7 records broken in Mexico

frenchfighter

Pretty ridiculous really. The location of the event has everything to do with the records. Not very impressive.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ecord.html

Richmond Racer

Its a difficult one. Legit track and all. But tough on all the really fast times ridden - and yet to be ridden - in other excellent velodromes at sea level

I'd hate to see Cancellara heading there for an Hour attempt, for example

Pross

10 riders under the minute in the kilo.

Also two big crashes. I've seen the one in the men's keirin and don't think I've seen anyone come down that heavily on the track before. Left the rider with punctured lungs.

frenchfighter

Richmond Racer wrote:

Its a difficult one. Legit track and all. But tough on all the really fast times ridden - and yet to be ridden - in other excellent velodromes at sea level

I'd hate to see Cancellara heading there for an Hour attempt, for example

Yeah, I mean it is only really of interest in comparison to other times set at that track. There is a clear performance enhancing element for those racing there.

Cancellara heading to Mexico would be pretty sad...wouldnt think he would be the sort of champion to do that though, but if it was the venue of choice for Moser and Merckx. I suspect he will try it somewhere else and only head there if he doesn`t beat it.

RichN95.

It's like athletics at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, which had the added factor of being the first major championships on a tartan track. There were 14 world records, many of which lasted into the 80s and 90s. (Although some only lasted a short time - particularly the women's records). If Mexico becomes a regular World Cup venue then maybe it won't be like that.

However, I'm not sure track cycling places as much importance in the records as athletics.

mroli

They all build tracks to make them as fast as possible though don't they? There was all that talk in London about air circulation and "fast pine" and optimum temperatures. Running tracks are built as springy as possible etc. Can't work out whether moaning about it is fuddyduddiness or respecting the rules!

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

They all build tracks to make them as fast as possible though don't they? There was all that talk in London about air circulation and "fast pine" and optimum temperatures. Running tracks are built as springy as possible etc. Can't work out whether moaning about it is fuddyduddiness or respecting the rules!

Its the altitude that seems to be the single biggest advantage for this velodrome - which the European etc velodromes cant exactly replicate

RichN95.

mroli wrote:

They all build tracks to make them as fast as possible though don't they? There was all that talk in London about air circulation and "fast pine" and optimum temperatures. Running tracks are built as springy as possible etc. Can't work out whether moaning about it is fuddyduddiness or respecting the rules!

It's not the design of the track that's the issue - that's available the world over. It's that is at an altitude of 2000m.

whiteboytrash

RichN95 wrote:

It's like athletics at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, which had the added factor of being the first major championships on a tartan track. There were 14 world records, many of which lasted into the 80s and 90s. (Although some only lasted a short time - particularly the women's records). If Mexico becomes a regular World Cup venue then maybe it won't be like that.

However, I'm not sure track cycling places as much importance in the records as athletics.

In athletics any world record under 800m at altitude is denoted by the letter "A".

Pietro Mennea comes to mind. His 19.72 stood for years from Mexico City.

In the '68 Olympics the many distance runners dropped off the track. Lack of oxygen and the rubberised track as you mention causing hamstring problems due to the rebound.

Richmond Racer

RichN95 wrote:

It's like athletics at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, which had the added factor of being the first major championships on a tartan track. There were 14 world records, many of which lasted into the 80s and 90s. (Although some only lasted a short time - particularly the women's records). If Mexico becomes a regular World Cup venue then maybe it won't be like that.

However, I'm not sure track cycling places as much importance in the records as athletics.

Didnt know that about the track in '68, Rich.

As for UCI World Cups and Mexico....they're having to schlep back to Mexico again next month - this time to the Guadalajara velodrome

Yellow Peril

I would imagine that the technology exists to replicate the reduced air pressure of altitude in a modern velodrome doesn't it?

London was quite avant garde with its sealing to reduce air turbulence so I wonder if air pressure can be reduced in a practical and safe way?

RichN95.

Yellow Peril wrote:

I would imagine that the technology exists to replicate the reduced air pressure of altitude in a modern velodrome doesn't it?

It's theoretically possible, but it would cost extraordinary amounts of money

wallace_and_gromit

frenchfighter wrote:

Pretty ridiculous really. The location of the event has everything to do with the records. Not very impressive.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ecord.html

I can take or leave 6 of the records, but Purvis' 56.3 for the kilo is truly mindboggling. He was 1.5s faster than the next fastest and 2.5s under Tournant's old WR set at a cazy altitude in Bolivia.

Purvis should have been the first man to go sub 60 for the kilo in the WCs this year, but got a bit carried away on the third lap and just missed it.

blazing_saddles

Real anomaly, this place. Not as high in the sky as some.
Banking not that steep. Not heated and it's been colder than
a normal velodrome.
Yet this and last season's W Cups producing a glut of sub WR times.
You really wouldn't have expected both GB's sprint teams to go
under the existing record.

When you have bunches of riders busting records wide open at altitude, I really don't
think they should be ratified.

Yellow Peril

It's a tough call. The London track is state of the art and apparently very fast. Europe uses large amounts of cash to produce fast tracks but obviously doesn't have the altitude "resource". I suppose riders will always migrate to places where they can maximise their performance.

I don't know but I would imagine that the dis-benefits would outweigh the benefits for an attack on the hour. I know Merckx did it in Mexico but it nearly killed him.

Manu3172

That's crazy that one guy just break the record by 2s. It improved the record by more than 3%! It is as if Usain Bolt runs in 9'28" at the next Olympics.

rick_chasey

Meh.

I want to know who's gone fastest when I check the world record.

If that was at altitude fine. That's where you ride fast.

S'abit like complaining that the do the landspeed record on a salt lake. I mean, talk about unfair - what about all the other normal roads?

salsiccia1

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I would imagine that the technology exists to replicate the reduced air pressure of altitude in a modern velodrome doesn't it?

It's theoretically possible, but it would cost extraordinary amounts of money

Can't they just build one at the top the Stelvio?

Manu3172

RichN95 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I would imagine that the technology exists to replicate the reduced air pressure of altitude in a modern velodrome doesn't it?

It's theoretically possible, but it would cost extraordinary amounts of money

I'm not sure it would be so expensive. The velodrome just has to be hermetically closed and a big pump is needed.

RichN95.

Manu3172 wrote:

I'm not sure it would be so expensive. The velodrome just has to be hermetically closed and a big pump is needed.

I think that would be prohibitively expensive myself.

wallace_and_gromit

RichN95 wrote:

Manu3172 wrote:

I'm not sure it would be so expensive. The velodrome just has to be hermetically closed and a big pump is needed.

I think that would be prohibitively expensive myself.

Wouldn't it count as an oxygen tent and so be banned anyway?

Going back to Purvis' kilo record, he took an average of 0.9s per lap out of the sea-level record, whereas the other records broken were by at most half a second per lap. Is Purvis disproportionately big, so that he gets a much bigger benefit from reduced air resistance?

RichN95.

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Manu3172 wrote:

I'm not sure it would be so expensive. The velodrome just has to be hermetically closed and a big pump is needed.

I think that would be prohibitively expensive myself.

Wouldn't it count as an oxygen tent and so be banned anyway?

Going back to Purvis' kilo record, he took an average of 0.9s per lap out of the sea-level record, whereas the other records broken were by at most half a second per lap. Is Purvis disproportionately big, so that he gets a much bigger benefit from reduced air resistance?

He's doing an event that hasn't been in the Olympics since 2004 and has therefore been largely ignored by the big names since.

blazing_saddles

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Manu3172 wrote:

I'm not sure it would be so expensive. The velodrome just has to be hermetically closed and a big pump is needed.

I think that would be prohibitively expensive myself.

Wouldn't it count as an oxygen tent and so be banned anyway?

Going back to Purvis' kilo record, he took an average of 0.9s per lap out of the sea-level record, whereas the other records broken were by at most half a second per lap. Is Purvis disproportionately big, so that he gets a much bigger benefit from reduced air resistance?

On the contrary.
Pervis, I would say is about average sprinter size.
I saw him in Apeldoorn and his acceleration, especially in the keirin was phenomenal.
It was a shock when he was beaten in the final.
Saw him in Manchester, pretty much the same.
Looked to be France's number one sprinter, last season and has more than confirmed his status
during the first half of the new one.

Having said that, his Mexico magic appears to be in a different league.

wallace_and_gromit

RichN95 wrote:

He's doing an event that hasn't been in the Olympics since 2004 and has therefore been largely ignored by the big names since.

There's probably something in this, though Niemke kept plugging away at the kilo.

Sir Chris says that he couldn't train for the sprints and the kilo simultaneously, given the unique requirements of the last lap of the kilo, so Purvis's kilo and flying 200m efforts are something else.