Re: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?


Example: Framebuilders:Chris Pauley

From: "J.Dunn" <bikehunter@icehouse.net>
To: "Mark Bulgier" <mark@bulgier.net>, <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
References: <C102531FB711D411B5B90060B0A468760DAD8A@mail.bulgier.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:37:20 -0800


Mark B. said: "I used to be amazed at how ignorant of bicycles cat 2s were, until I started building more bikes for cat 1s, national champions and Olympic team riders - they were if anything more ignorant! Then I noticed Greg Lemond saying such ridiculous horseshit that he made those cat 2s seem educated."

e-Richie answers: "My experience building frames for Cat 1s, and National & Olympic team riders from the U.S. and Canada differs from your experience. All of my clients wanted current 'technology'. Each of them were educated, motivated, and ended up with a life after their racing ended. And the ones that still race, I'll wager that they'll end up on their feet, too. To a man, (and to a woman), none of these clients were sheep that needed a shepard."

I say: Without addressing the bone of contention (new vs. old technology) isn't it interesting that Mark encountered so many igonorant racers that he feels comfortable relating that fact to the list including the statement: " Then I noticed Greg Lemond saying such ridiculous horseshit that he made those cat 2s seem educated."

e-Richie OTOH, relates that "all" of his "clients" were "educated, motivated, and ended up with a life after their racing ended." And were not "sheep that needed a shepard."

So, does this mean that only the motivated and educated go to e-Richie or that Mark was just unfortunate enough to meet only the ignorant, unmotivated racers?

John, just curious, Dunn in Boise


----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Bulgier
To:
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 1:40 AM
Subject: RE: [CR]using classic bicycles, well?



> e-RICHIE writes:
> > how many folks have well, you know,
> > have RACED? and at what level?
> > me-i'm a cat 2 on road and track.
> > that and a dime will get me 2 nickels.
>
> I used to be amazed at how ignorant of bicycles cat 2s were, until I started
> building more bikes for cat 1s, national champions and Olympic team riders -
> they were if anything more ignorant! Then I noticed Greg Lemond saying such
> ridiculous horseshit that he made those cat 2s seem educated.
>
> So, Richie, your time as a builder, and years studying and thinking about
> bikes, lend credence to your words, but the fact that you are a cat 2 means
> little to me.
>
> I'm not just talking bike technology, but also riding skills. When I was a
> 3 I knew more about strategy, riding an echelon, how to drop another rider
> and how to sprint, than most of the 2s I rode with. They trained more
> and/or were born with bigger hearts, but often didn't seem to pay much
> attention to the world around them. They were also prone to believing silly
> old lore, like picking the stem length so that the bars hide the front hub,
> or claiming that stiffer frames are always more efficient. I say "were",
> because I'm away from it now, but I can't imagine it's changed much.
> Athletes are, um, well, you know what I, uh, mean?
>
> Human perception is notoriously unreliable, so even when one of the smarter
> ones says something is "obvious", I've learned to be skeptical. I'm
> skeptical of my own perceptions too. Jim Papdopoulos did perception tests,
> one of which had riders ride bikes that varied in weight by 5 pounds, and
> almost all the riders couldn't say which one was lighter or heavier any more
> reliably than a coin flip. Coaches have often noted cases where their
> athletes thought they were going their slowest, and were actually breaking
> their PR, or thought they were flying when they were actually crawling.
> Scientific method demands that experiments be designed to take human
> perception out of it ("double blind"), but that is extremely difficult with
> respect to bikes and racing - how can you race and *not know* whether your
> shifters are STI or bar-ends? A conundrum.
>
> All of this is to say that, since I've seen some evidence that the old bikes
> are *not* slower, I would need more than the opinion of someone who thinks
> they are, to feel like we're getting anywhere on the question. We will
> probably never know for sure.
>
> At least I hope we all can agree that it's a point on which reasonable
> people can disagree.

>

> Mark Bulgier

> Seattle, Wa

> USA