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.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
Send your data to Weight Weenie listings!

Wow, an actually good interview from cyclingnews on Sagan...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sagan-i ... -a-classic

Being a bit of a lover of sports pyschology, I have to say that this guy has a fantastic winning attitude. He's not pre-prepared comments and cookie cutter statements, he just says what he thinks. His only weakness is that he hasn't decided what's going to be his silver bullet in long classics. Maybe when you're that good, it's harder to decide!

Sorry, perhaps I was being a bit too cryptic, and I agree that the TT seat-BB simile isn't particularly accurate.

My point is that the UCI is lousy at enforcing it's own rules, and has a conflict of interest.

The rule says 16 spokes minimum. That seems unambiguous and should be easy enough to follow. Why does the UCI then allow wheels with less than 16 spokes? There should not be a non-standard clause.

Functionally, having the clause means that the UCI can make money from manufacturers, and that manufacturers can dismiss the rules if they are prepared and able to pay the UCI.

If testing and approval of equipment beyond what manufacturers already do is necessary for safety reasons (and I serious doubt it is), the testing and approval should be done by a properly qualified independent third party against transparent criteria at minimal cost.

And don't get me started on the UCI's efforts at race promotion.

after Hansen narrow bars, another track style habit. no socks for Tejay

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tour-de-san- ... tos/249909" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your personal experiences with UCI aside, and while many agree with your grievances against the UCI, I believe you are not reading carefully.



"The" rule?

Let's go over this, clearly, from the start.

Here is "the" rule from the UCI's own words:
1.3.018
Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 70 cm maximum and 55 cm minimum, including the tyre. For the cyclo-cross bicycle the width of the tyre shall not exceed 35 mm and it may not incorporate any form of spike or stud

For massed start road races and cyclo-cross events only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be used. Wheels will have minimum 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel. The following criteria must be fulfilled:

On impact, no element of the wheel may become detached and be expelled outwards.
The rupture must not present any shattered or broken off elements, or any sharp or serrated surfaces that could harm the user, other riders and/or spectators.
The rupture characteristics must not cause the hub to become separated from the rim in such away that the wheel becomes detached from the forks.
Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed 2.5 cm on each side.

Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003.


Ok. First, from the get-go, the minimum is 12 spokes. Twelve. That Corima front wheel has how many spokes? 12. The 16-spoke minimum only applies to traditional wheels, which there aren't that many of in the pro peloton lately.

Then, if you really want to get specific, there is a separate list of approved "non-standard" wheels.
That PDF has last been updated a few days ago, and you can find it here:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... Y&LangId=1

So... again... what are you talking about besides what we don't already know regarding the UCI's income-garnering rules?
UCI being corrupt? Old news.
UCI trying to get money from manufacturers by having rules and exceptions to the rules? Old news.
UCI charging a lot of cash for a sticker of approval? Old news.

...so as Bugs Bunny once said, "What all the hub-bub, bub?"

_________________
Exp001

Yo, Privateer, you're grumpier than my 3 week old today

Great footage of Thomas' move to win stage 2. Smoked'em....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGGRRBr6zZM

Relax prendrefeu. It was an off-hand comment on an internet forum, not an op ed in the TImes.



I have no personal grievances with the UCI. My point was exactly the one you made in your conclusion i.e. the UCI's conflict of interest. Yes, we already know about it, which is why I didn't think I would need to go into a long-winded explanation of my fox and chicken coop metaphor.

Hey Ultyguy. I had no idea you'd become a dad! Huge congratulations!!

The rent's too damn high!

_________________
Exp001

Privateer- thanks! New years day. Luckily the drone of the rollers puts him to sleep for hours at a time so it's actually upped my winter training! Spring/summer long rides might be a bit more of a challenge tho...

Edit- my 'team' is sponsored by the UCI this year, not sure how I feel bout that!

For some frames it could be a very easy check like that. Unfortunately the way the UCI have made their frame envelope allows for a whole variety of frame designs that are legal, but are very difficult to check - where the seat tube does not meet the headline size requirements for seattubes, but is legal because it "borrows" some of the seatstay or seatstay/seatpost gusset parts of the envelope. Checking it relies on slicing up frame members according to that legal envelope, which doesn't necessarily follow many common lines, accurate to less than 1mm.
If you have a look through the latest UCI guide to the regulations you can see a couple of frame diagrams showing the parts of the tube sections that have to comply with the 3:1 regulation, and that gives some idea just how extensive the "more complicated to measure" parts are.
They painted themselves into a corner with the muti-layered frame regulations, and now the manufacturer/customer ends up paying for the expensive checks that requires

I think I have to agree, I ride a similarly sized fram, and with the reach measurement given, I can see how he can get close to 5 maybe 4.5.

HUMP

_________________
Why are the best things in life always the ones you start last?

Not possible. Check out his old Venge. 5cm on almost any road frame is really tough even if you check out 50cm frames of very small riders. Goss does not ride the smallest frame size and even with a 0 or 5mm offset his seat isn't that far forward for his height. If you simply guestimate his seat height and to the trig its not possible. 5cm of setback on a road bike is really hard to get unless its a small frame with the seat completely slammed forwards and also very rare.

This is Goss' Venge and the seat is almost all the way back on a 25mm offset post on what looks like a size 52 frame. No way 5cm is possible: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... Aw&dur=872

He rides a 52, that with a standard seatpost, neither of those have offset, The one on the Venge has maybe a tad, but not 2.5CM. A 74.2 saddle height and a 5cm setback can be accomplished, I have done it myself at home. Both of those bikes have 74 degree seat tube angles. Like I said, given the reach number, I can see it being 5. I have my saddle right now on a Cdale 52 at 74.8. The saddle slammed back only gives me 7.0, and the reach with a 130mm stem is 57 to 57.5. So if you just take that and move my saddle forward 2 cm, you can see that the reach number given of 55.2 can be achieved.

HUMP

_________________
Why are the best things in life always the ones you start last?

In the pro rider setback thread, the following are rider data with < 50 mm of setback:



On my plot, 50 mm of setback corresponds to an x position of -190 mm:

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
Send your data to Weight Weenie listings!