Jump to content

Jehosefat

Members
  • Posts

    1005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jehosefat

  1. The shipping etc. is expensive enough that it defeats the point on their lower-end bikes. On their higher-end bikes they can still work out cheaper for the same specs as you can get at your LBS on other brands. Theoretically yes. In practice it depends on which customs official you get and how they are feeling on the day. I've brought in two Canyon bikes (about 18-24 months apart) and I only paid VAT and no duties on both.
  2. The Canyon ones are available separately but they are damn expensive: https://www.canyon.com/en-za/gear/components/posts-and-clamps/seatposts/canyon-s15-vcls-cf-seatpost/148287.html https://www.canyon.com/en-za/gear/components/posts-and-clamps/seatposts/canyon-s25-vcls-2.0-cf-seatpost/148289.html
  3. Problem is that my heart rate isn't at 190 at the bottom of the climb
  4. Thankfully they took that climb out after the first race in 2017. In that race I nearly blew chunks towards the top of Tom Jenkins
  5. From some people I know in the medical field, they are expecting the peak number of COVID cases to only happen around November so I'd say there is almost no chance of this going ahead. But as always, YMMV and no-one has a crystal ball.
  6. I think the big difference would be the fact that "power" is a fairly instantaneous measure whereas heart rate can have quite a lag (e.g. go too hard at the bottom of the hill before heart rate responds and increases and vice versa for the downhill) Also heart rate can be affected by a number of factors (temperature, how much sleep you had, level of hydration, upward drift over long runs etc.) whereas power is a fairly absolute measure and should be consistent day-to-day and run-to-run.
  7. Ok, I think this answers my question. In summary, because the speed differentials uphill and downhill in running are not hugely significant (due to there being less imbalanced outside forces, e.g wind resistance), the same power output over a different course will not result in a large pace differential. Happy to agree on that? I admit that I would have expected the differences to be bigger but the above explanation makes sense to me as to why they are not. Sorry if I came across as being a bit of a dick.
  8. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that "power" isn't a good training tool. I'm just saying that calling it "power" is not technically accurate and it should rather be called something like "normalised pace". What you have not done is actually answer the questions that I asked in my previous post. I will ask the main one again so you don't have to refer back: Why, if the same power will give you the same average pace regardless of how flat or hilly the course is, have all the marathon world records been set on flat courses and not hilly ones?
  9. I get what you are saying but what I am saying is that however you are measuring power, it is being measured incorrectly. If the same power output would get you the same speed regardless of the course then why are all the marathon world records set on flat courses and none are set on hilly courses? Surely the athletes are capable of outputting the same power on different courses? It sounds like your "power" measure is actually measuring something more like gradient adjusted pace than actual power output.
  10. This is the bit that I disagree with. The same power output on a hilly course and a flat course cannot possibly result in the same finishing time. If that were the case, one would expect running world records to be set on any type of course and not just on the flat courses which is what actually happens in practice. If the measured power is the same for the different courses and they are done in the same time then the measurement must be wrong. It's simple physics.
  11. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a consistent effort is worse, I get that it is much more efficient to not burn matches on the ups. I get that people prefer undulating routes as well because of the fluctuations in effort compared to a completely flat route. My point was that I don't buy that a consistent power output will get you the same speed regardless of how flat or hilly the route is (even if it is a loop with 0 net elevation gain). Otherwise we would see world records set on any type of course and not just the really flat ones (which is actually what happens). E.g. 200w on a flat course vs 200w on a hilly course would be the same effort but the pace will be slower on the hilly course and not the same as per shaper's post.
  12. Unless I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that running at (as per your example) 200W will get you 6min/km regardless of whether it is a flat or hilly course? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
  13. Well if you consider intelligence/stupidity to be accurately measured by IQ then the median and the average(mean) should be pretty much identical because it follows a normal distribution which is symmetric. (or if you just assume that intelligence, regardless of how you measure it, follows a normal distribution then you get the same result).
  14. I found episode 1 really weak. Almost stopped watching after that but I'm glad I carried on, I found it improves quite a bit afterwards.
  15. Those differences are far too big to be frictional losses though unless some of the bearings are almost seized. You would only expect about 2-5% frictional losses on a drivetrain in reasonably good condition not 25-50%.
  16. Just as a side note, I remember reading an article when I was getting ready for my first 70.3 and it reckoned that a full on TT bike is only about 1 minute faster over the 90km bike leg compared to a properly set up road bike with clip-on tri bars and deep section wheels. So I ended up just getting the tri bars and a set-forward seatpost with ISM tri saddle for my road bike and that worked perfectly. Can't say that I've ever done a full IM though (I'm not a big fan of running and have no desire to run a marathon ever let alone after cycling 180km).
  17. No I'm not. I'm not aware of any chain checkers that measure in "% of allowable stretch". On every chain checker I have ever seen, a measurement of 0.25 is 0.25% stretch and not "25% of allowable stretch" as he claimed. It would make no sense for it to measure "% of allowable stretch" since, as has been pointed out a few times, allowable stretch differs depending on drivetrain (e.g. 12x, 11x, max cog size etc.) 0.25% stretch is between 33% and 50% of "allowable" stretch.
  18. If you run a 12 speed chain you are going to absolutely trash your cassette and chainring. They recommend you replace 12 speed chains at between 0.50% and 0.75% stretch.
  19. You have to offset the weight gain somehow obviously. And if you can shave off 1g that means you can have one bite more chocolate...
  20. 99,881 - Member Since 28 Aug 2016 Only started cycling fairly recently and joined the forum shortly thereafter
  21. Got the girlfriend to try Diablo 3 co-op on the xbox and she's completely hooked We started on Saturday afternoon and had finished act 4 by last night. Both with brand new characters and I didn't use any of my paragon levels or items from other characters.
  22. Dexter Holland of The Offspring has a PhD in Molecular Biology.
  23. I know he's right, I was just pointing out the irony in making an error while pointing out another error...
  24. It's sad that you didn't start your first sentence with a capital letter.
  25. I'm feeling the same way about Durban 70.3 to be honest. They need to stop dicking around and make the right call...
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout