A bit of bike trivia

[Nick Burns]

American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.

[Sonarrat]

"Nick Burns" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f89dfa7$0$26374$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...

> American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.

Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?

-Sonarrat.

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:04:23 -0700, Sonarrat wrote:
> "Nick Burns" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.
>
> Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?

No, not Giant. Almost, with Nozal.

[Donald Munro]

Nick Burns wrote:
>> American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.

Sonarrat wrote:
> Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?

Giant American ? Not unless shrub decided to invade Taiwan.

[Steven L. Sheff]

On 10/15/2003 11:04 AM, in article voqvska64e1n56@corp.supernews.com, "Sonarrat"
<sonarrat@postmark.fishn..> wrote:

> "Nick Burns" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f89dfa7$0$26374$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
>> American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.
>
> Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?

Giant???

WRONG!

Just Cannondale (Giro & Worlds) and Trek (Tour & Vuelta)

--
Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum
pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti
ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe
dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

[Robert Chung]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Giant American ? Not unless shrub decided to invade Taiwan.

They may not have WMDs, but they certainly have live botulinum bacteria and trailers. These appear
to have been sufficient reason to invade Iraq.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Steven L. Sheffield" <stevens@veloworks.com> wrote in message
news:BBB2F727.11E7E%stevens@veloworks.com...
> On 10/15/2003 11:04 AM, in article voqvska64e1n56@corp.supernews.com, "Sonarrat"
> <sonarrat@postmark.fishn..> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Burns" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f89dfa7$0$26374$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
> >
> >> American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.
> >
> > Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?
>
>
> Giant???
>
> WRONG!
>
> Just Cannondale (Giro & Worlds)

Campy or Shimano?

> and Trek (Tour & Vuelta)

Shimano.

[Don Pickett]

More trivial:

The titanium "Eddy Merck" frames ridden by the 7/11 and Motorola teams were titanium Litespeeds,
including Lance's '93 world championship bike, as were most of Virenque's polka dot jersey winning
bikes in the
90s. The winning bike at the '96 Olympics road race was a titanium Serotta with sponsor stickers,
and Serotta has a long tradition of supplying bikes to the European peloton, to be stickered
with the appropriate bike sponsor.

In my opinion, the real reason behind the UCI's decision to limit the advance of frame technology
was to slow the flow of American frames and frame technology into the European peloton.

In article <voqvska64e1n56@corp.supernews.com>, Sonarrat <sonarrat@postmark.fishn..> wrote:

> "Nick Burns" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3f89dfa7$0$26374$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com...
>
> > American bikes were used by the winners of all 3 GTs and the Worlds road race this year.
>
> Cannondale, Giant, Trek... yes?
>
> -Sonarrat.

[Don Pickett]

In article <20031019005245.13901.00000428@mb-m13.aol.com>, erik saunders <eriksaun@aol.com> wrote:

> thats not true at all... (but i will admit that project '96 offended a lot of purists who
> shuddered at the US advertising campaign that touted the superiority of the american's bikes
> rather than the american athletes)

This has always been true. I remember being at races in the very early 90s (remember the L.A.
Sheriffs team, anyone?) and there was a marked difference between the Motorola bikes and the bikes
of the smaller teams. Moto was running titanium Litespeeds with Dura Ace, while the smaller teams
had steel frames and Ulterga.

> the UCI was right to begin to restrict bike technology because it didnt fit with their wish to
> mondialize cycling... at the pro level this change is not so pronounced, since every team is
> equally as well armed as the next... but, when we begin to loook at national teams on the track
> and on the road the difference between the haves and have nots is huge when it comes to
> material... much bigger than the performance gaps between the athletes...

This is, I think, a straw man argument. Differences in equipment are not nearly as important as
differences in athletes. There's a reason the Aussies have been doing so well in cycling lately, and
it has nothing to do with equipment.

> americans were very vocal about the rule changes being bogus because we are unfamiliar with the
> scenarios in which this rule change was needed... your average fattie master is much better
> equiped for road races, TT's, pursuits, kilo's, etc. than your average south american or asian
> elite rider who tries to make his living in the sport, or aspires to the olympic level in the
> timed events... really, the fatties had better TT bikes than 90% of the big amateur and U23 teams
> i saw in europe...

See my previous comment: I think this is a straw man argument. Put Lance Armstrong on my bike and
he'll still be Lance Armstrong.

> its still not so so so much better, but now at least you can get a cheap aluminum frame with aero
> tubes that will not put you so far behind a guy on the latest carbon wonderbike... for a guy from
> some place like burkino fasso or turkmenestan it makes a difference...

You could get a cheap carbon/aluminum bike before the ban, too. That has everything to do with
factories in mainland China and Taiwan.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:191020030244599540%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
> In article <20031019005245.13901.00000428@mb-m13.aol.com>, erik saunders <eriksaun@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > the UCI was right to begin to restrict bike technology because it didnt
fit
> > with their wish to mondialize cycling... at the pro level this change is
not
> > so pronounced, since every team is equally as well armed as the next...
but, when
> > we begin to loook at national teams on the track and on the road the difference between the
> > haves and have nots is huge when it comes to
material... much
> > bigger than the performance gaps between the athletes...
>
> This is, I think, a straw man argument. Differences in equipment are not nearly as important as
> differences in athletes. There's a reason the Aussies have been doing so well in cycling lately,
> and it has nothing to do with equipment.

<snip>

Dumbass -

Saunders is right as to why the UCI made the rules.

They did it for the further globalization of the sport - so that the poorly funded national
federations will not be completely disadvantaged relative to their richer brethren.

[Don Pickett]

Your argument be great if it were equipment which made great athletes. However, as the Soviets and
East Germans showed in the 70s and 80s, and the Aussies have shown in the 90s and this century, it
is athletes, coaches and training which makes the difference.

Just look at the pro peloton: has it changed any since the UCI changed the rules? No. Even the U23,
espoirs and junior ranks are exactly as they have been for the past fifteen years, heavy with
Italian, Dutch, Spanish and Belgian athletes. These countries will continue to dominate cycling, no
matter the UCI rules, for the same reasons the U.S. dominates baseball and basketball.

Now, let's look at some firsts in frame technology for the last twenty years: € First oversized
aluminum frames: Klein and Cannondale € First TIG-welded frames: Klein and Cannondale € First
successful carbon fiber frames: Kestrel, then Trek € First successful Titanium frames: Merlin and
Litespeed € First metal matrix composite frames: Specialized € First carbon fiber/metal frames:
Specialized

Essentially, most advances in frame technology in the last twenty years have come from the U.S. Now,
the Europeans have kept competitive in wheel technology (witness the Dutch wheels used by Armstrong
and Ulrich in the TdF) and you will notice that the UCI's new rules made very little mention of
wheel tech, except to say that the wheels must be the same size. Also notice that in the year
preceeding the new rules there were four European teams sponosored by American companies (Trek,
Cannondale, GT and Specialized).

The UCI's argument is bogus. If they wanted to widen the reach of cycling they would pour money into
youth series the world over. Instead the UCI is unsucessfully competing with the TdF for money and
TV time and attempting to keep too many American frames out of the European peloton. It's no wonder
they are proposing the Pro Tour, which seems to be going over like a lead balloon.

In article <M8wkb.110692$qj6.6150917@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dumbass -
>
> Saunders is right as to why the UCI made the rules.
>
> They did it for the further globalization of the sport - so that the poorly funded national
> federations will not be completely disadvantaged relative to their richer brethren.

[Nick Burns]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:191020032354178583%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
>
> Your argument be great if it were equipment which made great athletes.

That is not his argument.

[Don Pickett]

That is precisely his argument.

He said, "They did it for the further globalization of the sport - so that the poorly funded
national federations will not be completely disadvantaged relative to their richer brethren."

The UCI ruling effects only equipment, which is the least important part of a development program,
and will do nothing to help countries develop riders. That's all about national sports programs,
like the one in South Africa which is starting to produce world quality downhillers.

In article <3f936d6c$0$26290$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>, Nick Burns
<chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:191020032354178583%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
> >
> > Your argument be great if it were equipment which made great athletes.
>
> That is not his argument.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:201020030247164462%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
>
> That is precisely his argument.
>
> He said, "They did it for the further globalization of the sport - so that the poorly funded
> national federations will not be completely disadvantaged relative to their richer brethren."
>
> The UCI ruling effects only equipment, which is the least important part of a development program,

<snip>

Dumbass -

Ya, equipment is the least important, but it's the only part of a program that the UCI can regulate.
So they may as well level that particular part of the playing field as much as possible.

After all, it is a sport between men, not the General Motors Wind Tunnel vs. the Mercedes Wind
Tunnel. Or the GM and Mercedes Wind Tunnels kicking ass on the nonexistent Ukranian, Kazakhstanian
or Columbian Wind Tunnel. If the Ukraine shows up with a good team pursuit squad (which they
frequently do), the UCI does not want them to be outclassed based upon access to Wind Tunnels.

[Nick Burns]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:201020030247164462%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
>
> That is precisely his argument.

My point was that he was conveying the UCI position, not his own. Hence the word "they".

> He said, "They did it for the further globalization of the sport - so that the poorly funded
> national federations will not be completely disadvantaged relative to their richer brethren."
>
> The UCI ruling effects only equipment, which is the least important part of a development program,
> and will do nothing to help countries develop riders. That's all about national sports programs,
> like the one in South Africa which is starting to produce world quality downhillers.
>
> In article <3f936d6c$0$26290$a32e20b9@news.nntpservers.com>, Nick Burns
> <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:191020032354178583%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > Your argument be great if it were equipment which made great athletes.
> >
> > That is not his argument.
> >

[Don Pickett]

In article <fNMkb.113758$qj6.6448989@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ya, equipment is the least important, but it's the only part of a program that the UCI can
> regulate. So they may as well level that particular part of the playing field as much as possible.

Except that the UCI didn't regulate anything except for what bikes you can build and how, so they
did precidely **** for emergent nations.

> After all, it is a sport between men, not the General Motors Wind Tunnel vs. the Mercedes Wind
> Tunnel. Or the GM and Mercedes Wind Tunnels kicking ass on the nonexistent Ukranian, Kazakhstanian
> or Columbian Wind Tunnel. If the Ukraine shows up with a good team pursuit squad (which they
> frequently do), the UCI does not want them to be outclassed based upon access to Wind Tunnels.

Hasn't happened.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:211020030233483031%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
> In article <fNMkb.113758$qj6.6448989@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ya, equipment is the least important, but it's the only part of a program that the UCI can
> > regulate. So they may as well level that particular part
of
> > the playing field as much as possible.
>
> Except that the UCI didn't regulate anything except for what bikes you can build and how, so they
> did precidely **** for emergent nations.

Dumbass -

Things like the custom bikes used by the Team Pursuit Squads of Italy, the US and Australia at the
1996 Olympics are no longer legal.

Does that help the underdogs? Impossible to tell since we can't know what the rich nations would
have done without the new rules. But, it does help maximize the percentage of athletic input that
goes into success (say it's 95% athleticism, 5% engineering). When one considers how close the
competition is, a greater amount of engineering input could easily make a difference. Look at how
close some of the times (with the exception of Wiggins) are below. Top 8 qualify for the elimination
round and the time differences are very important since they determine who faces whom in
elimination.

from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/track/2003/WTC03/?id=ip

Qualification 1 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) 4.17.342 (55.956 km/h) 2 Luke Roberts (Aus) 4.21.822 3 Sergi
Escobar Roure (Spa) 4.21.941 4 Paul Manning (GBr) 4.22.491 5 Daniel Becke (Ger) 4.25.083 6 Robert
Bartko (Ger) 4.25.981 7 Mark Jamieson (Aus) 4.26.121 8 Alexey Markov (Rus) 4.26.228 9 Vasili
Kiryienka (Blr) 4.26.850 10 Brett Lancaster (Aus) 4.27.315

<snip><end

[Don Pickett]

In article <HM5lb.123574$qj6.6822833@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Kurgan Gringioni
<kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dumbass -
>
> Things like the custom bikes used by the Team Pursuit Squads of Italy, the US and Australia at the
> 1996 Olympics are no longer legal.
>
> Does that help the underdogs? Impossible to tell since we can't know what the rich nations would
> have done without the new rules. But, it does help maximize the percentage of athletic input that
> goes into success (say it's 95% athleticism, 5% engineering). When one considers how close the
> competition is, a greater amount of engineering input could easily make a difference. Look at how
> close some of the times (with the exception of Wiggins) are below. Top 8 qualify for the
> elimination round and the time differences are very important since they determine who faces whom
> in elimination.
>
>
> from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/track/2003/WTC03/?id=ip
>
> Qualification 1 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) 4.17.342 (55.956 km/h) 2 Luke Roberts (Aus) 4.21.822 3 Sergi
> Escobar Roure (Spa) 4.21.941 4 Paul Manning (GBr) 4.22.491 5 Daniel Becke (Ger) 4.25.083 6 Robert
> Bartko (Ger) 4.25.981 7 Mark Jamieson (Aus) 4.26.121 8 Alexey Markov (Rus) 4.26.228 9 Vasili
> Kiryienka (Blr) 4.26.850 10 Brett Lancaster (Aus) 4.27.315

Perhaps. I still think it's a red herring, tho. Look at the countries listed - England, Australia,
Spain, German, Russia - all countries with a strong national organization which provides consistent
training and support for their riders, in addition to equipment. The Soviets dominated amateur
cycling from the mid-70s to the fall of the Wall without fancy equipment. In fact, the Russian track
team used to compete on bone stock Masi frames, and they still kicked ass. And, as I have pointed
out before, the South Africans are starting to produce world quality downhillers because of their
focus on athletes and not equipment.

I still think the UCI is full of ****. If they want to help Fredonia to become a cycling power, then
they should give money and advice for training and athletes.

Put Lance Armstrong on a steel frame with Chorus and he'd still win the TdF.

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Don Pickett" <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:211020030414300074%dpickettny@earthlink.net...
> >
> > from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/track/2003/WTC03/?id=ip
> >
> > Qualification 1 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) 4.17.342 (55.956 km/h) 2 Luke Roberts (Aus) 4.21.822 3
> > Sergi Escobar Roure (Spa) 4.21.941 4 Paul Manning (GBr) 4.22.491 5 Daniel Becke (Ger) 4.25.083 6
> > Robert Bartko (Ger) 4.25.981 7 Mark Jamieson (Aus) 4.26.121 8 Alexey Markov (Rus) 4.26.228 9
> > Vasili Kiryienka (Blr) 4.26.850 10 Brett Lancaster (Aus) 4.27.315
>
> Perhaps. I still think it's a red herring, tho. Look at the countries listed - England, Australia,
> Spain, German, Russia - all countries with a strong national organization which provides
> consistent training and support for their riders, in addition to equipment. The Soviets dominated
> amateur cycling from the mid-70s to the fall of the Wall without fancy equipment. In fact, the
> Russian track team used to compete on bone stock Masi frames, and they still kicked ass. And, as I
> have pointed out before, the South Africans are starting to produce world quality downhillers
> because of their focus on athletes and not equipment.

Dumbass -

Look at 9th place: Belarus. Look at the time gaps. Very small. The athletes are very close in
ability and $500,000 spent on bicycle development could make a difference.

Difference between 2nd and 3rd: 0.121 seconds Difference between 3rd and 4th: 0.550 seconds
Difference between 6th and 7th: 0.140 seconds Difference between 7th and 8th: 0.107 seconds Etc.

This data is from the year 2003, World Championships. Regale us with your ancient mid-70s anecdotes,
but *right now*, *today*, *this year*, the evidence supports the position that competition is close
enough so that it is possible for engineering to make a difference, hence the rules.

BTW, I do not really like the rules - I like new bike tech. But the UCI position is legitimate.

[Ronaldo Jeremia]

Don Pickett <dpickettny@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> Put Lance Armstrong on a steel frame with Chorus and he'd still win the TdF.

Of course. He already wins with lesser components.

-RJ