apply a fixed bicycle standard for these, as well?

It seems that Merckx's hour record has been so overly romanticized that people feel the need to judge all hour records attempts against his. And yet many fail to see that Merckx used a technological advantage to beat previous record holders - namely, he went to high altitude (7,000 feet) to take advantage of the lower aero drag with the lower air density. Other noted record setters (Oscar Egg, Fausto Coppi, Jacques Anguetil, etc.) set their records closer to sea level. Why is it okay for Merckx to exploit a technological edge, but not others?

[nooneline]

I look at the hour record as something that is as close to a 'closed' scientific experiment as there can be.

Are you a scientist?

Because, the hour record is about as far away from a 'closed' scientific experiment (limiting the variables only to human performance) as there can be. There are still a ton of variables in the Hour Record even if you set rules around bike tech.

Really, the only way to eliminate variables is to have two people on identically calibrated stationary wattcycles. #BORING

[rain dogs]

Are you a scientist?

Because, the hour record is about as far away from a 'closed' scientific experiment (limiting the variables only to human performance) as there can be. There are still a ton of variables in the Hour Record even if you set rules around bike tech.

Really, the only way to eliminate variables is to have two people on identically calibrated stationary wattcycles. #BORING

1. No, I'm not a scientist, does that mean I cannot have an opinion?
2. Do you believe that as far away from a 'closed' experiment/exploration the hour record is, that allowing different bikes and tracks makes it more controlled, more comparable?
3. Stationary bikes and regulating track bikes isn't a parallel argument. A stationary bike doesn't test handling, nor full body fatigue, nor following a line, nor error. It's disingenuous to argue using a Merckx style track bike (or any bicycle) is the same as using a stationary bike.

I understand that it's never going to be a true scientific situation and I didn't say it would, I said it should reduce the variability as much as possible.

nooneline, answer me this: Why open the hour experiment to technology in such a limited and specific fashion? Why allow aero bars but not more extreme aero frames? How do you resolve the contradiction what is allowed and not? What is legal/not today and then what will be tomorrow when it could already be done now (only to change it in 20 years and make irrelevant everything that is accomplished today? (like with Merckx, Like with Indurain, as will be with Wiggins/Cance)

[rain dogs]

Why is it okay for Merckx to exploit a technological edge, but not others?

I think you can see from my response that I don't support that Merckx used technological advances that the others didn't have.

I don't think I, or others, are romanticizing the Merckx era. Just that many believe a hard line should be drawn, and it has been there, and can be there, so keep it there.

The fact is, the hour record is specifically an event which compares itself against the past (previous attempts), not against the immediate peers (like the Tour does with 200 competitors racing together).

So, what interest is there to have different technology involved?

Would you be interested in a hypothetical home run distance competition between Babe Ruth's bat and a corked bat? We know the outcome before the event takes place.

Or, if you want to see ultimate potential, why not have all technology on the table? Otherwise, it's like saying use the most advances ball possible, but you have to hit it with this stick. Or you can use both the best ball and the best bat, but you have to stand like Ruth stood, or swing like he swung. It's silly.

[nooneline]

Oh man, do I have to do that internet thing where not only do I have to say what I said over again, but also point out why what I said is different than the things you accuse me of saying?

1. Did I imply that you couldn't have an opinion?
However there's something else that's perhaps more valuable than opinion, and that's expertise. Experts have expertise about what makes for a closely controlled experiment, and that the Hour Record wouldn't pass muster.

2. I'll point you at my previous comments in this thread, which point out that since you can't make a genuine attempt to control and compare, you might as well not try to "level the playing field," and keep the performances contextual.

3. I didn't say it would be a good idea; I just said that it would be the only way to control for variables. As you point out - it eliminates too many variables, and bike racing is about variables. After all - context matters.

This might answer your final question (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=1548569&postcount=8).

Look, the Hour Record is a way to see who can ride a bike the farthest on a velodrome in 1 hour. Despite attempts, it's no more of a historical marker than any other track time trial: flying 200, kilo, 4k, etc. Those records keep falling (Francois Pervis demolished the kilo record this winter); more things become part of 'acceptable bike technology.'

Why should the Hour Record be different from these more-frequently-contested events? Apply one set of bike rules to them, know that things change through time, and structure competition so that it attracts competitors.

1. No, I'm not a scientist, does that mean I cannot have an opinion?
2. Do you believe that as far away from a 'closed' experiment/exploration the hour record is, that allowing different bikes and tracks makes it more controlled, more comparable?
3. Stationary bikes and regulating track bikes isn't a parallel argument. A stationary bike doesn't test handling, nor full body fatigue, nor following a line, nor error. It's disingenuous to argue using a Merckx style track bike (or any bicycle) is the same as using a stationary bike.

I understand that it's never going to be a true scientific situation and I didn't say it would, I said it should reduce the variability as much as possible.

nooneline, answer me this: Why open the hour experiment to technology in such a limited and specific fashion? Why allow aero bars but not more extreme aero frames? How do you resolve the contradiction what is allowed and not? What is legal/not today and then what will be tomorrow when it could already be done now (only to change it in 20 years and make irrelevant everything that is accomplished today? (like with Merckx, Like with Indurain, as will be with Wiggins/Cance)

[FlashUNC]

I think you can see from my response that I don't support that Merckx used technological advances that the others didn't have.

I don't think I, or others, are romanticizing the Merckx era. Just that many believe a hard line should be drawn, and it has been there, and can be there, so keep it there.

The fact is, the hour record is specifically an event which compares itself against the past (previous attempts), not against the immediate peers (like the Tour does with 200 competitors racing together).

So, what interest is there to have different technology involved.

Would you be interested in a home run distance competition between Babe Ruth's bat and a corked bat?

Or, if you want to see ultimate potential, why not have all technology on the table? Otherwise, it's like saying use the most advances ball possible, but you have to hit it with this stick.

But you're assuming that just because it looks the same, it is the same. Just as the bats used today by sluggers are nowhere near the same as what Babe Ruth used -- different wood composition, different shapes, different weights, etc etc -- the bike even Merckx used was different from what Anquetil or Coppi or anyone else used.

Time and technology inexorably march on. The key difference being the dramatic increase in understanding aerodynamics (Eddy was obsessed with weight, and the drillium in his bike probably did him more harm than good), training, and composite materials. Even with the so-called "Merckx record" in place, Chris Boardman still beat Eddy's distance by 10m.

What goes into that 10m? Boardman wore a shelled helmet instead of a hairnet. Was that the difference? What about shoe covers? Boardman wore them, Eddy didn't. Boardman did his attempt at the Manchester velodrome, an indoor facility that was heated to try to reduce air resistance. Eddy made his attempt outside.

So should all Merckx attempts involve hairnets without shoe covers at outdoor velodromes at altitude?

I don't get the criticism that allowing pursuit bikes is technological hair-splitting, while the "Merckx record" is some kind of ideal without it's own ridiculous hair-splitting.

Why ignore technology and the march of time? I'm sure Eddy would have used whatever Superman-style pursuit bike he could have if Ernesto and team had thought of it. Instead he took a drill to everything he could.

[MattTuck]

Yep. I don't think anybody is romanticizing the Merckx rules. One, because it is not Eddy's record, it has been beaten several times. and Two, it was the UCI (the same stupid political entity) that set out the Merckx rules right before Boardman was about to break the record.

What the allegiance to the Merckx record is, in a weird way, is the prevention of the UCI from messing with the rules any and every time someone seriously attempts, or even expresses interest in attempting the record.

Maybe the NEW UCI rules will do the same thing, by limiting changes to the track pursuit bikes... but I think the more likely thing that will happen is 5-10 years from now, Taylor Phinney (or insert current young rider's name) will attempt the record, and the UCI will have a conniption, and say modern aero bikes are no fair (just like they did with Boardman) and we need to roll back to the Merckx rules.

Sticking to the Merckx rules has nothing to do with Merckx, and everything to do with keeping the UCI from capricious rule changes.

[nooneline]

Sticking to the Merckx rules has nothing to do with Merckx, and everything to do with keeping the UCI from capricious rule changes.

I'm confused, though. You point out that the Merckx standards WERE a capricious rule change (though directed at Obree's attempt, not Boardman).

I definitely am a bit wary of these new rules - as you point out, the UCI can giveth and the UCI can taketh away. But, by making them consistent with other events, it's a step in the right direction, removing some caprice.

(and with that comment, i'm either on the verge of thread····ting, or well past the threshold. so I should probably step out of this thread for a bit)

[MattTuck]

I'm confused, though. You point out that the Merckx standards WERE a capricious rule change (though directed at Obree's attempt, not Boardman).

I definitely am a bit wary of these new rules - as you point out, the UCI can giveth and the UCI can taketh away. But, by making them consistent with other events, it's a step in the right direction, removing some caprice.

(and with that comment, i'm either on the verge of thread····ting, or well past the threshold. so I should probably step out of this thread for a bit)

They were a capricious rule change, but when we look at the benefits they have today, atleast we have a standard that reaches back to 1972 -- which is why I say that my resistance to a rule change has nothing to do with Eddy Merckx. I'm against any rule change. This is why, if a rider cares about legacy and their place in history, I'd advise them to ignore the UCI, use the Merckx rules and get it approved by some impartial non UCI body -- if the rider breaks it, there will never be any doubt in the court of public opinion.

By bending to the rules of the UCI, as you say, "the UCI can giveth and the UCI can taketh away." If there is a set of rules that is owned by the 'cycling community at large', rather than the UCI, I think that is a win for everyone. And the Merckx rules are the closest to such a thing because of their history.

[rain dogs]

Time and technology inexorably march on.

I agree completely, that is why I believe there should be the second hour category (open).

All those saying I'm too traditional, why not allow non-faired (or faired) recumbents, which have existed for decades and would smash the record?

Not traditional enough?

[Mark McM]

Sticking to the Merckx rules has nothing to do with Merckx, and everything to do with keeping the UCI from capricious rule changes.

Interestingly, one could not take Eddy's hour record bike out of the museum and try to set a new record with it today, because Eddy's bike is now illegal. One of UCI's capricious rule changes was to limit the minimum weight of a bicycle, and Eddy's bike is about 3 lbs. under the limit. So, even Eddy's actual bike has an unfair technological advantage compared to the bikes that were used by Boardman and Sosenka to break the "Eddy Merckx" hour record.


Details on Eddy's bike:

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Benelux/Merckx/Merckx_hour_B-guide_1.htm

[pbarry]

Pretty sure EM's "Windsor" could have weight added to comply with the minimum weight limit. Or just use his bike with a Brooks Pro saddle on it. ;)

[rain dogs]

Interestingly, one could not take Eddy's hour record bike out of the museum and try to set a new record with it today, because Eddy's bike is now illegal.

I perhaps shouldn't speak for Matt, but I think he and I are coming from the same thought process.

The issue is not with Merckx himself, nor his specific bike, it is that the UCI established a highly regulated set of parameters/metrics which would give the hour record context. Changing those parameters now doesn't contextualize performances it manipulates/blurs context... as the context of the hour record is an individual human performance on as basic (or non-advantageous) a track bicycle riding an hour over a recorded distance (more or less).

Simple steel round tube, diamond frame, box wheels, one gear, drop bars. The bike is meant to be secondary to the human performance. I'd argue the track should be as well.

The question we should be asking ourselves is how can we make the bike and the track the least influential factors in the test of human performance of riding a bicycle for an hour while staying true to the skills needed to ride a bicycle. That's the bike I think many want, that would be my proposed "The Hour record #1." The results of said competition should, in my mind, be as clear as possible to show the evolution of human performance only. Not that if you find a track in Anarctica that you can go 50m more.

That is context easily understood. Human performance and athletic progress.

If the bike becomes open to technological innovation, then the context becomes: What is the limit of the human/bicycle/technology interface at travelling a distance over an hour?

In which case, a more meaningful examination in my mind, is the most technologically advanced bicycle that design and engineering can currently create, coupled with the most elite athlete to ride it. That would be my proposed "open hour record" #2. Then, this measures progress in both performance AND engineering. Two distinct factors, of which I'd say the "true" hour, should measure only one - the human performance part.

But why would there be an middle-ground limit of the current pursuit bicycle? It neither removes the bicycle from the equation (as much as is possible) nor adequately demonstrates what is technologically possible at the limits of human/machine performance, AND it renders all the progress, records and measures before it insignificant and starts anew from day 1. What's compelling about that?

[FlashUNC]

The question we should be asking ourselves is how can we make the bike and the track the least influential factors in the test of human performance of riding a bicycle for an hour while staying true to the skills needed to ride a bicycle. That's the bike I think many want, that would be my proposed "The Hour record #1."

That's the fundamental disagreement I have. You can't separate the two. Technology and the human performance are inextricably linked in riding a bike around as fast as possible. It all plays together. Merckx and Boardman did what they did because they were Merckx and Boardman, but also because they pushed the edges of performance to get there. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you're simply throwing guys on an erg machine to see who can produce the most for the longest.

The bifurcated record has existed for over a decade now, and no one of any note has tried for the record, all while the track is developing pros in ways we haven't seen in a long-time (Cav, Wiggo, Phinney, etc etc). Something was clearly broken about the two-pronged approach.

I'd contend without that technological component, sponsors weren't pushing riders to pursue the record. Maybe the super bike era was a push too far in the opposite direction, but it generated more interest than the Merckx record seems to.

[rain dogs]

That's the fundamental disagreement I have. You can't separate the two.

Fair enough if people think it's a bad idea. I do think you could control the bike enough that any debate about tech influence would be more noise than signal, but yeah, maybe no one attempts it. If we're going to see tech bikes though, I'd rather see the most incredible ideas.

I can tell you that I was more personally interested in the hour attempt when Cancellara was going to do it on a "Merckx bike", than I will be if he and Wiggins do it with the pursuit bikes.

Perhaps they should make em race on the same track on the same day, that'd be more interesting. It could be 2hrs 30 minutes one after the other.

[pbarry]

That's the fundamental disagreement I have. You can't separate the two. Technology and the human performance are inextricably linked in riding a bike around as fast as possible. It all plays together. Merckx and Boardman did what they did because they were Merckx and Boardman, but also because they pushed the edges of performance to get there. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you're simply throwing guys on an erg machine to see who can produce the most for the longest. You left out psychology. The HR is the biggest mind game in the history of the sport.

The bifurcated record has existed for over a decade now, and no one of any note has tried for the record, all while the track is developing pros in ways we haven't seen in a long-time (Cav, Wiggo, Phinney, etc etc). Something was clearly broken about the two-pronged approach. As I've said before, no elite rider wants to fail at this. Biggest reason so few try. See remarks above.

I'd contend without that technological component, sponsors weren't pushing riders to pursue the record. Maybe the super bike era was a push too far in the opposite direction, but it generated more interest than the Merckx record seems to.
:eek: Then why isn't the yardstick Obree or Boardman ?? Merckx did not go to Mexico City with a big marketing campaign or much sponsorship, or he would have put up more of a fight when the Windsor stickers were slapped on his bike. Neither Boardman or Obree attempted the record on a standard track bike. Spartacus could put his stamp-on-forever by setting a new record on a standard track bike that complies with the current minimum weight limit. No more UCI bs..

The HR record is attempted by a rider"s motivation, not sponsorship $$. I was in France when Boardman made two of his attempts. Almost no coverage of the event in the French press. Things might be different now with online media, but there's no reason to conclude a great career with falling short of the record. Riders get paid for their finishes and/or support they provide in the Classics and Grand Tours. The HR is a human vs the clock, no more, no less. Buggering it up with aero helmets/bars/frames is antithetical to the history of the record.

[FlashUNC]

:eek: Then why isn't the yardstick Obree or Boardman ?? Merckx did not go to Mexico City with a big marketing campaign or much sponsorship, or he would have put up more of a fight when the Windsor stickers were slapped on his bike. Neither Boardman or Obree attempted the record on a standard track bike. Spartacus could put his stamp-on-forever by setting a new record on a standard track bike that complies with the current minimum weight limit. No more UCI bs..

The HR record is attempted by a rider"s motivation, not sponsorship $$. I was in France when Boardman made two of his attempts. Almost no coverage of the event in the French press. Things might be different now with online media, but there's no reason to conclude a great career with falling short of the record. Riders get paid for their finishes and/or support they provide in the Classics and Grand Tours. The HR is a human vs the clock, no more, no less. Buggering it up with aero helmets/bars/frames is antithetical to the history of the record.

As I mentioned earlier, Boardman rode, and beat, Merckx's record under that Merckx bike standard in 2000. To say he never did is simply wrong.

So the yardstick was Boardman. Then Ondrej Sosenka. Merckx isn't the record holder. Hasn't been for over a decade.

To say technology, including aero bits, are antithetical to the record is ridiculous. Every rider who's made the attempt at the record has used the best equipment available to them at the time. Moser used the crazy funny bike with aero bits. Merckx tried to save weight and find the thinnest air he could. Anquetil had a specially-made frame turned around in three days before his second attempt at breaking the record for a second time.

The argument they just showed up and pedaled as hard as they could on some BikesDirect equipment ignores the facts and circumstances around each attempt. It sucks that Anquetil and Coppi and Merckx didn't have wind tunnels and carbon frames and the like, but the record is as much a reflection of the times as it is man setting it.

[rain dogs]

To say technology, including aero bits, are antithetical to the record is ridiculous. Every rider who's made the attempt at the record has used the best equipment available to them at the time.

Untrue

This is Sosenka's bike:

http://www.dt-sport.com/UserFiles/Image/Testimonials/Sosenka_bike_02_big.jpg

and Boardman's:

http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/news/2011/07/27/1312189373098-350mbrl93gef-500-70.jpg

when this would have likely been the "best equipment" available at the time

http://thetyee.cachefly.net/News/2008/09/11/speed_bike.png

and if you feel that Sam isn't a "cyclist" and the Varna isn't a "bike"

both Boardman and Sosenka's bikes are less advanced than Indurain's was.

http://www.retrobike.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mig.jpg

but it's only with Sosenka and Boardman can you start discussing who is the faster cyclist between the two and more importantly how much the human has improved, and the question also... of why?. The others comparing Sam+Varna vs Big Mig+Espada are too influenced by more the bike than the man.

[FlashUNC]

Untrue



but it's only with Sosenka and Boardman can you start discussing who is the faster cyclist between the two. The others compared are too influenced by more the bike than the man.

Gotta love the pedant. They both used the best bikes available to them under the rules for the so-called Merckx record. Boardman used different equipment when the rules were different. But by the logic of consistency above all else -- if we're going to take to its ultimate absurdity -- then everyone should ride penny farthings so we can all truly compare to Frank Dodds' record from 1876.

The Hour Record attempts throughout history have used technology consistent with the bleeding edge of the times for non-faired, largely double-diamond-esque bikes. The rest has ebbed and flowed as technology has changed. It is impossible to stuff the genie back in the bottle. To act as if the last 40 years of cumulative knowledge hasn't happened in the sport since Mexico City is silly.

[pbarry]

[QUOTE=FlashUNC;1551283]As I mentioned earlier, Boardman rode, and beat, Merckx's record under that Merckx bike standard in 2000. To say he never did is simply wrong.Got me there. Wasn't paying attention. CB's sponsorship did not make me notice this..

So the yardstick was Boardman. Then Ondrej Sosenka. Merckx isn't the record holder. Hasn't been for over a decade. And yet you are still talking about Merckx..

To say technology, including aero bits, are antithetical to the record is ridiculous. Every rider who's made the attempt at the record has used the best equipment available to them at the time. Moser used the crazy funny bike with aero bits. Merckx tried to save weight and find the thinnest air he could. Anquetil had a specially-made frame turned around in three days before his second attempt at breaking the record for a second time. BS. No one is talking about Moser.. The track bike did not change in any measurable way from the early fifties untill the mid/late '80's. Anyone can fly to Bordeaux, or Bogota, or Mexico City, or Erie, CO (!)

The argument they just showed up and pedaled as hard as they could on some BikesDirect equipment ignores the facts and circumstances around each attempt. Never said that, yet you keep making this argument.It sucks that Anquetil and Coppi and Merckx didn't have wind tunnels and carbon frames and the like, but the record is as much a reflection of the times as it is man setting it. You seem to really want to trump psychology/human effort with technology, and the UCI supports your view to a point.

We'll never agree on this, but your opinion is valued. It's a generational thing I suspect. Go forward with your certainty, and I will with mine. :beer:

[nooneline]

Can I go ahead and point out that there are two camps here -

one that things you can neutralize all external factors,
and one that thinks that you can't and that all performances are contextual

- and say that, okay, there are generally two camps and we can be a thousand triggerhappy monkeys at a thousand keyboards and still we're not gonna convince each other?

so we might as well opt for economy of posts at this point?

[MattTuck]

Can I go ahead and point out that there are two camps here -

one that things you can neutralize all external factors,
and one that thinks that you can't and that all performances are contextual

- and say that, okay, there are generally two camps and we can be a thousand triggerhappy monkeys at a thousand keyboards and still we're not gonna convince each other?

so we might as well opt for economy of posts at this point?

I consider myself in a third camp. I just dislike the UCI and don't think that it should 'own' the hour record, especially when it has a history of rule changes anytime it hears someone is going to try for the record.

If you are allowed new technology, and you set a new 'record', it is just a record under the new rules. Everyone will say, "yeah, xyz is the new hour record holder, but it is because of the rules change." It won't be for several years (maybe 10 or more) with several high profile attempts and failures, that we'll be able to say that xyz put down a truly world class effort.

I'll go back to my 2 pronged hour approach. Keep the merckx rules for the hour 'record' and introduce the hour 'championship' using the new UCI rules, that is awarded annually for the best hour distance over the previous year -- winner gets to wear a special jersey. This solves almost every objection on both sides. It doesn't restrict technology for those wanting to attempt it, it will hopefully result in more riders attempting the championship each year (so that is good for publicity, excitement). And it maintains some continuity of the rules for the hour record.

I see what Flash is saying about technology moving forward. And maybe this new rule change will help by making small incremental changes each year. As it stands though, I see the current change more like the America's Cup -- where the winner is allowed to specify the rules for the next race, including the type and size of boat. If you think of the hour contest like that (vehicle = boat or bike, what matters is the guys on the vehicle), then as long as people from the same period are using the same bikes, it is defensible.

My contempt for the UCI comes from the fact that changing the rules to encourage more hour attempts, or to increase the chance there will be a new 'record' is sort of like Hockey changing the rules to encourage more scoring, or the NFL changing the pass interference rules to encourage more passing.

[CunegoFan]

Gotta love the pedant. They both used the best bikes available to them under the rules for the so-called Merckx record. Boardman used different equipment when the rules were different. But by the logic of consistency above all else -- if we're going to take to its ultimate absurdity -- then everyone should ride penny farthings so we can all truly compare to Frank Dodds' record from 1876.

The Hour Record attempts throughout history have used technology consistent with the bleeding edge of the times for non-faired, largely double-diamond-esque bikes. The rest has ebbed and flowed as technology has changed. It is impossible to stuff the genie back in the bottle. To act as if the last 40 years of cumulative knowledge hasn't happened in the sport since Mexico City is silly.

We need to use the cutting edge of technology...the genie cannot be put back in its bottle...but, uh, umm, we don't want faired recumbents to count--that is too much technology.

If faired recumbents are not going to be used then the rules are arbitrary, so why not use a reasonably consistent standard?

If Cancellara breaks the record then what does it mean? Nothing. It is telling that with tech much more advanced than Merckx, Boardman was able to beat Merckx by kilometers but when forced to use tech roughly comparable he struggled to advance record by ten measly meters.

[Stephen2014]

The UCI's concept of bikes not being allowed to evolve is utterly moronic, why should cyclists be the only athletes to have outdated equipment for the time period they are in?
The hour record can't be done validly on the athlete alone, a modern day athlete will have an advantage while they are still in the womb dependant on the mother's modern day good health, they will grow up with probably less air pollutants, healthier food, better exercise and training.
Why should cycling be about denying what the cycle is and can be?! Any current production bike should be allowed for a start, then you can make rules about not adding devices (whatever they may be) to it etc.

[Mark McM]

The UCI's concept of bikes not being allowed to evolve is utterly moronic, why should cyclists be the only athletes to have outdated equipment for the time period they are in?

The UCI is hardly alone in banning the latest technology. Major League Baseball doesn't allow aluminum bats. The International Tennis Association doesn't allow double strung rackets. The Professional Golf Association doesn't allow Polara golf balls. There are many more examples of banned sports technology.

[Mark McM]

As I mentioned earlier, Boardman rode, and beat, Merckx's record under that Merckx bike standard in 2000. To say he never did is simply wrong.

So the yardstick was Boardman. Then Ondrej Sosenka. Merckx isn't the record holder. Hasn't been for over a decade.

Ondrej Sosenka failed a hematocrit test a few years before setting the record and received a doping ban a few years after setting the record, so there is some suspicion that he actually used more modern technology to set the record.


So, let's say that the bicycle is standardized to some pre-aero configuration. Do we also regulate the training methods that athletes use (even the legal ones)? There have been advances in (legal) training methods and technology (power meters, heart rate monitors, etc.) since Eddy Merckx's records, which surely people like Obree, Boardman, Sosenka, et al have taken advantage of. Do we now disallow these methods to be used when preparing for record attempts?

[FlashUNC]

We need to use the cutting edge of technology...the genie cannot be put back in its bottle...but, uh, umm, we don't want faired recumbents to count--that is too much technology.

If faired recumbents are not going to be used then the rules are arbitrary, so why not use a reasonably consistent standard?

If Cancellara breaks the record then what does it mean? Nothing. It is telling that with tech much more advanced than Merckx, Boardman was able to beat Merckx by kilometers but when forced to use tech roughly comparable he struggled to advance record by ten measly meters.

The UCI banned recumbents in 1934. That's at least something they've been consistent on. And it hasn't stopped the likes of Obree from trying for the HPVA record.

[CunegoFan]

The UCI is hardly alone in banning the latest technology. Major League Baseball doesn't allow aluminum bats. The International Tennis Association doesn't allow double strung rackets. The Professional Golf Association doesn't allow Polara golf balls. There are many more examples of banned sports technology.

Auto racing may be a good parallel. It is all about restricting tech to maintain competition. Unrestricted auto racing becomes just about technology rather than drivers.

[goonster]

one that things you can neutralize all external factors,
Nobody thinks that "all external factors" can be neutralized, only that we standardize the bike to some basic (admittedly arbitrary) specs, for this one record at which an attempt is made roughly every, uh, ten years.

There have been advances in (legal) training methods and technology (power meters, heart rate monitors, etc.) since Eddy Merckx's records, which surely people like Obree, Boardman, Sosenka, et al have taken advantage of. Do we now disallow these methods to be used when preparing for record attempts?
Nobody has suggested this.

Consider the discus throw. The discus can be constructed of various materials, with different mass distribution, but we agree not to make it an airfoil.