Ron Kiefel

alienator said:

Wow. I thought your thoughts might remain in the plane of reasonable logic, but it seems they've gravitated toward the ridiculous.

Unfortunately for you, the days of "traditional" steel frames in the pro peloton are dead and are never coming back.

Magic winged bikes, energy multiplying bikes, or whatever are completely stupid notions that make a mockery of your initial argument, straying far beyond anything objective, into the fanciful. Suffice it to say there is apparently no reasonable discussion to be had here.

The old days are in the past. Get over it. Race performance is driven by the rider.

Discussion murdered, dead.

You made a flat out statement: "I don't think you can limit innovation or regulate it at all." I challenged that and asked you to defend it. "Ridiculous," "completely stupid notions," and "fanciful" do not a defense make. Those are words narrow old men have always used when their precious narrow thinking is threatened. Anybody can assert anything they want, but if they can't back it up, there is no discussion to be had. Simple.

Clearly, not all innovation is equal, or even, for that matter, true innovation. And your statement that, "The old days are in the past. Get over it," is a straw man, as I'd already clearly stated that it is "better to let innovation happen."

I'm still waiting to hear just how much innovation you can accept. Recumbent bikes? Assisted climbing? Some new technology that changes the nature of the sport altogether? Or is there some line past which you wouldn't go?

Maxiton said:

You made a flat out statement: "I don't think you can limit innovation or regulate it at all." I challenged that and asked you to defend it. "Ridiculous," "completely stupid notions," and "fanciful" do not a defense make. Those are words narrow old men have always used when their precious narrow thinking is threatened. Anybody can assert anything they want, but if they can't back it up, there is no discussion to be had. Simple.

Clearly, not all innovation is equal, or even, for that matter, true innovation. And your statement that, "The old days are in the past. Get over it," is a straw man, as I'd already clearly stated that it is "better to let innovation happen."

I'm still waiting to hear just how much innovation you can accept. Recumbent bikes? Assisted climbing? Some new technology that changes the nature of the sport altogether? Or is there some line past which you wouldn't go?

alienator is a cyclist? i thought as much.

Maxiton said:

You made a flat out statement: "I don't think you can limit innovation or regulate it at all." I challenged that and asked you to defend it. "Ridiculous," "completely stupid notions," and "fanciful" do not a defense make. Those are words narrow old men have always used when their precious narrow thinking is threatened. Anybody can assert anything they want, but if they can't back it up, there is no discussion to be had. Simple.

Clearly, not all innovation is equal, or even, for that matter, true innovation. And your statement that, "The old days are in the past. Get over it," is a straw man, as I'd already clearly stated that it is "better to let innovation happen."

I'm still waiting to hear just how much innovation you can accept. Recumbent bikes? Assisted climbing? Some new technology that changes the nature of the sport altogether? Or is there some line past which you wouldn't go?

Recumbent bikes aren't innovation: they're different than bikes and don't qualify under UCI guidelines. Power generating frames, or whatever you fantasized, are both physically impossible and disallowed because a motor on a bike does not a bike make. Neither do wings. And your suggestions were fanciful and stupid, and clearly that's why you picked them. They certainly did not advance any discussion. The manufacturers seem to understand the rules of the game well, and I am 100% comfortable with what they've done and what they will do.

As for the straw man, it's not a straw man: it was the opening salvo of this thread. Specifically these:

Quoted post said:

From the standpoint of experience we can see how easy it is to take a classic sport like cycling and screw it up (make it boring) for the sake of winning.

Quoted post said:

would like to see more man on man competition and less technical innovations.
Helmets to protect riders, yes. Aerodynamic helmets for time trials, no. Race radios, no. Anything but real cycling wheels with spokes, no.

There is no evidence whatsoever that bicycle innovation and development has "screwed up" cycling on single bit. Nope, none at all. Race radios are not a bicycle innovation or bicycling kit: they are racing strategy tools. Aero helmets? They're not race result differentiators. There's no evidence that they are. "Real cycling wheels?" What the hell does that mean? Are "wheels" ruining racing? No, and again, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate as much.

If we're going to be prickly, then you and the other fella have yet to answer the question re: what is it that cyclists can keep in order to preserve that precious, hallowed "man on man" competition? Where exactly has cycling, as a sport, been "screwed up?" If you're going to kvetch, at least bring something to support what you're complaining about. Maybe it was funny bikes that ruined time trialing. Maybe it was curved seat tubes that ruined racing. Or maybe it was that darned derailleur!

alienator said:

Recumbent bikes aren't innovation: they're different than bikes and don't qualify under UCI guidelines. Power generating frames, or whatever you fantasized, are both physically impossible and disallowed because a motor on a bike does not a bike make. Neither do wings. And your suggestions were fanciful and stupid, and clearly that's why you picked them. They certainly did not advance any discussion. The manufacturers seem to understand the rules of the game well, and I am 100% comfortable with what they've done and what they will do.

As for the straw man, it's not a straw man: it was the opening salvo of this thread. Specifically these:

There is no evidence whatsoever that bicycle innovation and development has "screwed up" cycling on single bit. Nope, none at all. Race radios are not a bicycle innovation or bicycling kit: they are racing strategy tools. Aero helmets? They're not race result differentiators. There's no evidence that they are. "Real cycling wheels?" What the hell does that mean? Are "wheels" ruining racing? No, and again, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate as much.

If we're going to be prickly, then you and the other fella have yet to answer the question re: what is it that cyclists can keep in order to preserve that precious, hallowed "man on man" competition? Where exactly has cycling, as a sport, been "screwed up?" If you're going to kvetch, at least bring something to support what you're complaining about. Maybe it was funny bikes that ruined time trialing. Maybe it was curved seat tubes that ruined racing. Or maybe it was that darned derailleur!

not even sure of the argument at hand and not sure if this fits but chrissie wellington still dominates on her old P2. or is that P3? the only bike she's ever really won anything on, i think it is. not much innovation of anything has been proven in that light especially when all her opponents are on new and 'up to date' bikes.
and she won a world championship triathlon in '06 riding 105 components on a Klien road bike, maybe tt, but i think road with bars added.

Say it roadhouse: "It's not about the bike"

Andrija said:

Say it roadhouse: "It's not about the bike"

taken from Slowtwitch :

Chrissie Wellington's Cervelo P2C popular

Written by: Herbert Krabel
Date: Thu Aug 07 2008

When Chrissie Wellington recently stormed to a second place overall finish at the Alpe d'Huez triathlon she put her competitors on notice that the Ironman Hawaii win wasn't a fluke. More keen observers had already noted her fast bike split in Hawaii and that she rode a Cervelo P2C and not on the flagship P3C. What blasphemy. The assumption was that moving forward Chrissie had "earned the right" to be on a P3C, but as of today she still rides a P2C and will be on a P2C in Hawaii. For our "the bikes of the pros" series we take a closer look at her Cervelo P2C as she rides it outside of Hawaii.

ST: We recently interviewed Brett Sutton and it sounds like he has quite a bit of input when it comes to your bike. How much do you decide or actually care in that regard?

Chrissie: As I am so new to triathlon, Brett has had a big input into everything I do, and the bike is no exception. He told me to ride the P2 rather than the P3, as he thinks I am better suited to it. I don’t question or argue – I just follow orders! This is an autocracy, not a democracy…☺ No seriously, I trust his judgment and am happy to stick with the P2. I feel comfortable on it, and it is what I am used to – which gives me peace of mind. Regarding the set up, again I trust Brett. I agree with his view that my bike handling skills are not good enough for me to get the benefits out of a TT set up, on most courses other than Hawaii, which is why I have road bars. This means that I don’t lose so much time on descents and corners as I would do if I was on a full TT set up.

I do care about the set up, but only in terms of comfort. I play around with the position of the saddle and the bars, and have enough of a ‘feel’ for the bike to know what is right for me, although Brett has also given his input on this, and tells me to go up/down or forward/back.

[IMG]slowtwitch.com2823 medium Picture%2525203.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]
ST: What bike did you ride prior to the Cervelo we saw you on in Kona?

Chrissie: A blue shopper, with a basket and a nice big bell! Hee hee… No, my first road bike was a third hand Peugeot, which I bought in 2004 from a friend for the bank-breaking price of £300 - which I thought was very expensive at the time! It had toe clips (and still does), and now has pride of place in my parent’s garage. My next bike was a Klein. It was purple and called Calvin. I bought it second hand (I was as tight as a ducks butt when it came to investing in my ‘ride’!) from a friend for £600. I still have the frame, and the 105 components. This was the bike that I won the World Age Group Championships on in 2006 and I rode it until June last year, when I was given the Cervelo Soloist, which was quickly replaced by the P2 when I won IM Korea and we realized I needed to get my butt on a TT bike for Hawaii.

ST: Will you be on a different bike in Kona in terms of setup and paint?

Chrissie: I will have the P2C in Kona, but with TT bars. As for a paint job….perhaps, if it will make me go faster!

(~she won Kona on that bike~)

Chrissie Wellington bike details and numbers:
- frame: Cervelo P2C 2008
- size: 54
- bar drop: 15 cm
- saddle setback: 1.5cm in front of BB (tip to center of BB)
- saddle height: 72.5cm (center of BB to center of saddle)
- fork: 3T FUNDA
- seat post: Cervelo carbon
- saddle: Fizik Arione Tri 2
- stem: 3T ARX Team, 115mm
- bars: at the moment 3T Ergos Team
- extensions: Profile Design T2+
- cranks: 172.5 SL-K Light FSA (hollow carbon) 39-53
- rear derailleur: Shimano Dura-Ace
- front derailleur: Shimano Dura-Ace
- shifters: Shimano Dura-Ace STI
- cassette: Shimano training in Switz 12-25 and racing 11-23
- chain: Shimano HG
- brake levers: Shimano Dura-Ace STI
- brakes: Shimano Dura-Ace
- wheels: training on HED Ardennes (clinchers) and race on HED JET 60s (clinchers)
- tires: training on Continental Grand Prix (raced on these in Alpe D’Huez), race wheels have Continental 4000
- bottle cages: Elite Carbon
- pedals: Look Keo Carbon

Even though it's "old P2C", I think it's very good bike and that there's no need for update. Few details, like tubulars instead of clinchers and maybe (just maybe, not necessarily) newer groupset, and that would be it.
My impression is that every bike built in 2000's is still very competitive.

Andrija said:

Even though it's "old P2C", I think it's very good bike and that there's no need for update. Few details, like tubulars instead of clinchers and maybe (just maybe, not necessarily) newer groupset, and that would be it.
My impression is that every bike built in 2000's is still very competitive.

i would have to agree with you, whole heartedly but me thinks and would have to say, for your satisfaction and because you asked so kindly nonetheless 😉, that it's not (about) the bike.

you're welcome.

It's level playing field when we talk about bikes. No one can afford him(her)self that luxury to be behind the competition in that area.

Andrija said:

It's level playing field when we talk about bikes. No one can afford him(her)self that luxury to be behind the competition in that area.

i guess that's one way of looking at it but i'd like to think that the competition are other people, not other people's bikes.

I'm just saying that they are equal in equipment. And, moreover, they always were. Athletes ride bikes, thus they make the difference.

Andrija said:

I'm just saying that they are equal in equipment. And, moreover, they always were. Athletes ride bikes, thus they make the difference.

uh, no. if you read that article then you'd know that the p3 is what the elite pro's are supposed to ride (at least amongst themselves) and miss wellington didn't and dominated, in spectacular fashion and also she had a flat tire at Kona, was on the side of the road for over five minutes as she accidently let all the air from her co2 cartridge out into the open air and not into her tire and had to wait for another rider to assist her, came back from that five minute deficit and retook the lead as if it never happened. not too mention there's a 26.2 mile run after a 112 mile bike so if you're only a cyclist then i can see where your theory could be applied but the Ironman is much, much bigger than just cycling.

anywho, it's those types of people, the ones that repeatedly prove beyond any and all reasonable doubt that it's not about the bike that make my world go round. 😉

Relax road.
You have that "Lance competitive in Kona..." thread to talk about triathlon and "those type of people".

i guess that another way of proving my theory, that it's not about the bike, would be to look at all the pros she dominated on her old klien with 105 who were more than likely on p2's back then. and some people swear that shimano is [censored] but look whos winning world triathlons on it and with the very, very entry level based shimano 105 in 2006 so it's not the components either.

well, at least they're not far off from one another, just like you said about the bikes which is why i guess i could just relate back to it being not about the bike...eh, i'm even confusing myself now. 😄

Andrija said:

Relax road.
You have that "Lance competitive in Kona..." thread to talk about triathlon and "those type of people".

😄 i saw that too late. 😄

"Your theory" that it's not about the bike? Uh-huh. Riiiiiggght.

alienator said:

"Your theory" that it's not about the bike? Uh-huh. Riiiiiggght.

[ame]

]

Oh my gods! Pink Slip found a song written by a group who had heard about Pink Slip's feelings and had decided to writ them large in melody and lyric!

How deep to express your thoughts by posting songs! Wow. That's so very! Very!

But damned, Pink Slip: use words! Words are healthier......and make you look a little bit less like a putz than when you post stupid songs that allegedly are supposed to mean something.

alienator said:

Recumbent bikes aren't innovation: they're different than bikes and don't qualify under UCI guidelines. Power generating frames, or whatever you fantasized, are both physically impossible and disallowed because a motor on a bike does not a bike make. Neither do wings. And your suggestions were fanciful and stupid, and clearly that's why you picked them. They certainly did not advance any discussion. The manufacturers seem to understand the rules of the game well, and I am 100% comfortable with what they've done and what they will do.

As for the straw man, it's not a straw man: it was the opening salvo of this thread. Specifically these:

There is no evidence whatsoever that bicycle innovation and development has "screwed up" cycling on single bit. Nope, none at all. Race radios are not a bicycle innovation or bicycling kit: they are racing strategy tools. Aero helmets? They're not race result differentiators. There's no evidence that they are. "Real cycling wheels?" What the hell does that mean? Are "wheels" ruining racing? No, and again, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate as much.

If we're going to be prickly, then you and the other fella have yet to answer the question re: what is it that cyclists can keep in order to preserve that precious, hallowed "man on man" competition? Where exactly has cycling, as a sport, been "screwed up?" If you're going to kvetch, at least bring something to support what you're complaining about. Maybe it was funny bikes that ruined time trialing. Maybe it was curved seat tubes that ruined racing. Or maybe it was that darned derailleur!

Sorry to come back to this late. Other things intervened. I don't know if you're just pretending to be obtuse or what, but first of all you have no business lumping me in with "the other fella." Not based on what I've posted anyway. You conflate his point and my own by quoting us together without attribution and then refuting some supposed anti-equipment diatribe I never made.

You might try reading what I wrote again, and comprehending this time. And if you trust the future of cycle sport to equipment manufacturers totally then you're a fool. Or is that tool? Alan Greenspan made the same mistake with the world economy. Didn't work out too well.

I'm all for innovation, but there has to be a guiding hand or an advisory body or something, to make sure that in the effort to move merchandise the sport isn't ruined.