ianrodger

Specialized 1-2: Stoltz, Stander

Thank you for your inane contribution. Seeing as you don't understand my signature or it's allusions, i can't be bothered to explain it, but look up h-u-m-o-u-r and i-r-o-n-y in your spare time. If you read my post you'll see i indeed made a statement. For the benefit of you and others missing the point i made, let me clarify it. Wearing armbands is a nice sentiment, but aside from creating some brief awareness, its hardly going to make a fundamental change to our driving culture - not to mention or our cycling culture, where fingers can also be justly pointed. For sure, if the publicity around wearing armbands is milked relentlessly, and converted into action, then we're getting somewhere, and ideas for action are where the posts are now thankfully headed. But wearing an armband is not going to change motorists' mindset, so we shouldn't imagine that the changes we need will come simply from doing that.

Looks like i posted on the wrong thread... Armbands? For Pete's sake. No, for the victims' sake. This is ridiculous - 3 people die in an incident refelcting all that is wrong with our driving culture and the response is to wear an armband? This is pointless and to my mind, disrespectful. Black armbands just say will always be powerless to make a change. So, instead of futile symbolism, how about coming up with actions instead that will make a difference. Join or form a lobbying group, find out from any of the various cycling bodies where to begin. Bid for funds from PPA, Lotto, CSA, corporates, whoever, to run ads at prime time, not during cycling tv shows to remind motorists of the law and to educate them on how to not knock over cyclists. Lobby via MECs or whoever for changes to laws that increase penalties and make prosecution and conviction more likely. Donate time. expertise or money to an organisation that can make a difference. But armbands? Give me a break. Interestingly, i see the "accident" happened at 6.05 - 6.15 supposedly due to being blinded by the sun. Sunrise: 6.24. And the narrow-roads-is-asking-to-get-hit refrain is the same logic as wearing-mini-skirts-is-asking-to-get-raped. Yes, busy narrow winding roads with poor forward visibility should be avoided, but the R62 there hardly falls into that category, but its more the mindset i object to, because it's a short hop from there to, "stay off the roads because they're dangerous". Its not the roads that knock cyclists over, its drivers.

Armbands? For Pete's sake. No, for the victims' sake. This is ridiculous - 3 people die in an incident refelcting all that is wrong with our driving culture and the response is to wear an armband? This is pointless and to my mind, disrespectful. Black armbands just say will always be powerless to make a change. So, instead of futile symbolism, how about coming up with actions instead that will make a difference. Join or form a lobbying group, find out from any of the various cycling bodies where to begin. Bid for funds from PPA, Lotto, CSA, corporates, whoever, to run ads at prime time, not during cycling tv shows to remind motorists of the law and to educate them on how to not knock over cyclists. Lobby via MECs or whoever for changes to laws that increase penalties and make prosecution and conviction more likely. Donate time. expertise or money to an organisation that can make a difference. But armbands? Give me a break. Interestingly, i see the "accident" happened at 6.05 - 6.15 supposedly due to being blinded by the sun. Sunrise: 6.24. And the narrow-roads-is-asking-to-get-hit refrain is the same logic as wearing-mini-skirts-is-asking-to-get-raped. Yes, busy narrow winding roads with poor forward visibility should be avoided, but the R62 there hardly falls into that category, but its more the mindset i object to, because it's a short hop from there to, "stay off the roads because they're dangerous". Its not the roads that knock cyclists over, its drivers.

Not so. as long as you properly simulate the type of riding ito intensity and cadence you can do better indoors, spesh for that limited time. you could do a steady hard tempo at the entire cadence range to develop strength and legspeed, threshold/vo2max/sprint/whatver efforts you most need/want to do. you wont pack that quality into an outdoors ride of same duration.

Age-predicted mhr is too inaccurate. Only way to get a decent idea of your max hr is to do either a lab test, say with Carol Austin (and you'll know your power output too, bonus), or do a death-sprint of ~ 30 sec up a steep hill at a high-ish cadence. From there you can apply standard zones to your mhr.

you'll find that the airlines will decide this for you and deflate your tyres for sensible reasons i could never extract. so dont put your sealant in before flying because it'll be everhwere you dont want it when you get your bike on the other side. And get to the airport very early because the planes dont wait to load all the bikes, leading to much angst and anger and midnight delivery of bikes to underberg. also, deny having any co2 cylinders in yr luggage; dont tajke them in handluggage as they'll be confiscated.

Hi. i have maltodextrin, Fast Fuel (neutral), and Refuel (naartjie and neutral) Im at Paarl funride tomorrow, i could bring it to you. R250/4 kg naartjie Refuel R140/ 3 kg neutral Fast Fuel Ian

ah the perennial problem of where to put the racing women... whats with this "ladies" nonsense anyway? Then, on a lighter note, there's this alternative poll.. the racing women should be: a) riding behind A bunch b) riding with the vets c) ironing my shirt

It's odd that you're geting worse at climbing; either you're riding too hard on the flats to compensate and aggravating your climbing weakness; or you're not training the hills correctly; or your position or gearing may be incorrect. After a review of the above, you're still going to need the conventional hill-training of similar duration to the climbs you face during races, and at the correct intensity, i.e. anywhere from 85-95 % of maximum heart rate, depending on your fitness and health. With your weight, you're never going to fly up hills, but you can go a lot faster with the appropriate training and pacing; leg-weights are never going to remedy the situation. Climbing is all about how much power you can produce relative to your weight, so you need to look at both parts of this equation - how much weight can you safely and realstically lose is important to know. From there its about increasing your power output, and riding smartly to get the most from your ability. I have been coaching cyclists of all disciplines and abilities for many years; contact me directly if you would like to find out more about individualised training. Ian Rodger

swissvan is correct; unless you're a dedicated anorexic or have a very odd diet you wont be running a magnesium deficiency. Plenty studies have found no magnesium deficiency in crampers. you rode too hard for your level of fitness. start easier, ride a sensible cadence 85 upwards and do more trinaing at race pace.

Don't waste your money - those things are phony and do nothing for your breathing - unless you're intent on breathing with your mouth closed..

Not strictly so. But it depends how long you take it before you start, because the insulin response during exercise is far less (for a given glucose load) than at rest. So you can safely take a gel right before the start and by the time it hits your bloodstream you will not have the excessive inhibition of fat oxidation, nor will you be "left for dead" after 2h. The trick is not to take a gel or energy drink ~30 min before exercise, because then your insulin will be high when you start exercise, which is then more than is required for during exercise, and then you can experience a temporary severe lowering of blood glucose and associated weakness, hunger, and even dizziness. This is a much bigger concern than a slight inhibition of fat oxidation.

Well it does say rant'n rave, so: which ning-nong cognitively-challenged individual came up with the singularly pointless and dangerous idea of shoving your bottle up your neaest bunch-mate's nostril when you intend taking a drink? How this could ever remotely make the bunch a safer place escapes me - apart from being completely unnecessary in the first place, all it does is spook the ride who's vision is suddenly filled with a waterbottle, increase the likelihood of the bottle being dropped, and extend the time that the bottle-waver's hand is off the bars, none of which can be said to be contributing to safety. The best part is, some people do it again after drinking - "caution: inserting bottle into cage"... lordy lordy lordy.. When i ask people why they need to do this, I'm stunned to hear the majority answer is so that other riders can be warned that they are drinking. And the point being?? Hey, if we need to be warned that you're about to drink, then you need to go practice some basic bottle-handling skills on your own before riding in a bunch. Just focus on not dropping the damn thing or veering across the road when looking down and reaching for it; don't make matters worse by seeing how many people you can knock off their bike by shooting your arm out as well. What's really entertaining is how aggressive some people get about it when told in the friendliest and most non-patronising way that its unnecessary.Even appealing to the ultimate arbiter of riding practice, ie Tour telly, doesn't help the more resistant ones. They just snarl and wave. What intrigues me is that none of the wavers can tell me where they heard that this was such a brilliant idea; possibly someone got confused watching pro's raise, not stick out sideways, their empty bottles to indicate to dear mr team manager that they require another, but somewhere, someone started this, and should be bopped over the nut with 100 waterbottles for it. Either way, help stamp out this dangerous practice by reminding the well-meaning but hopelessly ill-informed that they're only making the bunch more dangerous with this trick.

I have a sani-c race entry i'd liketo swop for an adventure entry; any takers?