Rapha Part Deux

Continuing my rant against pretentious, overpriced Fredwear from Rapha, I'm happy to share some photos from their latest moody hipster offering - "City Riding Rogues Part II". If you have some lazy cash to waste and need a 'look', check out their latest offering - instant cool! (not).





where the fuck did I leave my keys?



...you are a proctologist, right?

...those drugs you gave me to get my keys out of my...
...was I asleep for long?
...why am I half dressed?
...who's the guy in the gimp suit smiling at?

 Scallywags.

Doping - Phil what's the story?

Granted, there is way too much commentary on doping in cycling but let me add mine to the steaming pile. I feel personally slighted after so many years of commitment watching the Tour De France and its fantastic cheats from the comfort of my lounge chair. The highs, the lows, the drama, the excitement, the disappointments - it's stressful being a fan.

Two points.

First, the 'Voice of Cycling' - Phil Liggett - continues to be an apologist for Armstrong and the cycling establishment. Full disclosure, watching the Tour without Phil (and Paul Sherwin to a lesser extent) is like listening to an audiobook narrated by a supermodel. OK, bad analogy, I don't listen to audiobooks. It's like...anyway, not the same without Phil as it is with him.

Which brings me to my point. For years Phil has studiously defended Lance Armstrong and whenever doping allegations about the Tour are brought up, he is quick to say he hopes they have gone away or, like this year's Tour, dismiss them as publicity seeking by disgruntled has-beens and assorted hangers-on. Well, sorry Phil, I'll still listen to your dulcet tones during the Tour but get your head out of your 70 year old ass/arse (he's English). If anyone has been around for long enough to know exactly what's going on - it's you.

Note to Phil - as the guy that is half the fun of watching the Tour and such a well respected commentator on all things cycling, you have a responsibility to stop the charade. Sure you are under contract and cannot walk away as a result but maybe start with not dismissing doping allegations and work up to questioning Armstrong, the UCI, the Tour organisers, the corporate sponsors etc. Small steps Phil but your failure to acknowledge the truth makes you look a fool. If you retire, I'll be stuck with Bob Roll, Craig Hummer and the other hopeless US commentators talking endlessly about the 36th placed US rider's win in the US Pro Tour de Whogivesafuck. Save both of us further pain and get back on the right path.

Second, the flow-on effect to the amateurs who delude themselves that it's OK to make fucked up moral choices because the 'pros' do it. Amateurs adopting the same immoral attitude is pathetic. See David Anthony, the amateur cyclist whose ambition to move up the ranks of the amateur categories ended with being busted at the ultimate nothing ride - the Grandfondo NYC. However, there is now news that doping has a long history of infecting low level semi-professional/amateur running with an article in the NY Times outlining the banning of Christian Hesch.

Hesch apparently won around $40k a year in prize money at small time events where his chances of not being caught, and of winning some money, were greatest though it is not clear whether that is net of the cost of his drugs and transport costs to Mexico to collect them. Either way, a tough way to earn a living - no glory and earns the same as a NY cop. At least they get a gun, licence to run every red light and endless free donuts. Hesch gets a two year ban and early onset arthritis - what a dick. I like his comment that he did it to recover from an injury - what an injury to the oxygen carrying capacity of his blood? Give me a break - just another hopeless cheat. Get a real job and run in your spare time. No one gives a shit about who won the 10k at Buttfuck, CA except the other runners you beat that weren't doping. Dickhead.

Another disappointing week with presumably many more to follow.

Lance Armstrong is a doper - shock horror!

So, Big George Hincapie publicly confirmed both that he'd spoken to USADA and that he was a habitual doper for a prolonged period of time that coincided with his association with Lance Armstrong. Knock me over with a feather, who would have thought that Armstrong was full of shit? Only everyone who follows cycling and is currently breathing. To the true believers in his innocence, again, well done - I'm having a beer with the Easter Bunny later on and you're all welcome to drop around.

But back to the 'news'. Given I live in the US of A, it's not over for Lance. Couple of nice articles in NY times today.

First a story on Emma O'Reilly, the former soigneur to US Postal who spoke out when collaborating with David Walsh on L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong. She was vilified and pursued by Armstrong and his cronies as he did to anyone that suggested he was a doper. Typical bully - he pursued someone with intimate knowledge of his doping but who barely had the money to defend herself when she spoke the truth. Armstrong, a bully and a pathetic coward.

However, his fellow team members also bear responsibility for his poor behavior - not only did they dope, but they knew he did and that he was pursuing and bullying anyone that accused him of doing so...but they did nothing. Sorry  Hincapie, but confessing after you have retired doesn't absolve you from your sins. You should apologise to anyone that Armstrong persued because not speaking out made you part of the Armstrong problem. Same for Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters, David Zabriskie, Matt White and anyone else on that team involved in the doping program.

The culpability that these riders bear is that they knew about the doping AND the persecution by Armstrong of anyone that accused him. Fucked up moral choices that should haunt them forever. Along with Lance Armstrong, just another bunch of 'c-bombs' as Americans say (for the rest of the World vernacular, see Brad Wiggins* ha ha).

The second article, relates to a spat between Armstrong and an insurance company that underwrote a performance payment to him for success fees during his Tour wins. Problem No. 1 is that Armstrong  prevailed and was awarded $7.5M during an arbitration but also has been shown to have consistently lied under oath. Looks like he will be getting a visit from the lawyers for SCA to send the cash back plus interest (they should also send around the goons to have a word about his kneecaps). Problem No. 2 is that he lied under oath and that will affect any future statements he makes in Court - ie in legal jargon, he will be assumed to be an unreliable witness, in common terms he will be assumed to be complete liar about anything and everything and not just cycling issues. Doh!

Sadly plenty more news to run on the entire pro peleton during this period (call that the  20 years prior to 2011) and there will be a long list of respected riders who will be revealed to be dopers - all of whom will legitimately say that they had no choice because it was so endemic in the peleton and that to compete, they had to be on the juice. All up a massive fucking disappointment but not a surprise to true cycling fans. We know it has always been going on, just not the depth or the degree of organisation. Lance Armstrong will be remembered as the greatest doper ever. The Barry Bonds of cycling. He might have some redemption in the eyes of cancer survivors and their families because of Livestrong but everything he did in cycling will be irrelevant. Even his apologist, unethical sponsors have dropped him. Nike, Trek, Anheuser-Busch, Sram you are a collective disgrace and only dropped him when your continued unethical support for a clear and known doper started to threaten sales - don't pretend it had anything to do a policy of supporting only drug-free sportspeople.

* Thanks BikesnobNYC for the a far more reasoned analysis of Bradley Wiggin's vernacular. More interesting and funnier than the bullshit moral highground from Bicycling.com.

Gears - electronic or mechanical?

Let me to distill the debate. There are two simple rules.

Rule 1 - Most riders don't give a shit about the debate.

Rule 2 - If you want it and it makes you happy, well done - life's short.

I am not an early adopter or a fan of changes that make equipment dated or redundant for no reason other than fashion or incremental gains; especially those that cost lots of bucks - eg the bottom bracket debate. If you are sprinting for a stage win and your livelihood depends on the result, for sure you should have the 0.0005% gain from a stiffer BB. If not, save your money. Then again, see Rule 2.

Anyway, to gears. I have been riding for long enough to remember when indexed down tube shifters were the latest break-through. My most recent road bike lasted 14 years and then terminally* cracked inside the seat tube. I ride road bikes and mountain bikes rain, hail, shine, snow, ice etc because I like it and I am apparently less obnoxious when I ride some. 

I weighed up the options and considered the debates-

• Carbon is stiff/fragile/plastic/a joke/essential
• 'Steel is real'
• Bamboo = smugness  
• Aluminium is passe
• Titanium is for middle aged men buying artisinal frames (true, but see rule 2)
• etc

For context, my riding is urban commuting and randonneuring. I don't club race, do triathlons or do training rides with more than 1 or 2 companions, if any. I don't mind if people club race, triathlons or ride in packs to the local coffee shop - it's just not my thing. I ride to be out in the weather and preferably, away from traffic, pedestrians and other cyclists who pose a danger to themselves and, more importantly, me - hard to avoid in NYC. I'm generally heading home when most recreational cyclists are heading out which means nothing more than my preference for bikes and equipment is less fashion, incremental improvement and more about fit, resilience and ease of repair given the miles I ride and the type of riding I do.

So to the bike. Based on my history of choosing carefully (or at least very, very slowly) and making bikes last a long time, the house budget committee approved me to spend some cash on the condition that whatever I chose, it had to last with minimal additional expense other than my endless quest for the perfect seat. After considerable (excessive) deliberation, I opted for a titanium frame (see rule 2), hand built wheels (DT rims/Chris King hubs) and a groupset that I'll get to.

The frame was a no-brainer given I have struggled to get the 'perfect' fit from stock frames and the best way is to get one that is made for me. There are plenty of decent options but I opted for titanium because (at least in the USA) you can get an awesome, custom fitted frame for a reasonable cost that has an excellent ride quality and avoids my two problems with carbon frames - try fixing them and the cost. Plus I think modern butted Titanium frames provide a superior ride to steel alloys - sure steel aficionados disagree but I sort of don't give a shit.

The wheels were easy as well. Until my recent (14 years old) Mavic Classics Pro wheelset, every wheelset I had was handmade because that's how wheels used to be made. There are endless options with fewer and fewer spokes, carbon rims/spokes/hubs etc etc but I live in an urban environment that is third world in terms of potholes and the kind of riding I do requires an ability to repair that which breaks - thus the DT rims and 28 spokes/wheel. They still weigh not much more than light weight wheelsets but can take more punishment and are more comfortable.

To the groupset. Despite my attitude to frames and wheelsets, I opted for Ultegra Di2. I am still not sure that this is the best choice or that, despite my scorn for fashion and incremental change, I haven't been sucker punched. However, the rationale is more complex. I have always wanted a Campy Record (not Super Record) groupset for the history and design but have always ended up with Japanese components because the quality, value and robust engineering suits my riding and budget. Simple things matter - eg it is easier, and much cheaper, to replace a broken Shimano chain than a Campy chain (ie if the LBS actually stocks them). The move to 11 speed rear cassettes just exacerbates the problem.

Which brings me to my dilemma. I opted for a groupset that has motors and relies on battery power to work. What was I thinking? I was thinking that the Dura Ace Di2 had some minor issues but was tested to death and has been improved to the point that it functions perfectly and any improvements are likely to be incremental in future generations. The Ultegra Di2 is still a similar cost to mechanical DuraAce, doesn't look quite as flash, is heavier than mechanical Ultegra but incorporates all of the improvements made to DuraAce Di2. If I was ever going to opt in, now is a reasonable time (actually in about 5 generations would be the time but I need a solution now).

But, all of this is weighing up incremental differences. Hopefully the incremental risk that won't be my undoing is the advantage of mechanical gears, namely, the thing that changes gears is a rider pushing a lever that pulls or releases a cable while Di2 relies on a motor to respond every time. Time will tell. If my objective was weekend rides of a few hours and some commuting, then the risk with electronic gears is negligible. If something goes wrong, you can generally limp home even in the wrong gear but being hundreds of kilometres from home, potentially in the middle of the night might change my mind. 

Regardless, the question remains - is there a need to opt into electronic shifting? Fundamentally, randonneuring is about resilience, self repair (usually in the middle of the night) and redundancy built into everything. Electronic shifting is the opposite of that. If something goes wrong with a servo, that's it...This might sound like buyer regret but it is not. For sure it is a leap of faith that I may regret but that is for the future. For now, the groupset is excellent - ie better than mechanical shifting and, on balance, I think I am on the right side of Rule 2. If it turns out to be a cluster, then I'll apply to the budget committee to undo the experiment, go for mechanical something and put it down to experience though to be honest, I really like Di2. Maybe it's the first blush of a new relationship but hopefully, it will grow into a 10 year relationship which, in bike technology terms, is married for life.

Interested in the opinions of others.

* Note - cyclists talking about their bikes bores the shit out of me but for the sake of completeness (and at the risk of showing my eccentricities), it was a Kestrel 200sci (they were such a forward thinking company in a non-bike way before they ran out of cash, got bought by Fuji and produced their current crop of truly ugly bikes - Kestrel, wtf happened?). I used Dura-Ace (mechanical of course) and had Mavic Classics Pro wheels. All awesome and took a complete flogging but when time is up, time is up. I put on a compact 105 crank last year for a 1200k event but everything, other than the frame, lasted very well despite 150,000km+ on the bike. Only swapped out pedals, seats(!) and bars (for a narrower fit).

Riding in NYC

Something visual - my YouTube ride to work after delivery in Battery Park - take a look. It's a few years old but still the same experience - more joggers and cyclists running into each other these days.