Weight Weenies

HUMP DIESEL wrote:It also says that Goss' setback is 4.5? Is that not breaking the rules?

I like the set up though, slick looking bike.

HUMP

most likely mismeasured or the ground isn't level. That'd be extremely hard to get on a frame that size with that much setback.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

i think in other articles goss's bike seems to have a 0-5mm offset post , which might explain the lack of 'lots of setback'.

Are Astana's Corimas legal? I thought wheels had to have a minimum of 16 spokes for mass start races?

according to gazzetta dello sport, Vini Fantini (former farnese) signed danilo di luca

Privateer wrote:Are Astana's Corimas legal? I thought wheels had to have a minimum of 16 spokes for mass start races?

Yes, they are legal. They fall under the "Non Standard" category which means that they have to be tested and approved by the UCI using their protocol(whatever that may be ).

Ah, of course. The fox is guarding the chicken coop.

Maybe if I pay the local commissaire I can be declared non-standard and have my saddle less than 6cm behind the bottom bracket of my TT bike.

What are you talking about Privateer?

The Corima wheels are non-standard because, well, look at them! They're non-standard wheels. They also have official UCI approval... as in they are registered, on the UCI's list of approved wheels, have the badge, and so on. They underwent UCI's testing protocols, passed the tests, and work. Is this the first time you are seeing them? The wheels are a bit old - at least one or two years on the market now, and have been on plenty of podiums since their introduction.

In your metaphor analysis, you are assuming that some kind of chicanery is being pulled, which it isn't.
In your example, the local commissaire will still declare your set up not legal. It does not pass the UCI's tests nor rules.

Privateer, 5 cm is the limit. If you want to run less you need to get a morphological exemption like has been mentioned above. You can also run an ISM saddle which will put you really far forward and still conform to the rules.

Stage 3 Tour Down Under power analysis

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=8462

have a rough estimation of FTP. Hopefully can build the picture as the Tour goes on.

Loving the SRM data, hopefully the UCI don't stop you publishing it like they disallowed them last year - don't want no pesky signs of doping rearing their heads now for all to see

Tinea Pedis wrote:Stage 3 Tour Down Under power analysis

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=8462" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

have a rough estimation of FTP. Hopefully can build the picture as the Tour goes on.

Cheers! enjoying the insight

Tinea Pedis wrote:...
have a rough estimation of FTP. Hopefully can build the picture as the Tour goes on.

Thanks for linking these, however I would take any 38 degree day FTP estimations with a large grain of salt.

None of those calculations used data from yesterday.

It's also, as mentioned, a "rough estimate". Need a few more rides to fill in some blanks. But I don't think it's too far off.

Just curious -- is UCI actually testing the products these days? Like impact, fatigues, etc.?

I had quite a bit of correspondence with the UCI 7-8 months ago and the frame sticker (costs thousands of euros BTW) were basically about geometry and shapes. A measuring tape could do the job in 3 mins. This is one of the reasons I thought UCI is a bunch of a-holes.

prendrefeu wrote:...They underwent UCI's testing protocols, passed the tests, and work.

me wrote:

Tinea Pedis wrote:Stage 3 Tour Down Under power analysis

http://www.ridemedia.com.au/?p=8462" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

have a rough estimation of FTP. Hopefully can build the picture as the Tour goes on.

Cheers! enjoying the insight

That's a bit embarrassing. I wrote the GoldenCheetah code which extracts CP (and AWC). The reason the middle-duration curve is above the CP curve is because it's not clear what to do with it. You can use it to boost CP, or use it to boost AWC. On the other hand, power for longer than 10 minutes is clear: boost CP and adjust AWC. For below 6 minutes boost AWC and adjust CP. So clearly either AWC or CP is being underestimated. The only problem is the code can't decide which from those data.

That's probably the most extreme example of that I've seen.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com