Bikes question

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:08:22 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]But it can turn every ride into a race. I did say it would interest the techy types, not the tetchy types! [/quote] Tetchy - moi?! I got a bike computer when they first came out, I embraced GPS for bikes when it was in its infancy and plot 100+ mile rides and follow them on devious routes I otherwise would not have discovered, I used a heart monitor when they were the big new thing in training, recorded a computer training log, everything on my bikes is state of the art, but when I raced I raced in real road races home and abroad against real competitors not virtual ones. In short, been there, done that, got the tee shirt, now is the time to enjoy cycling for itself which is not to say I'm not still competitive - if I see another cyclist on the road I have to race him so you see I don't need Strava. Plus I'm an old fart.

Re: Bikes question

Liz w — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:09:56 GMT

According to Strava I'm queen of the mountains on quite of the hills between John O'Groats and Lands End. It's worth being careful with your uploads if you share a Garmin.

Re: Bikes question

Mark Holmes — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:27:38 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Just adding for the bikey/techy people. If you haven't found the Strava app on your smart phone you are missing out. It's fabulous. Just started getting to grips with it but can see it becoming an obsession. Very very cool. (Child of the 70's hence use of the term "cool")

[/quote] As a child of the 50's I have embraced modern technology surprisingly well but I can't see the point of Strava. If you want to race get out and race, I can't even be bothered with comparing my times/average speeds on rides with a GPS or bike computer these days let alone with what anyone else is doing. You need a life Mark. Or I could just be a Luddite.

[/quote]

But it can turn every ride into a race. I did say it would interest the techy types, not the tetchy types!

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:59:56 GMT

Re: Bikes question

Mark Holmes — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:41:53 GMT

Just adding for the bikey/techy people. If you haven't found the Strava app on your smart phone you are missing out. It's fabulous. Just started getting to grips with it but can see it becoming an obsession. Very very cool. (Child of the 70's hence use of the term "cool")

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:14:47 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"] Are you just not very good at adrenaline sports Martin? Try chess [/quote] I'm probably not as good as I'd like to think I am but I believe if you're going to do do these sports you might as well push it to the limit. Still, its not my fault if some dick comes down in front of me in a road race at 65kph and I can't miss him, although the time I rode into a tree on the side of the road when there was no-one else with me probably was! Just be careful out there.

Re: Bikes question

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:16:43 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

That certainly puts it in perspective and makes it rather less odd... so much for news reports :0)

Reading your comments, is there anyone in the competitive cycling community who doesn't dope??

[/quote]

Lorna there is still some cheating in the peleton - probably quite a bit (witness Frank Schleck in the Tour) but I think the cheating that is going on is far less significant than previously - they are having to use prodcuts and systems that make much less of a difference than EPO/blood doping/CERA/Steroids. This is due to the tighter doping controls and the biological passport system.

My evidence is simply that they are quite a lot slower than they used to be. The times up the famous climbs are 12-13% slower than they were in the EPO era. No-one has ever come close to Pantani's record on L'Alpe d'Huez and it may stand for all time (because he probably had a haematocrit pushing 60% that day). People analysing Wiggo's "numbers" in this year show power outputs of only 85% of what they were routinely doing back in Armstrong's day.

Re: Bikes question

Mark Holmes — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:49:38 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]And will people please stop talking about cycling injuries as you are all making me want to wrap myself in bubble wrap and a duvet and stay in my bed.[/quote] Wimp - wait until I tell you about my skiing/snowboarding injuries! Actually I feel its a good choice of bike not too heavy and the frame will be good for a few upgrades - brakes and wheels I feel first when you're ready.

[/quote]

Maybe its not me who needs to stay in bed wrapped in a duvet but you? Are you just not very good at adrenaline sports Martin? Try chess

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:40:23 GMT

Re: Bikes question

Mark Holmes — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:05:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"] Boardman Race at Halfords would be a great shout and has garnered several top reviews[/quote]

I looked at these but they do not build the larger frame sizes and only cater for the small and stunty. I am starting to feel discriminated against. Anyway I groveled and crept on the floor like a beaten dog and managed to push the budget and am waiting delivery of the Felt Z6

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/?s=felt+z6

I was eventually swayed by the feedback that carbon is potentially a more comfortable ride. Given that I am about to turn elderly (37) I thought it useful.

And will people please stop talking about cycling injuries as you are all making me want to wrap myself in bubble wrap and a duvet and stay in my bed.

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:33:12 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]Reading your comments, is there anyone in the competitive cycling community who doesn't dope??[/quote] We like to think ALL Brits are clean, especially Bradley Wiggins (sadly David Millar put the fly in the ointment on that but has since repented and we won't mention Tom Simpson!) but the finger of suspicion has even been pointed at us as a result of our world beating performances this year. I prefer to think it is because the filthy foreigners have stopped doping now the dope controls are so tight and we've just taken our true pIace in the order of things. I believe that Wiggins and last year's winner, Cadel Evans, are the first clean winners of the Tour de France in history with the possible exception of Greg Lemond.

Re: Bikes question

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:09:56 GMT

That certainly puts it in perspective and makes it rather less odd... so much for news reports :0)

Reading your comments, is there anyone in the competitive cycling community who doesn't dope??

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:04:18 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]Unless I'm missing something, that seems deeply unreasonable to me; and open to considerable abuse... what's to stop anyone with a grudge pursuing an allegation that has no foundation in evidence until the guy's had enough and walks away?[/quote] I would truly like to believe that he was innocent but the numbers of those who have testified they saw him dope, heard him admit he doped or were offered doping products by him has steadily grown. Some of these are discredited former dopers trying to save their own skins but an increasing number have great credibility and I believe the final straw was when George Hincapie, who is the nicest and most honerable man in the peloton and Lance's best mate was alleged to have testified against him and he knew that this evidence would come up in any hearing. Whether he knew the chips were finally down or he acted to protect Big George we will probably never know. And in addition to what some of the others like Simon have said there is evidence that his blood values, what is now called a biological passport, showed changes that could only be reasonably attributed to doping, similar to the afore mentioned Marco Pantani. This is not proof but I it believe would be construed as such a large volume of circumstantial evidence that it put his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Lance is such a fighter and has such resources at his disposal that if he was truly innocent he would have fought on. Plus there is also a conspiracy theory that the UCI, having (allegedly) been implicit in covering up some of his past misdemeanours and accepted a large 'gift' from him, not wanting this to come out in the wash have quietly told him to go away quietly. There was one piece of evidence from years ago which the cycling community brushed over because it didn't understand the implication: a journalist followed a US Postal team car from their hotel when the driver dumped a load of stuff in a bin. He found syringes and used bags of Oxyglobin. It is and was illegal at the time to use artificial blood components but there was then no test. The team defended this by saying they used it to put on skin wounds to facilitate healing. Now all of us know it has no therapeutic value for that and is a rather expensive exercise just in case it might help so in my mind that was enough evidence back then.

Re: Bikes question

Neil Wheadon — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:23:10 GMT

Matt Rendells book on the death of Marco Pantani is a terrific read if you are interested in doping.

There's interesting stuff in here

1) His haematocrit rose as tours approached (as did cross country skiers)

2) Cyclists called for testing would dilute their blood with haemaccel, and would report late for testing post race to avoid a 50% PCV

3) An Australian study showed that athletes react differently to EPO, it wasn't a level playing field even if you doped.

Due to libel laws the alleged EPO use can't be published in the UK. David Walsh in the Sunday Times has been investigating for years, but I thought his article this Sunday said absolutely nothing to indite Lance. Is he guilty? well Pantani had 22 million euros when he died of a cocaine overdose. The one fact that makes me think he might be innocent is for a person to set up a charity called Livestrong knowing that he cheated is lower than I think possible.

Neil

Re: Bikes question

Colin Thomson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:24:20 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]As for never been tested positive - Richard Virenque, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso never tested positive either.[/quote]

But he has had samples that have tested positive - just that this has never been confirmed by the testing of the "B" sample - mostly it would appear because strings have been pulled in high places to ensure the initial tests were ruled invalid. I think the "B" samples for the later years are still available - they have to be kept for seven years. Lance doesn't seem keen to get them tested.

Re: Bikes question

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:11:45 GMT

[quote user="Lorna McHardy"]

I don't get this.

As I understand it, he's never tested positive on any test, and he's still being accused of doping and moreover, this has been going on for ages. So now he's decided he's had enough fighting charges based on zero evidence, and has said so... which is taken as an admission of guilt, despite the fact that he has not admitted guilt and nothing has been proved and he still hasn't tested positive on any tests.

Unless I'm missing something, that seems deeply unreasonable to me; and open to considerable abuse... what's to stop anyone with a grudge pursuing an allegation that has no foundation in evidence until the guy's had enough and walks away?

[/quote]

Lots of ways to answer that Lorna - most pretty long winded! Firstly is to ask why? What do the USADA have to gain by "persecuting" him at this late stage? Why are twelve former team mates and associates prepared to "dob him in" if its all fabrication?

An easier way is to look at this list of the top five in the years that he won the Tour de France:

1999
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)
3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)
4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2000
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)

2001
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Andrei Kivilev
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2002
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)
4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2003
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)
5. Haimar Zubeldia

2004
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)
3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2005
1. Lance Armstrong (banned)
2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)

He beat all these people who were doping - and he did it cleanly? Seems very hard to believe. EPO is supposed to improve performance by 18%. If Armstrong beat guys who were on EPO that means he was 20% better than anyone else in the world.

As for never been tested positive - Richard Virenque, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso never tested positive either. It wasn't until quite a long time post EPO's banning that a test became available. Following that supposedly Armstrongs 1999 sample has been tested and found to be positive (this is not admissable as evidence as there is no backup sample anymore). A French cycling papaer have offered to test all of Armstrong's samples at an accredited lab of his choice to prove his innocence - he has not accepted this offer.

Re: Bikes question

Lorna McHardy — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:28:20 GMT

I don't get this.

Re: Bikes question

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:14:10 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]

The WTC who run Ironman have a rule banning athletes who are under active investigation. That was why he couldn't compete at Ironman France. LA is now neither under investigation nor found guilty but it is too late for the 2012 world championships. I suspect they will change the rules to allow him to enter in 2013 as there is a lot of sympathy for him, especially from the top racers. There are also events that are not WADA sactioned such as the Germany based "Challenge" series but they don't have the prestige of a world championship. The problem is he wasn't found guilty and I think the UCI need to make the next statement before Ironman.

Ian

[/quote]

Ian as I understand it by not contesting the charges he IS guilty in the legal sense - every bit as much as if the charges had been proven. Hence the ban.

Re: Bikes question

Ian Mostyn — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:39:46 GMT

Ian

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:16:46 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]Re Armstrong and competing again - as I understand it he will have a lifetime ban on cycling. I am not sure how that affects Ironman events though?[/quote] I believe it will apply to triathlon, he was set to enter one in Europe when the shit hit the fan and was suspended and unable to compete even before sentence was passed so I can't see he'll be able to compete now it has. If a USADA ruling is sanctioned by the WADA which has the power invested in it to tell the UCI to ban it's members then it must apply to all sports run under the auspices of a national or an international organisation

Re: Bikes question

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:58:37 GMT

Thanks for the info Ian. Your point about Armstrong changing his tactics illustrates what I was thinking. If someone as good as him in the bike section (ie an exceptional time triallist) was racing in a draft legal event his advantage would be nullified by those sitting in on his wheel - or working in a pack against him. Seeing that triathlons are supposed to be about the best all round athlete I think its a pity that drafting has been made legal in some of the big events.

Re Armstrong and competing again - as I understand it he will have a lifetime ban on cycling. I am not sure how that affects Ironman events though?

Re: Bikes question

Ian Mostyn — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:22:55 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]Very interesting about the "draft legal" racing - I didn't know about that. Seems a bit strange really - like it would nullify the advantage a triathlete would have who was particularly strong on the bike vs the other disciplines.[/quote]

Triathlon was originally non-drafting on the bike - lots of drafting in swimming though - and is mostly non-drafting now making the bike section essentially an individual time-trial. Most amateur racing, USA Triathlon & Ironman racing is still non-drafting with time penalties (2 to 5 mins) for a first fault and disqualification for more than 1 discretion. The draft zone is usually 3m wide and 7m long with the front middle of the zone at the front of the front wheel. You normally have 15 to 30 seconds to overtake before a penalty applies or you have to drop back. There will be marshalls on motorbikes monitoring this in the larger events. There are very few rules about bikes and basically any standard bike will be suitable. I think you might get in trouble with a very custom frame but that wont affect 99.9% of triathletes. At the top level bikes are light, all carbon fibre with deep rim wheels and full aerobars to ensure as much speed in the race - similar to a pure cycling time-trial. Olympic and sprint distances are only 12 to 25 miles ont he bike so very similar to a professional TT. The bike section on an ironman is 56 or 112 miles and although aerodynamics are still important, a comfortable position is more useful.

The problem with non-drafting is that you will get time penalties during the race and the finishing positions can't be determined until after the race. A lot of larger triathlons are also set-off in waves as it is difficult to get more than a few hundred swimmers in the water at the same time. This makes it difficult for TV or the Olympics. In order to get into Sydney 2000, the ITU had to come up with a format that was suitable so drafting is now allowed. This reduces the penalties and makes it much more likely that the first person across the line is the winner. This has meant a change in racing tactics for the pros over the past 12 years. The swim is important in that you need to be in the first group on the bike or in a second group only just behind. The bike section often forms a group of athletes who start the run together and becomes more of an energy saving exercise. The winner is decided by the best runner (Alistair Brownlee did just over 29 minutes for 10k and walked across the line!) and the best cyclists have to try to make a breakaway.

Compare this to non-drafting Ironman where Lance Armstrong has a very good bike section but has been caught in the run in the past. After a few races he changed tactics and instead of just winning the bike section by 5 mins to save some energy, he blasted through it and made up enough time to hold on during the run. He was going to be a challenger at the Ironman world champs but I guess we may have to wait until next year(?) Interestingly, there has been no mention of taking away any of his Ironman victories and I suspect triathlon would welcome him back happily. I suspect the whole LA affair could be embarrassing for the UCI or USADA if the truth came out. How could he pass so many drugs tests during competition and still be guilty? Either the drugs tests dont work, someone at UCI was covering for him or the USADA is on a witch hunt and he is innocent. I am still waiting for the UCI to make a comment.

Ian

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:56:21 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]

The UCI rules extend to more than just the bike weights in terms of what can and can't be used for racing. You of all people Martin should know that "It's not about the bike." ;-) They want a fairly level playing field technology wise such that the racing reflects the rider's ability not his or her bike - same as the rules governing Formula 1 for example.

[/quote] I was actually going to say something on this, clearly the technical rules on bike construction are far too complex to discuss on this forum but one was the cost issue so bikes are affordable to all to help create the level playing field. Clearly a super-light bike would cost more and may be out of the reach of some but then those that can afford are still riding super-light bikes but can load them with heavier equipment like expensive electronic groupsets and power meter chainsets and still keep on the 6.8kg so the rule is untenable and might as well be scrapped or at least brought up to date as all mainstream bikes are submitted for strength testing anyway.

Re: Bikes question

Simon Neuhoff — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:27:34 GMT

Re: Bikes question

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:58:16 GMT

[quote user="Ian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The UCI weight limit is 6.8kg so I presume, that unless triathletes don't have to abide by UCI rules, they are actually not this light. [/quote]

UCI rules and ITU rules for triathlon are different. There is no weight limit in triathlon and manufacturers will do UCI legal, ITU legal and other bikes. the Brownlee's base bike is for sale and listed at 6.3kg.

Ian

[/quote] The UCI rule is insane as we know most top end bikes can be made well under 6.8kg. The rule was imposed for safety reasons as the theory was that a bike that weighed less than this may be structurely weak. It is outdated by modern technology and we have the ludicrous situation of riders putting ballast on the bikes to get them up to the UCI legal limit.