Training or Plain Riding?

Carl Sundquist wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:
"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
news
Who knows how many other riders would like to make tweaks to their
equipment, but know that they just have to ride what the team gives
them?

Carl, let's remember that most riders aren't capable of making
intelligent decisions so it is probably best that they don't have a
say in equipment.


Both Shaun Wallace, who admittedly has an engineering degree, and Harvey
Nitz have built their own carbon frames (and that was roughly 15 years
ago). Nitz helped Serotta design the headset used on the '84 pursuit
bikes. These guys are not like bimbo singer/actor/actresses who claim to
design signature fragrances or clothes. Nitz was always tweaking his
bikes. Some riders have valuable, thoughtful suggestions and innovations
and sometimes (like you suggest) they simply have too much free time on
their hands. Other riders are happy riding whatever they have.

Correction:

Nitz helped Ben Serotta design the headset on _his_ (Nitz's) pursuit
bike, not the USCF's Raleighs.

On Dec 9, 8:46*pm, Bill C
*The other side of that is unless they are getting bikes from a
sponsor, experienced racers, especially crit types, know they are
going to wreck bikes and equipment and itr makes no sense to spend
huge dollars out of their own pockets for unobtainium and super
expensive carbon. Know at least one who has a couple of top end
Colnagos they ride to train and for fun, but wouldn't risk racing in a
million years.
*Bill C

dumbass,

a few weeks ago i saw a segment on Top Gear about amateur (auto)
rallying in Finland.

there the cars were all given a nominal value (like $2000) and if
anyone wanted to buy your car you had to sell it to them. it meant
that people didn't go nuts on hardware and the emphasis stayed on
skill.

bike racing should have a similar rule

Know at least one who has a couple of top end
Colnagos they ride to train and for fun, but wouldn't risk racing in a
million years.
*Bill C

dumbass,

those people are still freds.

On Dec 9, 10:32*pm, Carl Sundquist

Nitz helped Serotta design the headset used on the '84 pursuit
bikes. These guys are not like bimbo singer/actor/actresses who claim to
design signature fragrances or clothes. Nitz was always tweaking his
bikes. Some riders have valuable, thoughtful suggestions and innovations
and sometimes (like you suggest) they simply have too much free time on
their hands. Other riders are happy riding whatever they have.

dumbass,

i already said it. racers are going to always look for more
performance, but freds are te ones who will succumb to "bike lust".

there's a difference.

Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Dec 9, 10:32 pm, Carl Sundquist

Nitz helped Serotta design the headset used on the '84 pursuit
bikes. These guys are not like bimbo singer/actor/actresses who claim to
design signature fragrances or clothes. Nitz was always tweaking his
bikes. Some riders have valuable, thoughtful suggestions and innovations
and sometimes (like you suggest) they simply have too much free time on
their hands. Other riders are happy riding whatever they have.

dumbass,

i already said it. racers are going to always look for more
performance, but freds are te ones who will succumb to "bike lust".

there's a difference.




,

The post you replied to said, "Oh, engineers will always want to talk
about it anyway, but more in terms of the nifty tool they used or how
they made a tweak that improved the design. Cycling is geek heaven."

That's not lust.

"Carl Sundquist" wrote in message
...
Amit Ghosh wrote:

i already said it. racers are going to always look for more
performance, but freds are te ones who will succumb to "bike lust".

there's a difference.

The post you replied to said, "Oh, engineers will always want to talk
about it anyway, but more in terms of the nifty tool they used or how they
made a tweak that improved the design. Cycling is geek heaven."

That's not lust.

Remember when there was an Amit post you would pay close attention because
it had something intelligent to say and didn't start with "dumbass"?

That ******* Andrew Albright started that ignorant thrust and 12 year old
Henry continued it. Now most of the previously intelligent people who used
to post here have substandard IQ responses to practically anything.

Amit Ghosh wrote:
Know at least one who has a couple of top end
Colnagos they ride to train and for fun, but wouldn't risk racing in a
million years.
Bill C

dumbass,

those people are still freds.


We sure as hell ARE!!!

In article ,
Amit Ghosh wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:46*pm, Bill C
*The other side of that is unless they are getting bikes from a
sponsor, experienced racers, especially crit types, know they are
going to wreck bikes and equipment and itr makes no sense to spend
huge dollars out of their own pockets for unobtainium and super
expensive carbon. Know at least one who has a couple of top end
Colnagos they ride to train and for fun, but wouldn't risk racing in a
million years.
*Bill C

dumbass,

a few weeks ago i saw a segment on Top Gear about amateur (auto)
rallying in Finland.

there the cars were all given a nominal value (like $2000) and if
anyone wanted to buy your car you had to sell it to them. it meant
that people didn't go nuts on hardware and the emphasis stayed on
skill.

bike racing should have a similar rule

Those are called "claiming" rules. There's a lot of motorsports with them and
sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. For example, in AMA Superbike racing,
there's been claiming rules for ages but they're rarely used. I think one of the
reasons they aren't is because the top teams are also suppliers to the other teams
and if you go and claim someone's high dollar engine or suspension bits, the next
time you go to buy some other bit of kit for your bike, the likelyhood they'll sell
it to you without a hassle is slim. I realize that doesn't apply in bicycle racing,
but I can see this happening (another example from the AMA): A rider claimed a top
team's $25k forks for the AMA stipulated $5000 but when he picked them up, they'd
been basically rendered unusable. The officials did nothing. I think that was because
they didn't want to see their top teams "hurt" by what they considered to be an
annoyance.

I could see officials doing that in bike racing too.

I also believe the rules the UCI had a few years ago were intended to limit how
much teams or countries could spend on bicycles in an effort to make it more "fair"
for poor teams or countries (I'd say that was aimed mostly at the Olys and Worlds,
where countries are fronting the teams).

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Dec 10, 12:15*am, Carl Sundquist

The post you replied to said, "Oh, engineers will always want to talk
about it anyway, but more in terms of the nifty tool they used or how
they made a tweak that improved the design. *Cycling is geek heaven."

That's not lust.

dumbass,

it's something other than really concerned with performance. call it
what you want.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
...

I have to agree with Amit. It tends to be the newbies/Freds who obsess
about equipment.

Obviously you don't understand that the "best" stuff is only good for a
year or so now.

There are exceptions to the rule, but after awhile most racers figure
out that with the exception of time trialing, it's all about the skill/
fitness, not equipment.

Most of us buy good equipment because we think it is good equipment.
Having it come apart after 12 months is sort of disillusioning.


The word "good" is sometimes misleading. Expensive and "good" are not
always the same things. Also, "good" for racing up the Alps in the TdF
is not always "good" for riding on crappy urban roads.

If instead of using those bearings as an example, I wonder whether more
people would have agreed with you if you'd chosen tires. I know a LOT of
people who maintain a separate wheelset because they know that their
expensive racing tires wont take the punishment of training rides.

This is not so much a question of which is "best" as it is a matter of
serving the particular purpose.