Originally Posted by
AlgarveCycling
If you insist upon writing rubbish like that you are going to get replies you don't want to see...
Just because something is rubbing to you, does not mean it is rubbish, your view is subjective.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]You wrote that you finished 40th out of over 400 in a TT 25 years ago. You say you are 60 now so that made you 35, a man in his prime still. Given the bike you say you had then, it wasn't that bad at the time for a TT of that type; amateur average level. But a lighter, more agile bike might have possibly helped you to a top 35, maybe top 30 depending upon the course.[QUOTE]
It was a relatively flat course, and I weigh 200 pounds, A little lighter bike is not going to help a clydesdale rider, and do little for anyone else, like the 361 riders that finished slower than I did for instance who were certainly not all on older equipment than I was. The only thing that would have helped me is if the time-trial was late in the season when I was in better shape and pulling another 1-2mph in similar situations. It is scientifically proven that on flatter courses bicycle weight is not a big factor, and it is also scientifically proven that rider position on the bike and their fitness are by far the most important factors in speed.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]40th is not a great result if you are trying to impress [QUOTE]
The thread is on technology, having a 12-speed round steel tube motobecane Jubile with friction shifting finish ahead of 361 out of 400 other bikes, many of them much lighter, with trigger or brifter shifting, aero-tubing and wheels and riders wearing racing outfits and helmets is an obvious example of technology not being necessary and is on subject. Ad-Hominem statements like yours are not only off subject, but the earmark of someone losing a debate due to lack of facts and/or logic.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Just as you are benefiting from airing your views on this Forum...on the internet...via the keyboard of your computer...that didn't exist when you did that time-trial...[QUOTE]
Huh ??? Ever hear of Windows 95' and AOL ??? How old are you ??? Automobiles have been around since the 1800s, so your point about driving them is also nonsense. Again, it looks like the only way you can win a debate is by making things up, or thinking that because you say something louder, or just say it period, that it means something. You have no facts, logic or common sense in your statements.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Cycling can be expensive, yes. If you opt - because it is optional - to chase speed. The very vast majority of cyclists don't. [QUOTE]
Which nicely backs my position up. It takes no new tech to attain a comfortable bicycle, a nice Schwinn cruiser from the early 60s with a three-speed hub and nice wide sprung seat will work just fine. And you reiterate your statement about speed being tied to technology, when it is proven by science research that rider position and fitness are by far more important than the equipment for speed.
[QUOTE=AlgarveCycling;22560603]Just as you want manufacturers to stagnate and stay with old tech, a far greater majority are pushing them to innovate and do exactly what they are doing.
Another illogical false assumption on your part, stating that something is constructive or makes sense because a lot of people back it up is like saying because Britney Spears had a number-one hit she is a better singer or artist than opera singer Renee Fleming, who is known to much less of the population. Just because the majority of the Western population has been brainwashed by establishment media since WWI to go along with wasteful consumerism that destroys the ecosystem while stuffing the wallets of Wall-Street billionaires, does not make them authorities on quality or necessity, in fact it makes them quite the opposite.
