Re: [CR]Yesterday's equipment in modern races


Example: Framebuilders

Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Feldman <feldmanbike@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Yesterday's equipment in modern races
To: goodrichbikes <goodrichbikes@netzero.net>, classicrendezvous@bikelist.org, Jan Heine <heine93@earthlink.net>
In-Reply-To: <000001c43771$7e6fba20$f7e96ed1@computer>


Recreational riders get suckered into "state of the art" equipment that isn't optimal for them because of what you could call "Playboy magazine syndrome," getting their bike ideas from fantasies derived from magazine pictures. Bikes are for most 'Muricans, a recreational vehicle thus making it less likely they'll differentiate between their bike and Lance's bike than differentiate between NASCAR cars and their
own!
David Feldman
Vancouver, WA


--- goodrichbikes wrote:


> Sorry for coming late to this but I just can't

\r?\n> resist. In my opinion, using

\r?\n> what pro riders ride as a barometer of progress is

\r?\n> misguided. It's been

\r?\n> stated all too many times. Riders ride what they

\r?\n> are paid to ride.

\r?\n> Manufacturers make things to sell. Manufacturers

\r?\n> sponsor riders to sell the

\r?\n> stuff they make. Are we still together here?

\r?\n> Average race times have gone

\r?\n> down. Is it logical to say that it's due to

\r?\n> equipment advances? No. Is it

\r?\n> logical to say it's not due to equipment advances?

\r?\n> No. But it is logical

\r?\n> to assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

\r?\n> There's no doubt that

\r?\n> components have changed and change often spurs new

\r?\n> sales and that's good.

\r?\n> The biggest "advances" has been the training

\r?\n> "regimes" i.e. drugs. I know

\r?\n> we all heard this. My nameless source, a former

\r?\n> pro, told me that in the

\r?\n> early days of EPO the average speeds of typical

\r?\n> climbs in the mountains

\r?\n> dropped 3-5 kph from the year before the drug's

\r?\n> widespread use. This pro

\r?\n> refused to take the stuff and he was off the back.

\r?\n> He was riding the same

\r?\n> bikes as everyone else so I'd say it's logical to

\r?\n> conclude the drug was

\r?\n> probably the reason for this "advance." Of course,

\r?\n> I'm a cynical builder of

\r?\n> obsolete bikes so take this with a grain of salt.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Curt Goodrich

\r?\n> Minneapolis, MN