Steel frames and le Tour

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:42:03 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


I remember trying to convince people 12 years ago on my team who were
sponsored by Lemond and Trek to get the steel (if I remember
correctly) Zurich as it was much better for the riders who were suited
for criteriums and not road racing. In those days the Trek OCLV's
seemed pretty slow handling.

I had a Zurich and loved it. I still love it, but don't race it. About
four years ago I got a year-old OCLV as my racing bike and it seems
exactly the same to me, but's a bit lighter. I just started riding
another OCLV and as far as I can tell it feels the same as the other
two bikes.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:02:14 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:05:15 -0600, wrote:

His notion that aluminum would be less
surprising is puzzling, since the huge tubes would tend to make the
aluminum frame noticeable at a distance.

Huger than carbon fiber? You seem out of touch regarding racing
bikes.

Dear John,

You're right and I was wrong.

(See how easy that was?)

Cycling News thinks that there are a still few aluminum bikes in the
2008 TDF:

"Frame : Carbon fibre frames are the choice for most, although a few
riders in the peloton still prefer the added stiffness that a
top-quality aluminum frame provides."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2008...tour08_lexicon

Google doesn't show any previous match for that snippet, so it doesn't
seem to be some leftover definition recycled from earlier years.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:04:30 -0600, wrote:

In other words, turn the question around--when was the last known
steel TDF frame? Titanium? Aluminum?

Educated guesses would be 5ish years ago for steel and there being a
decent chance (perhaps 10% or more) that aluminum and titanium are
still represented this year. Perhaps much higher odds of alumimum but
this is just a good guess.

On Jul 10, 3:06*pm, Davey Crockett wrote:
a écrit profondement:

| On Jul 10, 10:36 pm, " | wrote:

| Consider the question of whether RBR Chief Statistician
| Robert Chung just threw up in his mouth a little. *There
| are only two possible outcomes, but the odds I would
| place on the two outcomes are not 50/50.
|
| Ben
| Odds aren't even. *That's why they call them odds.
|
| That's odd.
|
| -ilan

Flip a coin - there are two outcomes - a head or a tail

Therefore the chances are even.

And even if one gets three heads and one tail in say four tosses,
continually tossing the coin until the number *ot trials/tests
approaches infinity, the outcomes will close towards 50/50


Only if it's a fair coin, which makes the definition
circular.

Try flipping a "coin" made from a hemisphere, or
a slug made by gluing two discs of heavy and light
metal together, or even a nickel and a quarter
stuck together, and you'll quickly find that though
there are two outcomes, the chances are not even.

Probability, like lotteries, is a tax on dumbasses.

Ben

In article ,
Tosspot wrote:

Donald Munro wrote:
wrote:
Dear RJ,

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
Dear Carl.

All these dears. This place is beginning to sound like a gay tea party.

Carbon or china teacups?

With all the Fattie Masters in here, it would have to be carbon, with ceramic
saucers.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
wrote:
I know that Laurent Brochard is signing his name to high end steel
frames in a joint effort with his brother, bikes weigh about 8kg. Last
I heard, he wasn't riding the Tour de France.
http://www.cycles-laurentbrochard.fr/acier.html

Considering how long it took him to give up on wearing a mullet, I'm not surprised
that he'd be endorsing steel frames. (Not saying steel is backwards - I have one
too.)

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Tim McNamara wrote:

In article ,
A Muzi wrote:

-snip frames- John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
You think team sponsors who are going nuts spending money to get
their name into the most televised and photographed bike race in
the world wouldnt' care if some "lower-level" rider is riding
something different? Wow.

Long history of that, actually. Especially in climbs and TT.

Indeed, this has been the case for decades and probably less now. There
were frame builders who made a good living building bikes for riders,
who then sent them to be painted in the team colors. Pegoretti is one
such example, allegedly having built frames for Lemond, Indurain,
Chiappucci, etc. which were then painted in team colors. Andy Hampsten
won at Alpe-d'Huez on a Landshark painted in Merckx Motolora colors, and
Lance won the 1993 world champs on a Lightspeed painted to look like a
Merckx. Lemond had his frames built by Roland Della Santa for years and
painted in the team colors. Sean Kelly stated that he almost always
ride Vitus 979 frames which were painted in the team colors; many pros
did the same in the 1980s.

Tim, I believe Motorola was officially riding Caloi frames in '93, which were a
sub-brand of Merckx.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jul 10, 11:59 am, Scott wrote:

Really, you don't think that even a single rider in the field may
actually prefer a steel frame to a carbon fiber frame? And that rider
(should one exist) may be able to get that steel frame for free from
the builder?

No. They're pros. They ride what they're paid to ride. They aren't
fetishists who see the bicycle as a singular work of art with an
idealized form. For racers, bicycles are tools to be used and
discarded when worn out. No different than the way a carpenter sees a
hammer or circular saw. As one pro once told me, "We would ride
shopping carts if we were paid to." It's just a ****in' bike.

wrote in message
...
On Jul 10, 11:59 am, Scott wrote:

Really, you don't think that even a single rider in the field may
actually prefer a steel frame to a carbon fiber frame? And that rider
(should one exist) may be able to get that steel frame for free from
the builder?

No. They're pros. They ride what they're paid to ride. They aren't
fetishists who see the bicycle as a singular work of art with an
idealized form.

Ahh, so that's why Tour winners like LeMond had special steel bikes made and
rebadged as the team bike. In fact, most team leaders still have custom
bikes made for them. Only now it's about as cheap and easy to make a custom
carbon fiber bike as a steel bike.

On Jul 10, 5:28*pm, Scott wrote:
On Jul 10, 2:03*pm, RicodJour wrote:



On Jul 10, 2:21*pm, Scott wrote:

Now, back to your initial paragraph. *You don't understand
probability. *The odds for any given rider using a steel frame is not
1 in 10 or 1 in 100 or whatever. *It's 50/50. *They either are, or are
not, using a steel frame. *The odds would be different if we defined
our terms differently, say, what are the odds a rider would choose
frame A (steel) vs frame B (Ti from builder x) vs frame C (Ti from
builder y) vs frame D (carbon fiber from xyz) vs frame E (carbon fiber
from abc) and so on.

You keep using that word, odds. I do not think it means what you think
it means.

What you meant to say, and probably would have said, if you weren't at
_odds_ with people that disagreed with you, is that there are two
possibilities - either a steel frame or another frame. *Both the odds
and probability of a rider in the Tour day France riding a steel frame
are extremely remote - roughly akin to you admitting that, "okay, I'm
wrong." *Deal with it.


Let's use poker as an example, since many of us have either played the
game or have seen it played on TV. *If you watch poker on TV, the
commentators often refer to the odds of a given card being played.
The numerical odds are clearly defined, because there is a finite set
of possibilities which are easily shown. *There is no human element to
the odds of a given card being played.

Scott, I hope you're not a gambler as your grasp of what constitutes
odds and probabilities is, well, shaky at best.

Let's incorporate your "human element" into cycling - based on recent
ASO UCI interactions it's unlikely there are real people making these
decisions (probably a SchwartzSoft side project for pocket money).

Say that a rider wanted to ride a steel bike. The sponsor doesn't
want him to - they want to get what they're paying for. The type of
publicity that would be generated in this totally dope free tour
(management excepted) if a rider makes the podium on an other-than-his-
sponsor's bike would not reflect well on the sponsor. His team
doesn't want him to ride a "funny bike" as sponsor money would be
threatened, and the team mechanics don't want him to as standard bikes
are easier for them to deal with.

Even if all other differences between steel and carbon were equal,
obviously a stretch, there are forces that would prevent a rider from
expressing that individuality outside the corporate fold. You want a
custom bike? Fine, we'll make it for you, or we'll let you ride on a
bike that is close enough to be rebadged and not cause a ruckus for
us. Steel doesn't fit the bill.

Think of it this way, if we flipped a coin and you _see_ it come up
tails, and I'm holding a gun to your head, you're still going to say
heads, aren't you? You don't even know if there are bullets in the
gun, but you'll say heads anyway. It's like that.

R