Windbreaker

Big H, you introduced JB's name to the thread and you took two low blows without adding ANYTHING of value to the topic. It's not like you are debating a difference of opinions - you are just trashing him. Why?

If only I could convince the boss that I really do need the 2.4!

I am surprised that no-one has picked up on the PED expose in Baseball and draw the comparisons (or lack of) to the cycling doping problems? Or did I just miss the thread? I see that even ol' George himself is making statements about it on CNN.

Clamp the sucker!

Couch not big enuff

Thanks guys. Guess I don't have enough toe-in. I set it for a fraction of toe-in.

So I spent hours making sure that the brakes on my newly built tandem were set properly or so I thought ... We live on a hill so with the boss on the back we set off for the second ride - the first with everything "nicely set up". Within 25 meters she wants off cause "this thing is embarrassing". The reason for her embarrassment is the same as my sons on the club tandem - squeeling brakes. I thought that maybe the club tandem just was never set up properly. So my answer is don't worry the brakes just need a bit to bed in. Nope ... Down Chappies, through Camps Bay we let off loud, tortured screeching sounds every time I touched the brakes. The upside is that you get the attention of the person who is causing you to brake. Any ideas? They are the standard cantilever brakes. Windbreaker2007-12-09 10:39:48

I had the same thing and was worried about breaking it but they can be separated. I seem to remember that you need to depress a catch somewhere (I think the bit on the center of pic 1).

I've had one, went through all the crap- finally saw the light and replaced it with a Powertap. I had three major issues with it - 1) it was moerse difficult to set up 2) it was useless on a trainer 3) there was variation on the different gear combinations (verified with my PT) But .... I'm thinking about fitting a Polar power sensor to measure from the timing chain on my newly acquired tandem. To the best of my knowledge it is the only power sensor that has a hope of working on a tandem (for the pilot) and apart from the set up, which should also be simpler ... sort of, the other problems don't apply.. Any comments or advice?? Ooops before you all jump in with the SRM - at R16k it is not even in the picture. Windbreaker2007-12-06 06:39:50

Anybody who has followed this thread and can remember my first post on this matter... Go back and read it if you want to... But my point has been proven... I still haven't seen a single prominent cyclist say anything to the contrary... Pantani, all you've done is play devil's advocate with some pretty weak arguments. And your point isn't proven (whatever it actually was) , for example Bruce stated that in some cases his team make a conscious, responsible decision NOT TO GUTTER because it could be unsafe for others. Konafan states (as I do) that he'd rather be dropped (often) than cross the white line. Sure these two approaches do affect the racing BUT the fact is that rolling road closure will not become the norm and the only way to ensure that we don't have pissed of motorists & authorities closing down our races is if we demand good organisation and we as cyclists stick to the rules of each and every event! We have all known about the white line rule at PPA events for years. Anything else is just argument for argument sake.

I can't talk for the upcountry races but I can state with some certainty that rolling road closure will NOT happen for any of the races in the southern suburbs. It is logistically not plausible. So the solution is - for as many races as possible have rolling road closure and don't complain about the added expense which should be levied only on those whom it benefits - right? For those races where there is no possibility of road closure stick to the white line rule - no exceptions - right? The problem here is that there was NO official rolling road closure at the Burger and it is clear from the pictures that there was no protective escort for those guys in the right lane - so even if there is a compromise as above it will still be flouted by some - "cause we're racing so screw the rest". It's clear that not everyone has that mindset from posting like Bruce's & Konafan but my guess is that it's the majority and it's that mindset which causes the problem. Unless they are policed they will continue to take chances and effectively CHEAT.

There is plenty of space for the motorcyclists to sit behind a group. They can also help with motorists - to prevent motorists from trying topass when it is not safe. There is absolutely no valid reason not to do it.

Not necessarily a m/c club but that is an option. Whatever the arrangement the individuals must be responsible and be trained to a certain degree. It can't just be some oke arriving in place of his buddy because he is hungover. They must know what is expected of them - and they must be paid otherwise it will not work.

Ok, Again, I reiterate that I am not detracting from the work that the PPA does do but I believe that they should be doing more w.r.t. the white line thing. Dave B claims that we cyclists should be doing more, I say that they (all formal cycling organisations) should be doing more. So here is the challenge. PPA you employ (yes, pay moolah - we've got enough) and train at least 10 motorcycle based marshals equipped with (passengers &) cameras and the authority to pull riders from the race and the hubbers will come up with at least 20 cycle based volunteer marshals. The motorcycle marshals are not to be committed to the league groups only but they should be roaming. Efforts should also be made to identify "problem areas" (like the top of Hels Hoogte) and additional camera equipped marshals should be stationed there. The names and photographs of all offending riders should be published on the Hub. It (almost) goes without saying that the the PPA must be clear on the rules & consequences and completely open & unbiased w.r.t. the name & shame campaign. To start with the whole lawyer issue can be avoided as this would be a non-punitive effort in terms of financial penalties & suspension. As it gains support persistent "offenders" can be addressed individually with financial & suspension penalties. Hubbers, start thinking about whether you are REALLY willing to do something about this too. Put your "mouth where your mouth is". My name is down as soon as I see a commitment from the PPA.

I did suggest exactly that w.r.t the "racing marshals" for all funrides; we have a problem that most of the start marshals for PPA events end up riding at the back of the short ride. So we went ahead and tried it (within the last three weeks)' date=' looked for volunteers via the weekly PPA e-mail to members, and also here on the hub. The net result was exactly 5 volunteers initially (which is great, 5 is a darn sight better than none!), but it's not exactly as though we were inundated with offers...[/quote']Having volunteer marshals in the group is only a single aspect of the solution. What good are they if they are simply ignored - and they will be ignored!!!! This I know from first hand experience. Their efforts are completely undermined if the organisation does not take a clear stand. The rules have to be enforced then see how many volunteers you will get.

and that is the other flaw in your argument The bleeding edge of cycling (apt because soon someone will be bleeding - to death) applies all the way down the groups. Just because the rest of us don't achieve the same times doesn't mean our efforts/decisions are in any way inferior. I have had to make the choice on many occasions (follow across / don't follow) and I've been dropped as a result. I say that tactics will actually improve as more people would also not follow and together we could form our own paceline to get back on (or not).

and watch the lawyers get stuck into those indemnity & waivers once these threads are provided as proof that the organisers were forewarned ... repeatedly & consistently

Linnega, I disagree. There are 3 elements required in solving this a) The races must be organised with this aspect high on the priority list - have marshals & signs at points where dangerous crossing might occur. b) CONSISTENT application of the rules so that people like Pantani don't have the burden of being a responsible cyclist. c) Create a climate of positive peer pressure i.e. where cyclists let other cyclists know that it is not on. The only way to do this is to name & shame. Unfortunately the PPA lets us down time and again w.r.t. point a) & b). Those martyrs among us that will "stand up against hypocricy" are also missing the peer pressure point. The vets & sub-vets in the PPA league this year did a pretty good job this season by most accounts - so it can be done (or maybe that isn't proper racing ) . It just needs all of the elements to be applied properly.

Yep ... a really sharp ending to an intelligent exchange!