Barend de Arend

Sounds like they're going after another doctor.

Race more often. Then you have to keep them inflated.

They work better with road-style levers.

Heh, in Melville there's 4th that'll hit more than 18%. But it's only 200 meters long, or less. The pavement by the road has been replaced with stairs. Fun to try seated. You can do laps there, of 200 to 400 meter hills > 10%. Less than 2 mins. a hill.

Education is part of the problem. A few year ago I got asked why I was cycling in the middle of the road (I wasn't, but I wasn't completely left either.) The car driver simply hadn't seen the glass on the left, because it doesn't matter to car tyres. They just drive over it. Now I try to point out to cars why I move right (when possible) same as I would for cyclists.

You earn respect. You demand fear. Don't ****around in traffic. That counts for cars too: cars currently demand fear, because they don't know how to deal with anything that's not a car. They don't deal with cyclists, pedestrians, horses, etc. Cyclists can demand that they shouldn't be afraid.

caad-anything is all aluminium. caad9 is caad8, with minor changes to the tubes. caad8 is caad7, with minor changes to the tubes caad7 is ... the changes happen year after year, and are currently mainly about weight, although up to caad4/5, it changed the ride. six13 is caad-something with carbon top, seat and down tube. head tube and rear triangle are still caad-something. Still looks and behaves like a caad-(some bigger number) six13 number 2 changed the seat tube back to aluminium. system6 is caad-9 rear with carbon top, down and head tube. The tubes are a lot bigger. Still looks and behaves like a caad-(some bigger number) supersix is all carbon. Still looks and behaves like a caad-(some bigger number) synapse is all carbon, but completely different philosopy, geometry, etc.

Salt, butter, sugar or plain.

Quite a few racing tandems do just that - questionable whether it makes any difference. Going faster on a bike is not about pedalling technique - it is about better w/kg. Faster riders do not eliminate the "dead spot" they push down harder. Depending on the angle, that'll be exactly what happens. You can't push harder with Q-Ring because its the same legs. However, you can spend more time pushing, and less time moving your legs forwards or backwards. If the gear is harder up/down and easier forward/backwards you will definitely spend a higher percentage of your cycling time in the power part of the circle. So the net effect is: a higher percentage in the "good" part of your stroke, and a lower percentage in the "bad" stroke.

While we're busy: Has anybody tried a SRAM derailleur with a Shimano cassette and a Campag crank?

Yep. 105/Ultegra/DuraAce shifters, chain, cassette, chainrings, brakes, whatever all matches. In fact, I swap three wheels on my bike, one with a 105 11-23, one Ultegra 11-21, and one Dura Ace 11-23. (and I also have an Ultegra 12-27 not attached to a wheel.) Ultegra lasts longer, and is cheaper than Dura Ace. What you can't do is match a very old, worn cassette with a very new chain. It'll jump between gears. The same is true for Campag: swap Record, Chorus, Veloce, etc. no problem.

The acceleration isn't uniform when pedalling with round rings. It's faster at 3/9 o'clock and slower at 12/6 o'clock. That's because your legs work like that. Q rings are intended to make that acceleration more uniform -- not less uniform.

Condolences to family and friends. This news saddens me.

Shouldn't have quoted this -- sorry

That's what it takes to break a code of silence. This is the only way to solve a rampant problem: make those who can fix it responsible to fix it. So who can fix it? Follow the money. A doping cyclist has a contract with a team (and not a race, or anyone else.) The money comes from the team. The team can demand whereabouts, blood tests, etc. because they hold the paycheck. The team boss can fix it. How do you make the team responsible? Hit them in the pocket. Hard. Embarrass the sponsor. Kick the team out. Suddenly teams will pay very, very close attention to riders -- and team members will too.

HR is different for different sports. The easiest way to get HR up, is to use more muscles. This increases demand for blood (sugar, oxygen) Cycling on the road uses more arms and core than spinning -- so HR is expected to be higher. The extra muscles are used for balance and leverage. Cycling off-road uses even more. In other words: spinning, road and off-road are different sports, and put different stresses on different muscles, resulting in different HR. Running uses a lot of the same muscles, but your running HR is probably different than your cycling HR for the same effort level. You could try cross-country skiing. The HR is highest here, because it uses the most muscles of any sport. Otherwise put a power meter in the spinning bike. That way you can compare what's going to the chain and wheel.

Running shop in Dunkeld. Great stuff.

Unfortunately it is a problem. Crank size is almost never used in bike measurements. And it should be. You can normally get road bikes from 48cm to 63cm (ignoring compact measurements) from manufacturers. Or a 31 % change. Cranks are normally 170 mm to 180 mm, or a 6 % change. Doh! So using something like .883 times your inseam to measure your saddle height completely ignores crank lengths: if you are very short or very tall, those calculations are just plain wrong. It doesn't help, though: the bottom bracket clearance doesn't change, so if you plug a 200 mm crank on, the pedals would hit the floor.