The Thread about Nothing....

classic1 said:

My tactic for Vingegaard to beat Pogicar was not to crash in the Basque Tour 3 months ago.

You won't get this sort of insightful coverage on SBS [censored].

Cadel Evans is on. The boring weirdo nearly made me fall asleep. "Siri, show me someone with aspergers".

I'm not sure that tactic would have worked...

I'm predicting that Pogi will take Remco in the TT.

Just to mentally screw Jonas over for next year...

Agreed. And I wouldn't be surprised if Remco comes in third. Jonas will be doing his best to salvage something from the stage, even if Pogi beats him.

I've never seen this. There are a few shots of the Aussies, Rob Crowe, Grant Rice, Darren Lawson and Rob McLachlan. They crashed in the warm-up. Despite being ranked number 2, they finished 12th, partly because Crowe got a puncture

[URL unfurl="true"]https://blog.mummucycling.com/blog/interview-with-rob-crowe-1992-olympics-team-time-trial[/URL]

classic1 said:

Can remember a mate telling me about this freak skinny teenager kicking everyone's [censored] at VFL Park in the mid 90s, lapping the field, with fields containing international reps. Cadel Evans. Dad saw him win that Tour of Tassie up Mt Wellington, I think 98. Smashed Neil Stephens.

Do you remember who it was?

swampy1970 said:

I couldn't image a time where the bike that Boardman used for the "Ultimate hour record" in 96 (he used the road bike with two chainstays and not the single sided one that was ultra aero for the Barcelona Olympics in 92) would be slower with a rider on it that a "standard" road bike. Ok, this wasn't a "scientific test" but at a moderately controlled level the result were consistent over 4 rides by 2 different good riders.

I said this a while ago: for at least a few years, GCN have mostly been a compromised infomercial joke, who are beholden to their sponsors. They escape too much flack because they seem like top blokes who present stuff pleasantly and with some humour. I don't believe for a second that their sponsor's "aero", regular road bike is faster than that Lotus. Hambini poked fun at it at the time.

Their bike comparison tests annoy me, because it's too much about the wheels and tyres. They compare modern bikes with super-aero wheels and fast tyres to old bikes with parachute wheels and [censored] tyres, then say, "see? This new Canyon is WAY faster". They're reluctant to compare an old bike with 808s to a new bike with 32-hole, round-spoked Open Pros and old Gran Prix tyres.

Sure, it's meant to be harmless entertainment, but plenty of newbies go away thinking they need to spend 6 grand on an aero frame to keep up with their plonker mates on their Sunday morning coffee shop ride.

swampy1970 said:

The other part of the equipment is the wheels. Tubulars glued with the good ol' Mastik 1 had [censored] rolling resistance. [censored] ro;;omg resistance to even compared to clinchers of the day. Michelin were even saying that with their clinchers of the time. NuTrak won me over on that one - plus their rubber was gumball sticky and ace in corners. Rolling resistance wise, tubs where garbage compare to tubeless systems of today. Granted, if you glued your tubs on with shelac or other tack tyre glue, things would be closer but for standard road use it's the way it is. Two years ago I had a quick ride on a coworkers Pinarello Dogma with Evne SES 4.5 wheels on, just like Pogi is riding. He had Conti 5000 standard road race tyres on (Pogi was riding the TT tyres on that stage) and it felt like I was somehow powered by the bike. I'd been a big doubter of "super wide is better" but his 28C tyres were closer to 31mm and when I rode up the ramp out of our parking garage it was just a brain [censored]. It didn't make sense. For reference my "good bike" is the Dura Ace equivalent to what Nibali rode to Giro victory in 2010 and it felt utter [censored] compared to this. That said my Cracknfail is ungodly on the descents. It's like it reads my brain...

I was told that one of the main reasons pros used tubulars was because they're heaps likely to get pinch flats, and because they're easier/safer to ride on flat for a few miles if they really have to.

Speaking of which, for only the second time ever, the other night, I got pinch flats in both tubes when I rode over a rock. Boo. Like most regular humans, I carry only one spare tube. The holes in the front tube were way too big to patch. The rear wasn't as bad, but because there were two holes and it was a bit dark, it took me two shots to patch it successfully. The whole [censored] took about 40 minutes. Talk about first world problems, hey? Hee hee 😄

The one that got me Nev was descending Kemmelberg riding a C40 with a pair of 32 spoke Ambrosio rims, wobbling around on a straight bit like it was an old Penny farthing, then belting down there on a modern bike like it was on an airport runaway. Called [censored] straight away. Colnago geometry is dialled, compare a modern Pinarello or Specialized and there's [censored] all difference on the geometry. I think my Dogma is like 5mm longer than my Colnago Dream (exact same geometry as a C40 or C50), everything else is near identical, angles, wheelbase, front centre, the lot. The only real difference in that descent circumstance is tyres and a little bit of frame flex.

531Aussie said:

I said this a while ago: for at least a few years, GCN have mostly been a compromised infomercial joke, who are beholden to their sponsors. They escape too much flack because they seem like top blokes who present stuff pleasantly and with some humour. I don't believe for a second that their sponsor's "aero", regular road bike is faster than that Lotus. Hambini poked fun at it at the time.

Their bike comparison tests annoy me, because it's too much about the wheels and tyres. They compare modern bikes with super-aero wheels and fast tyres to old bikes with parachute wheels and [censored] tyres, then say, "see? This new Canyon is WAY faster". They're reluctant to compare an old bike with 808s to a new bike with 32-hole, round-spoked Open Pros and old Gran Prix tyres.

Sure, it's meant to be harmless entertainment, but plenty of newbies go away thinking they need to spend 6 grand on an aero frame to keep up with their plonker mates on their Sunday morning coffee shop ride.

A mate owns a shop. He KNOWS the frame makes [censored] all difference in watts. He told a good customer who spends 1000s he'd get more improvement shaving his legs. I listened to an podcast with Rohan Dennis before "the incident". Done heaps of testing. I think he said the order in saving watts is position, helmet, wheels, clothing, tyres which had big watt savings and the frame was a very distant last, saving a few watts at best.

I may have missed bars in the above. Narrower bars with an aero profile.save heaps too

classic1 said:

A mate owns a shop. He KNOWS the frame makes [censored] all difference in watts. He told a good customer who spends 1000s he'd get more improvement shaving his legs. I listened to an podcast with Rohan Dennis before "the incident". Done heaps of testing. I think he said the order in saving watts is position, helmet, wheels, clothing, tyres which had big watt savings and the frame was a very distant last, saving a few watts at best.

If riders wanna obsess over gear, they should do so about tyres, tubes and hubs, then rims. It's probably more cost-effective to churn through fast tyres than spend thousands on an "aero" frame

I just watched the Spike Lee movie Da 5 Bloods.

Lee can sway from brilliant to [censored]. This was [censored]. Nearly turned it off it was that bad. BlacKKKlansman was ace but this sucked and it was at least 40 minutes too long. And Spike, you can make a point without laying it on with a trowel. Christ he over does it. The critics loved it though. Figures.

I rate Spike below his brothers Bruce and Christopher and way below his sister Sara on the Lee scale index.

531Aussie said:

I was told that one of the main reasons pros used tubulars was because they're heaps likely to get pinch flats, and because they're easier/safer to ride on flat for a few miles if they really have to.

Speaking of which, for only the second time ever, the other night, I got pinch flats in both tubes when I rode over a rock. Boo. Like most regular humans, I carry only one spare tube. The holes in the front tube were way too big to patch. The rear wasn't as bad, but because there were two holes and it was a bit dark, it took me two shots to patch it successfully. The whole [censored] took about 40 minutes. Talk about first world problems, hey? Hee hee 😄

Stage 2 of the Giro comes to mind. Pogi got a flat and wanted to stop before the sharp corner at the start of the climb - same corner where Pantani biffed it in 98. His team car said "change after the corner" and then watched Pogi have a quick lie down... Just like Pantani, he got back up and won the stage.

The other reason Pros rode tubs was the weight and supposedly comfort.

Depending on where I rode, I'd sometimes take two tubes. The roads I really like are subject to change on a weekly basis, especially in the winter.

531Aussie said:

I said this a while ago: for at least a few years, GCN have mostly been a compromised infomercial joke, who are beholden to their sponsors. They escape too much flack because they seem like top blokes who present stuff pleasantly and with some humour. I don't believe for a second that their sponsor's "aero", regular road bike is faster than that Lotus. Hambini poked fun at it at the time.

Their bike comparison tests annoy me, because it's too much about the wheels and tyres. They compare modern bikes with super-aero wheels and fast tyres to old bikes with parachute wheels and [censored] tyres, then say, "see? This new Canyon is WAY faster". They're reluctant to compare an old bike with 808s to a new bike with 32-hole, round-spoked Open Pros and old Gran Prix tyres.

Sure, it's meant to be harmless entertainment, but plenty of newbies go away thinking they need to spend 6 grand on an aero frame to keep up with their plonker mates on their Sunday morning coffee shop ride.

They didn't have 808's back in the day, so why would they compare a bike from back then with 808's on? The other thing is, you're not getting 808's on that Lotus - unless you go back and get the very first model that had rims with an outside width of 25mm and even then it'll be a squeeze. It's literally about comparing old kit that we once loved to the new kit that we may think is a bit silly.

My 2010 Cracknfail SuperSix HiMod maxes out at 25mm wide rims and 23mm tires. Not enough space in the forks to fit 25's on a 25mm outside width rim.

They have done tests with older TT bikes and newer wheels and kit. It recall they dug up a Hotta from somewhere and had some fun with it.

531Aussie said:

If riders wanna obsess over gear, they should do so about tyres, tubes and hubs, then rims. It's probably more cost-effective to churn through fast tyres than spend thousands on an "aero" frame

Tires and tubes (or tubeless), yes. Bearings... unless you've got roubaix cobbles in the bearing races you're not going to make much of a difference.

I forget the guys name, but he was the head of engineering and BS at Zipp before going to re-start Silca, said back in the day to forget fancy bearings unless you want that last second in a hour long TT. They put ceramic bearings in Tony Martin's world championship TT wheels just for that one event but those were the $1,000 a set ceramics not the $300 whoflundungs from Alibaba.

classic1 said:

A mate owns a shop. He KNOWS the frame makes [censored] all difference in watts. He told a good customer who spends 1000s he'd get more improvement shaving his legs. I listened to an podcast with Rohan Dennis before "the incident". Done heaps of testing. I think he said the order in saving watts is position, helmet, wheels, clothing, tyres which had big watt savings and the frame was a very distant last, saving a few watts at best.

Specialized once said that in their "win tunnel" they measure gains of between 50 and 70 seconds when going from unshaven to shaved legs.

I have a "mate" than has a PhD in fluid dynamics. He designs high pressure systems for hydro cracking technology that helps make petrol from the parts of oil that were once deemed to be "left overs" and destined to go to the asphalt tar pit. Something about pressurizing hydrogen to 4000psi at 3000F and mixing it with once tar like oil at ungodly velocity. In his spare time he races and often borrows equipment for testing from others like him that have way too much disposable income. Probably knows more about fluid dynamics than a dude that wrenches on bikes. He knows his stuff that well that a presentation he did on next generations fuels got the interest on the next set of presenters - the folks from NASA that were doing the sonic boomless supersonic plane. Chats after lead to him blagging tons of tunnel time at Ames in San Jose in one of the seldom used small wind tunnels.

Chet Kyle PhD, of human powered performance and 1984, 88 and 92 TT and track bike fame, believed the the same- that the frame had the possibility to be one of the biggest reducers in drag, just shy of the best set of wheels. Funnily enough, the dude from Lotus that designed the 108 for Barcelona thought the exact same thing... If you didn't geek out on the Cycling Science magazine in the late 80's and early 90's that ended up being a weighty tome of no BS research, a good number of pics of Kyles work can be found here:

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610520300441[/URL]

He also debunked the BS on "cross chaining" big ring and big sprocket. Loses almost no power on a well maintained chain.

While most of the drag does come from the rider, the frame makes a huge difference. I know that with the same position on my old psuedo 653 TT bike and on a Cervelo P3 - both using my wheels (28 spoke Flo 30 rims with Dura Ace front hub and PowerTap rear), I'm about 2kmh faster on the Cervelo at 300 watts but the Cervelo would give me the option to get into a better position than my old bike would allow. That 653 was 76 degree seat.

Pogi is eyeing the World Champs.

"That rainbow jersey looks good a Matthieu but I think it would look better on me." With 4,500 meters of climbing for the men, I'd say he'd have a chance.

classic1 said:

I may have missed bars in the above. Narrower bars with an aero profile.save heaps too

Pogi is on 37cm wide bars. Custom ENVE units. 165mm cranks so he can get his overall position a little lower and compact.

I think I could learn to live with those rather than that cone of shame that Jonas had on his head during the last TT. Rather than throwing crisps in their face, a quick high pressure hose from behind and down the back of that conical garbage can...

classic1 said:

I just watched the Spike Lee movie Da 5 Bloods.

Lee can sway from brilliant to [censored]. This was [censored]. Nearly turned it off it was that bad. BlacKKKlansman was ace but this sucked and it was at least 40 minutes too long. And Spike, you can make a point without laying it on with a trowel. Christ he over does it. The critics loved it though. Figures.

I rate Spike below his brothers Bruce and Christopher and way below his sister Sara on the Lee scale index.

Geddy, Christopher, Bruce, Sara.

Watched the Director's Cut of Amadeus a few weeks back. That took a turn for the dark side...

Also on the craptacular side, The Shining mini-series. Apparently closer to Stephen King's vision in the book. Utterly forgettable. I enjoyed the book but enjoyed Kubrick's version much better.

Tour De Drafter...

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3ZbFsE-Kvag