Jehosefat

From a purely selfish perspective I'm kinda hoping it gets cancelled or postponed. Crashed my MTB 10 weeks ago and stuffed my shoulder so I have done absolutely no swim training and it's not looking like I'm going to be able to start training very soon either. I'm a fairly weak swimmer as it is so I'm getting properly nervous about being sufficiently prepared

Apparently so but I have no first-hand experience of this so I didn't want to comment

Yup, I tried to upgrade my bike from 1x11 XT to 1x12 XT without getting a new front chainring and it didn't work. Had to get the M8100 crankset and chainring. Apparently Woolftooth now make Shimano 12 speed compatible chainrings as well but you can't use the shimano chains on "normal" chainrings

Damn, you beat me to it...

We put deep heat into the box of one of our team mates just before he went out to bat in a cricket game in school. Was hilarious watching him start squirming about half way out to the pitch

My shoulder is still a bit stuffed from a MTB fall I had a few weeks ago so I'll probably be doing the Standard Duathlon instead Best of luck for your first Standard Distance

That's pretty much exactly what the article says. The tight tolerances appear to decrease efficiency but increase durability.

Yeah, you can't really cater for it automatically because the exact FTP drop of moving from sea level to an altitude depends on not just the altitude change but also how long the person has spent at each altitude, the amount of training done and also the individual's physiology. No, as much as you do acclimatise to a change in altitude, it takes quite a long time (based on the research I've read) but also just due to the fact that there is less oxygen available at higher altitudes your FTP will always be lower at higher altitude than at sea level (I've seen a quoted level of 3-7% lower after acclimation for a 1500m change in altitude and the impact will obviously be bigger until you have acclimatised).

That's also some really impressive timing... It's hard enough to get a simultaneous orgasm with just two people

Yes, I'm a statistician, I'm well aware of how sampling works. My point was that there was nothing in the article relating to the sample sizes that were used for the efficiency tests. So yes, I agree that a one-off test proves absolutely nothing but your assertion that this was a one-off test has no basis in the article. I still don't get your point about needing a baseline, surely differences in the average power losses between different brands and families of chains is exactly what you are testing for? In that case your average power loss for a certain family of chains is your test result rather than a norm/baseline. I do agree that the article has nowhere enough information in it to reliably conclude that one is better than the other but that may be a case of the writer leaving things out that he did not know/think were relevant rather than the data not being available.

I didn't see any discussion of sample size there (unless I missed it). What I got was that there were 31 different models of chains and each individual chain was tested twice, no mention of how many chains of each model were tested. (And even then that section was specific to the durability testing rather than the efficiency testing). I'm not sure why you need a baseline when you are doing a relative comparison. If a system loses 5w between crank and rear hub and the exact same system with a different chain loses 10w, where else can the additional 5w come from?

I'm not sure what your point is? The link pointed to actual tested wattage losses in a given set of conditions by a relatively independent team for a bunch of different chains. It'a not a theoretical friction coefficients calculation. (Obviously the testers are not completely independent because they do sell their own chains and chain treatments but as far as a Shimano vs SRAM comparison goes they seem to be reasonably independent)

I'm just pointing out that narrower rims might be less resistant to dings in very specific circumstances whereas wider (to a point) rims are more resistant to dings in almost every other situation (assuming other things are equal like same tyres/casing etc.). We are not being difficult, we are just pointing out the flaws in your "narrower rims are better for avoiding dings" comment.

If it really was from the side then its very unlikely that any amount of foam inserts or tougher casing tyres would have saved the rim unfortunately. Because you were asking about those I assumed you were talking about a straight-on impact rather than a side-on impact. In that particular case a narrower rim might have been a bit better but it would have been marginal at best because the tyres also have a bit more lateral flexibility on narrower rims.

But the dings from landing on a sharp rock don't come from the side, they come from the tyre compressing until the rim actually hits the rock (i.e. straight up through the tyre). What keeps that from happening is the air in the tyre and a higher volume of air does a better job of cushioning the impacts than a lower volume. Hence why wider rims would be better than narrower to prevent rim dings.

Let be honest, at least 30% of the posts in any given thread are off topic once the thread gets long enough... And yes, the 30% was an accurately calculated thumbsuck

It's a breast cancer charity. Affiliated to CANSA. Cool name though

Can recommend the Leatt DBX 3 Enduro helmet as well. It has a removable chin bar so you can use it as a full-face helmet for the enduro races and as an open-face helmet when you are doing more xc/marathon riding. It feels a bit heavier than a dedicated xc helmet but not enough that I feel the need to buy a lighter helmet just for the longer rides.

Hardly a complete list... Missing all the RedHub events

Entered Durban 70.3 and planned to start training on the 2nd. Fell off my MTB on New Years Eve and stuffed my shoulder and elbow up so I can't swim or cycle outdoors for 4 to 6 weeks and cycling on the indoor trainer is really uncomfortable... Bugger Guess I'm going to be doing a lot of running over the next few weeks

I don't think they display the actual value but they use the estimate to populate the "Training Effect" values (i.e. the 0-5 values for aerobic and anaerobic training effect). I'm not sure if there is a detailed article on how they map EPOC to those two metrics though.

That's exactly what I meant by balance, you need the interval training as well as the long 5+ hour rides to really get strong on the bike, especially if you are going for a hectic endurance event.

It might be a timing issue with it only reflecting on their side on 1 March and therefore falling into the next tax year? I know with my TFSA it takes a few days for the transfers to reflect.

Generally a pretty good post but I have to disagree on these two points: Honestly it's not the same, last year I did a ton of short, really intense, interval training and not too many long rides, this year I've done less interval training and a bunch more long rides (like 5 hours plus) and my fitness and strength is way, WAY better this year compared to last. It's about finding the balance between the two. I can never agree with not having a goal for something. Sure the goal can change if you get nailed with mechanicals/crashes/etc. but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a target. How is a specific time target any different to aiming to finish within the cut-off time? I mean surely that's also a time target (albeit a much more relaxed one)

Went for my first bike ride with the new girlfriend over the weekend on the road and decided to take my enduro bike. Did not realise quite how much rolling resistance DHR IIs have on the road I nearly died. I have learned not to ride that bike on the road ever again though