Cool News

[Tom]

Hey, you asked the question, I responded. So, EuroDog, if that is
your real name, I'll let you in on a little "secret".

1. Sarcasm does not translate well to the written word as we know it,
and it translates even worse to the internet. Sorry I didn't pick up
that "eye roll" of yours when you typed it into the screen, I'm just
not that perceptive.

2. Thick as a brick didn't get me 2 masters degrees, one in mechanical
engineering, and one in business.

3. I have plenty of humor, as noted by my reply to your post.

4. I'm not a dumbass (see response #2 above), but I'm definitely a
jerk.

5. I have a short chain, and it doesn't need to be jerked.

6. I'm neither sad, lonely, or pathetic, and at 31 years old, far
from middle aged. I don't take things quite literally, but when
someone asks me a question without any indication that they are "in the
know" I tend to respond with the answer.

Now, please, for the rest of humanity's sake, go crawl back under
the rock from whence you came.

 

[Jenko]

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> But nobody pays any attention to any of them except the (no pun intended)
> absolute fastest. Which record are you more impressed by: Boardman's 56.375
> or 49.441? Even Eddy himself has been quoted as saying regressing the record
> was a stupid idea.

Ironically, it is Obree who now seems to agree with the UCI
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/othersport.cfm?id=140302005
"I actually agree with what the UCI are doing, because where does it stop?
You’ve got to allow for some innovation but the emphasis has to be on the athlete."

Jenko

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Jenko" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carl Sundquist wrote:
>>
>> But nobody pays any attention to any of them except the (no pun intended)
>> absolute fastest. Which record are you more impressed by: Boardman's
>> 56.375 or 49.441? Even Eddy himself has been quoted as saying regressing
>> the record was a stupid idea.
>
> Ironically, it is Obree who now seems to agree with the UCI
> http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/othersport.cfm?id=140302005
> "I actually agree with what the UCI are doing, because where does it stop?
> You’ve got to allow for some innovation but the emphasis has to be on the
> athlete."
>
> Jenko

Although Boardman's 56.375 Superman is insanely fast, don't overlook
Rominger's aerobar/steel tube frame 55.291. He brought the record up over
2.2km from Indurain's 53.040.

If they can use the equipment on the road or pursuit, let'em ride it (fixed
gear) for an hour.

Although the story was more about Obree the man than the hour record, it
would be interesting to see where he would draw the innovation/athlete line.
Also, like most others I think what he did, twice, was stupendous, but as
you said it is ironic that he agrees with the UCI. Without the innovation,
he would have had virtually nothing for someone who had "cycling as the only
form of self-validation".

 

[B Lafferty]

"Tom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hey, you asked the question, I responded. So, EuroDog, if that is
> your real name, I'll let you in on a little "secret".
>
> 1. Sarcasm does not translate well to the written word as we know it,
> and it translates even worse to the internet. Sorry I didn't pick up
> that "eye roll" of yours when you typed it into the screen, I'm just
> not that perceptive.
>
> 2. Thick as a brick didn't get me 2 masters degrees, one in mechanical
> engineering, and one in business.
>
> 3. I have plenty of humor, as noted by my reply to your post.
>
> 4. I'm not a dumbass (see response #2 above), but I'm definitely a
> jerk.
>
> 5. I have a short chain, and it doesn't need to be jerked.
>
> 6. I'm neither sad, lonely, or pathetic, and at 31 years old, far
> from middle aged. I don't take things quite literally, but when
> someone asks me a question without any indication that they are "in the
> know" I tend to respond with the answer.
>
> Now, please, for the rest of humanity's sake, go crawl back under
> the rock from whence you came.

You are definitly a thick as a brick, stupid, lonely and pathetic little
man, with an ossified brain that is far older mentally than it's
chronological age.

Do have a wonderful day, schmuck.

Brian EuroDog Lafferty

 

[Jenko]

Carl Sundquist wrote:
>
> Although Boardman's 56.375 Superman is insanely fast, don't overlook
> Rominger's aerobar/steel tube frame 55.291.

That's around a 1 sec/km difference. The same difference as between Boardman
pursuit record (4'11"114) and the best non-Superman time (Wiggins @ Athens,
4'15"165)

> If they can use the equipment on the road or pursuit, let'em ride it (fixed
> gear) for an hour.

How is Armstrong, or anyone else, going to compensate for the 1 sec/km that
Superman gives? Altitude is two seconds for anaerobic efforts (58"875 vs
1'00"711 in the kilo), but this doesn't translate well to longer distances.

Jenko

 

[amit]

Carl Sundquist wrote:

> > if someone
> > falls too far behind the record pace their ride would be aborted
and
> > the next rider would start.
> >
>
> Doubtful that would work as each rider would need to know when they
are
> going to start so they could schedule their preparations and warmups
> accordingly.

yeah yeah, it would never happen. unless don king decides to get
involved.

 

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 02/06/2005 07:06 AM, in article
[email protected], "Tom"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> 6. I'm neither sad, lonely, or pathetic, and at 31 years old, far
> from middle aged.



The average lifespan for the American male is 74.x years. For simplicity's
sake, let's round that to 75 years.

Dividing this into the three stages of life, gives one the following
divisions:

Youth - Birth-->25
Middle-Aged - 26-->50
Elderly - 51-->75

If you wish to refine and divide into 5 stages of life you still get the
following:

Childhood - Birth-->15
Youth/Young Adulthood - 15-->30
Middle-Aged - 31-->45
Aging Adulthood - 46-->60
Elderly - 61-->75

Either way you look at it, at 31, you are in your middle-aged years.




--
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 eye 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 [foreword] slash

 

[h squared]

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote:
>

> Either way you look at it, at 31, you are in your middle-aged years.

my boyfriend and i had this conversation a few weeks ago whether or not
31 was middle aged (yes, exactly the year 31). he said the term "middle
aged" is usually taken to mean at least over 40.

not disputing what you wrote, just reporting my own researches on the
subject
heather

 

[Robert Chung]

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> The average lifespan for the American male is 74.x years. For
> simplicity's sake, let's round that to 75 years.
>
> Dividing this into the three stages of life, gives one the following
> divisions:
>
> Youth - Birth-->25
> Middle-Aged - 26-->50
> Elderly - 51-->75
>
> If you wish to refine and divide into 5 stages of life you still get the
> following:
>
> Childhood - Birth-->15
> Youth/Young Adulthood - 15-->30
> Middle-Aged - 31-->45
> Aging Adulthood - 46-->60
> Elderly - 61-->75

What if you're 76?

 

[Fred Marx]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
>
>>The average lifespan for the American male is 74.x years. For
>>simplicity's sake, let's round that to 75 years.
>>
>>Dividing this into the three stages of life, gives one the following
>>divisions:
>>
>>Youth - Birth-->25
>>Middle-Aged - 26-->50
>>Elderly - 51-->75
>>
>>If you wish to refine and divide into 5 stages of life you still get the
>>following:
>>
>>Childhood - Birth-->15
>>Youth/Young Adulthood - 15-->30
>>Middle-Aged - 31-->45
>>Aging Adulthood - 46-->60
>>Elderly - 61-->75
>
>
> What if you're 76?
>
>
dead

 

[Tom]

Wow! Hello pot. This is kettle.

I did have a wonderful day. Thanks!

Tom "Not Kunich" Arsenault

 

[Jenko]

[email protected] wrote:
> Jenko wrote:
>>
>>But why start with a 1 sec/km disadvantage? The absolute fastest is
> the absolute
>>fastest. Once you adopt restrictive equipment rules, odd things
> happen
>
> But taking it to its logical conclusion, the absolute hour record could
> probably be improved on a recumbent (with the right rider of course).

True. Let me rephrase. Once you adopt more restrictive equipment rules than
those under which the record was set, odd things happen.

No Superman, or egg, position, plus the EPO test, means any rider today is in
significant disadvantage compared to the 90's records. I don't think Armstrong
can beat Boardman's distance (of course, he has proved me wrong before)

Jenko

 

[Richard Sachs]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But taking it to its logical conclusion, the absolute hour record could
> probably be improved on a recumbent (with the right rider of course).
> Jeff




but could it break the hour with the right rider?
e-RICHIE

 

[Robert Chung]

B Lafferty wrote:
>
> Boardman's desired parameters:
> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=856

IOW, the UCI hour record should be attempted according to the rules of
H-O-R-S-E.

 

[[email protected]]

Robert Chung wrote:
> B Lafferty wrote:
> >
> > Boardman's desired parameters:
> > http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=856
>
> IOW, the UCI hour record should be attempted according to the rules
of
> H-O-R-S-E.

"No body or skin suits or aerodynamic apparel." ??
Does the rider have to wear a long wool jersey -
with 3 powerbars in the pockets?

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jenko <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> > Jenko wrote:
> >>
> >>But why start with a 1 sec/km disadvantage? The absolute fastest is
> > the absolute
> >>fastest. Once you adopt restrictive equipment rules, odd things
> > happen
> >
> > But taking it to its logical conclusion, the absolute hour record could
> > probably be improved on a recumbent (with the right rider of course).
>
> True. Let me rephrase. Once you adopt more restrictive equipment rules than
> those under which the record was set, odd things happen.
>
> No Superman, or egg, position, plus the EPO test, means any rider today is in
> significant disadvantage compared to the 90's records. I don't think
> Armstrong
> can beat Boardman's distance (of course, he has proved me wrong before)

I don't think Armstrong (who, and it's easy to forget this when you see
his climbing in the tours, is one of the very fastest TTers) would even
be trying for the hour unless he thought he had a pretty good shot.

The fact that there are already two different hour records ("hour
record" for a Merckx bike and "best hour performance" for a TT bike) has
already largely segregated many of the 90s records into the latter, no?
And the track bike Armstrong is showing off in the cyclingnews article
is clearly a non-TT bike, though I'm excited to see whether the UCI
decides the Madone's sculpted tubes are permissibly un-aero.

My proposal: every UCI rule change for the hour record has been aimed at
de-emphasizing aerodynamics. Basically, they're saying the aerodynamic
innovations shouldn't count for anything in record attempts. (well,
okay, it's their record, I guess people who this really bothers set the
HPV hour instead). So how about we go completely the other way: Best
Hour Wattage!

Rider uses a stationary bike of their choice. Cooling, hydration, etc.
are free choices. UCI specifies a standard power meter which is to be
integrated into the bike, and which logs the power for an hour. Most
joules wins. There will be a drug test afterwards....

This could be the boost roller-racing needs!

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

 

[[email protected]]

Nah, because the UCI would soon find a way to categorize it into
mediocrity.

 

[gym gravity]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

> The fact that there are already two different hour records ("hour
> record" for a Merckx bike and "best hour performance" for a TT bike) has
> already largely segregated many of the 90s records into the latter, no?
> And the track bike Armstrong is showing off in the cyclingnews article
> is clearly a non-TT bike, though I'm excited to see whether the UCI
> decides the Madone's sculpted tubes are permissibly un-aero.

it's not about the bike...

more than half the wind tunnel testing is about his position.