Merckx in 2019

RichN95.

Clements753 wrote:

The op asked two questions, with his original equipment would he finish last, I don't believe so. Aero is great but sat in during fast stages he could do it.

Not just equipment. Everything. Including diet, team, training and race schedules.
In 1969 (for example) Merckx rode a ludicrous schedule prior to the Tour - all the classics & the Giro. He did a Spanish week long stage race and the next day started Paris-Nice. He would be burnt out by July.

Clements753 wrote:

Finally ask yourself this, on modern equipment would he have been able to break the hour record now if he trained for it. Bet my house on it.

I'd expect him to be better than Campanaerts at 1971 levels. But he'd only be able to do it in his twilight years these days. I wouldn't back a post 1975 Merckx to do much.

philbar72

didn't he always have the best equipment possible at the time and a fastidious need to constantly adjust said equipment (especially post his back injury). 11kg seems heavy for a bike for a number one in the team. his bikes were as light as the tech around that time could produce (did he not for example engage with Ernesto colnago to get almost custom bikes).

I'll also use the cycling top trumps methodology. in all areas he was high 80s to high 90s (out of 100)(he's basically the best card in the pack). using a footballing analogy he was a di Stefano. the guy that was probably best or second best at everything for a short period of time. for a few years (69-74/5) he was pretty much untouchable. I think if he'd be around now he'd be someone that could dominate classics. I think he'd also win a few GC's though perhaps not as many as he did back then.

bobmcstuff

Clements753 wrote:

The op asked two questions, with his original equipment would he finish last, I don't believe so. Aero is great but sat in during fast stages he could do it.

Climbing I believe people are over estimating how heavy the bikes were. My race bike in the early 80's weighed about 17 lbs, divide that by 2.2 and then tell me where these four extra kilos are. I think people would be surprised how stiff a top steel frame was compared to carbon. Climbing removes aero.

If you are saying Merckx couldn't cut it now the only person who took over from him was Hinault, so must also be rubbish and would finish next to last.

The other question was with modern equipment how would he fare. He was documented as doing what ever it took to train and win, way ahead of his time being focused on a goal. As the sport is nobody will build a palmares like his, but on modern equipment if Merckx chose to win the Tour now as he was then sure he could do it. His physiology was strange, having met him I was amazed how big he was but especially his chest cavity. Same as pictures of LeMond, Hinault and Boardman. Put isolation, determination, dedication and physical freak together he could win a tour now.

Finally ask yourself this, on modern equipment would he have been able to break the hour record now if he trained for it. Bet my house on it.

(sorry did I mention I met him!, so just a bit biased maybe)

I never said he couldn't cut it now (on modern kit and training etc), and I am not sure anyone is really - just that it's pretty much impossible that he could have dominated all season long like he did back then.

I also think there's more depth in the field these days so he might have been run a bit closer perhaps.

bobmcstuff

TimothyW wrote:

Are we sure the weight handicap is as much as 4kg?

I mean, isn't the merckx hour record bike fairly well under 6.7kg? 5.5kg seems to be quoted.

And I think the benefit of gears can be overstated. Easier gears don't make a donkey into a racehorse, similarly, they don't turn a racehorse into a donkey.

Remember that stage in 2017 that Uran won with 2 gears?

Do you own a retro/vintage bike? Do you really find it that much slower? Amusingly enough, I've just checked and my Peugeot Optimum (steel, 7 speed freehub, 42x23 bottom gear) has the highest average speed of all my bikes on strava, 16.7mph vs 16.5mph for my TCR...

And you're talking about the GOAT getting dropped? Nonsense I'm afraid. He'd have no problem getting round with the sprinters if it came to it.

Presumably though there is a difference in what you use the bikes for - I assume the retro steel mainly comes out on nice sunny days for shorter rides and the TCR is used for everything else? Either way it's probably not an apples and apples comparison

amrushton

You could argue the same about Hinault/Roche/kelly. Different times, different riders. They had to ride because they were told to. Now it's understood about rest/recovery etc but these guys won gt's/monuments/classics because they were the best at the time.

No_Ta_Doctor

This was the bike (the 11kg figure came from a Danish news piece), but velonews have found it.

https://www.velonews.com/2019/07/news/t ... ged_496386

inseine

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

RichN95.

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

That Merckx in his pomp was the same level as someone who had just been kept off the Worlds TT podium by Laszlo Bodrogi?

inseine

RichN95 wrote:

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

That Merckx in his pomp was the same level as someone who had just been kept off the Worlds TT podium by Laszlo Bodrogi?

I did say it was the end of his career, but he was as good as it gets at this type of thing whereas Merckx was the ultimate all rounder. The hour record is as near as we can get to comparing riders across the ages.

shinyhelmut

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

Merckx set his hour record in Mexico City, Boardman in Manchester. Not entirely comparable.

inseine

ShinyHelmut wrote:

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

Merckx set his hour record in Mexico City, Boardman in Manchester. Not entirely comparable.

In many ways not comparable but then it’s impossible to make any objective comparison

timothyw

It'll be a bit dull in 50 years when we have everyone's power data and it is all directly comparable.

The fact merckx put nearly a kilometre onto the hour record, and did so despite abysmal pacing strategy is impressive enough in itself, before you consider how hard it was to beat in the epo era, or how few even dared attempt it.

bobmcstuff

inseine wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

Merckx set his hour record in Mexico City, Boardman in Manchester. Not entirely comparable.

In many ways not comparable but then it’s impossible to make any objective comparison

I'd go so far as to say 2000m vs sea level is completely incomparable.

inseine

You're all right, Merckx would have no chance against todays riders

inseine

bobmcstuff wrote:

inseine wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

Merckx set his hour record in Mexico City, Boardman in Manchester. Not entirely comparable.

In many ways not comparable but then it’s impossible to make any objective comparison

I'd go so far as to say 2000m vs sea level is completely incomparable.

Though the challengers don't all gravitate towards one or the other. There are pros and cons of both and if one was clearly better they'd all do the same.

rick_chasey

The type of racing, the distances, are totally different.

You'd need a different athletic profile to be good then compared to today.

The roads, the bikes were heavier. It was much more built around endurance and less around explosiveness.

bobmcstuff

inseine wrote:

You're all right, Merckx would have no chance against todays riders

That's not what I meant at all

No_Ta_Doctor

bobmcstuff wrote:

inseine wrote:

You're all right, Merckx would have no chance against todays riders

That's not what I meant at all

Merckx would be rubbish. I think we all agree. Would be lucky to win from a break the peloton mistimed the catch with in the Binck-Bank tour. Mid tier domestique, at best.

bobmcstuff

inseine wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

inseine wrote:

ShinyHelmut wrote:

inseine wrote:

I think by how little a specialist (admittedly at the end of his career) like Boardman beat Merckx hour record, on similar equipment, tells you everything you need to know.

Merckx set his hour record in Mexico City, Boardman in Manchester. Not entirely comparable.

In many ways not comparable but then it’s impossible to make any objective comparison

I'd go so far as to say 2000m vs sea level is completely incomparable.

Though the challengers don't all gravitate towards one or the other. There are pros and cons of both and if one was clearly better they'd all do the same.

The pros of doing it in Manchester for Boardman are presumably it being local to him, fans, sponsors etc. - same with Wiggins.

He would potentially have got an extra ~2km if he had done it at Mexico City http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/altitude.htm

Campenaerts only beat Wiggins by doing it at altitude.

bobmcstuff

No tA Doctor wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

inseine wrote:

You're all right, Merckx would have no chance against todays riders

That's not what I meant at all

Merckx would be rubbish. I think we all agree. Would be lucky to win from a break the peloton mistimed the catch with in the Binck-Bank tour. Mid tier domestique, at best.

rick_chasey

So I reckon him and TdG would have similar profiles, only Merckx can obviously ride in bunches and sprint better.

The differences in the effort types I think are being massively underestimated and those longer I’m-just-gonna-ride-you-off-my-wheel efforts were the norm then.

DeVlaeminck

I think we all agree it's difficult to compare. I think what is indisputable is that Merckx today with the same talent, mentality etc but put into a modern team with all the advantages would still be a phenomenal rider.

It's true the talent pool may be wider now but anyone who is head and shoulders above the best Italian, Dutch, Belgian and French grand tour riders is still going to be the best rider in the world at any aspect of road racing if he concentrates on it. Rick makes a good point about racing being different and favouring different sorts of effort but the thing with Merckx is he seems to have had the talent to do it all - muscular endurance for 300k races, the constitution to do it day after day, a sprint, a time trial, great descender, cobbled rider etc etc. He may not have been able to dominate everything in one season but I think he could dominate whatever aspect of racing he chose to focus on.