Minion

My computer with WKO died, but from memory: right click and drag to select the area of interest and then select 'zoom to selection' or something like that. If you've got laps (like from a Garmin), you can click on the lap in the list and there's a 'Zoom to lap'/'zoom to selection button'.

Great. Who sells No Flats in the Centurion/Irene or Linden/Northcliff areas?

The bank also charges a currency conversion charge (usually 2.75% or so).

No. 7:00 (but there's usually a queue by then so if you arrive at 7, you'll likely only get in by 7:15) http://www.gauteng.net/attractions/entry/suikerbosrand_nature_reserve/

Gawie's a reliable gentleman and he's selling it through/on behalf of a reputable cycling shop. Maybe give him or Bell's Cycles a call to see what kind of warranty or ship they can organise for you.

Look at the back - that stand makes the rear wheel about 3-4cm higher off the ground than the front. I reckon the saddle is level. Edit: the wheels are likely non UCI-compliant anyway. Any wheel with a section greater than 2.5cm is considered non-standard and must be specifically tested for compliance. Here is a list of all wheels that have been tested and comply (those ones don't appear to be on it): http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTYwNzQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjQxNjY&LangId=1 I don't think UCI compliance is a major issue for the racing that most people in SA do, though.

It depends a bit on the wheels and your handling skills. Looking at drag data here: http://www.tour-qtr.com/epaper_4_2011, it appears that the Mavics start stalling around 10° wind angle (around 5km/h cross wind, riding at 30km/h), and perform worse than shallow box section rims at higher cross sections. Other wheels, such as Zipps or Bontragers, perform well even in a cross wind. They will always have a performance advantage, so the choice comes down to whether or not you feel you can handle them. In your case, you'd lose performance in all but moderate cross winds, so you'd put the wheels away.

Or his Cannodale Supersix if you need to get something bigger: https://www.bikehub.co.za/classifieds/18650-2010-cannondale-supersix/ It looks like he's selling them through Bell's Cycling, so you can even pay by credit card: http://www.bellscycling.co.za/index.php?option=com_resource&view=list&category_id=177&Itemid=73

Will your sealant work with latex road tubes?

Who also happened to be using one http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2010/07/06/1/saxo_bank_tarmac_sl3_chain_watcher_600.jpg

I have used a new model 105 chain on a Record 10sp group without any problems. The pin spacing is the same (0.5") for all chains. The plate width is what varies - it's 5.9mm for Campag and 5.88mm for Shimano 10sp (or the other way round). It gets narrower for 11sp chains. I reckon you'll be fine using a SRAM chain, though the chain will likely wear a lot faster than a Shimano or Campag chain (due to the chain, not the setup): https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/111338-chain-comparison/

Yes there was. Had a mid-November date to register objections. The reference number for the application was 351. The sign itself was rather small and looked a bit worse for the wear. I suppose at least it wasn't stuck in adisused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.

I did some riding there on the weekend. I reckon hill repeats are still possible with some minor route changes. If you're coming up the Frederick, Hearn, Rockey route to the tower, the only potential change/obstacle is whether or not the let you through the boom without stopping. From the other side, depending on the route, you have to turn right on Joseph and join Rockey, instead of going left onto Joseph. There is actually a tiny, bedraggled piece of A4 paper stuck up at each closure site, giving notice of the closure - the application number is 351.

That's one, but there's another, mainly road/tri products. The family, I don't know.

SRAM makes the S900 crank which is used with the SRM, the Quarq Cinqo and the Power2Max. From about 2009-2010, SRAM sold the S900 connected to a SRM or Cinqo power meter through their distribution channels and under their brand as the S975. Last year, SRAM bought Quarq, though it still sell the S975 SRMs. Over the next two years, Quarq will phase out production of Cinqos for other brand cranks (e.g. FSA, Lightning, Specialized) and will only produce the SRAM-compatible version. I'm not sure what will happen with SRM. Minor trivia: name another high-end bike brand that SRAM owns.

By calibrate, I presume you mean selecting the calibrate button and waiting for it to display the numbers? This is not actually a calibration, but it resets the zero point for the power meter. A true calibration involves hanging known weights from your pedals, checking the torque levels displayed by the Edge (I believe the latest firmware update allows you to do this) and then changing the power meter's slope value. You can only check the slope on a Powertap - you cannot change it. - you need to manually switch bike profiles. If you don't, the Edge will do a full rescan until it finds a power meter - this takes a while and may not pick up the correct hub. - the zero value is stored on the hub itself. The Edge sends it a signal to re-zero and then displays the result. It's good practice to reset the zero value at the start of every ride since it can change with temperature. You can also tell the hub to auto zero. This resets it whenever you're coasting. - the number displayed for the calibration is the hub ID. This is the unique identifier for that hub. It's a good way to check that it's picking up your hub and not someone else's. It's not quite a serial number, since it cannot go higher than 32768, so there must be some duplication at some point.

I've hardly trained, eaten a lot and still managed to lose half a kilo. Either my scale is lying or high stress is great for weight loss.

I interpreted joint wear as meaning the elongation of the chain over time i.e. the increase in pitch from one pin to the next. In this context, they mentioned hanging the chain from a nail and determining it's overall length. Roller and joint wear is what the Park Tool checker etc. measure. They mention these measuring some joint wear, as well as roller wear (which they mention doesn't affect pitch or performance).

When you're doing a four day race like the Panorama Tour, it would really suck that you can't finish the next three days because you flatted 20km into the first stage on the first day. Or if you lost 20min waiting for the neutral support car vs. 5min changing a tyre. On what do you base that claim? The only aero data I've found directly comparing Stingers and Zipps is on the HED site and is based on the previous generation Zipp wheels (and also appears to be three years old). Extrapolation from that data using more current data from Zipp and Tour Magazine shows them to perform roughly the same. http://www.tour-qtr.com/epaper_4_2011

If you're feeling inspired, have a look at the virtual elevation method: http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/cda/indirect-cda.pdf It should give you much better results and saves the bother of having to try and hold a constant speed. It also gives a way to estimate rolling resistance. I plan to do some comprehensive rolling resistance and aero testing once I've finished my thesis.

From the Zipp site: http://www.zipp.com/_media/images/dynamicproducts/404_drag_chart.gif Firecrests (2011 404) have lower drag than the older shape (404 2009). The current alu clinchers will have drag numbers that are roughly the same or slightly worse than the 2009 404 shape. Head-on, there's not much difference. At 10° yaw angle (claimed by Zipp to be the most common one), FCs will save about 5W at 48km/h. In higher cross winds like 15° (13km/h cross), FCs will save you 11W.

So do the ones I posted . They even have a picture of a Firecrest: http://www.buycycle.co.za/images/detailed/8/Zipp_404CarbonClincher_Front.jpg But I do agree with the two of you that it's probably an incorrect listing and the real FCs are closer to R19k.

I think you may be right. I did some more digging and these are the proper Firecrests: http://www.buycycle.co.za/buyparts/wheels-road/zipp/zipp-firecrest-404-full-carbon-clincher-front-wheel-zipp.html http://www.buycycle.co.za/buyparts/wheels-road/zipp/zipp-firecrest-404-full-carbon-clincher-rear-wheel-zipp.html R19k for the set is till cheaper than most other internet stores, just not as cheap. Buycycle may run into some CPA problems with the incorrect descriptions of the other wheels, though.

Are you sure? The description and the photos both imply Firecrest. I paid just under R18k two weeks ago, so I'd be comforted if that is wrong. Edit: wrong price

Yip, that's how they got the chain joint wear values.