-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re: Re:
Sorry I got all wordy. Comes down to, aluminum, as most metals are, is shiny. Metal oxides are not shiny. At least when it comes to infrared. That paper had an excellent example of various aluminum oxides and their absorption spectrum. You can ignore the bulk of it and just look at the graph. Anyone curious about this should Google "free electron model". It'll explain why some things are shiny and some aren't.
When it comes to radiating, you can pretty much ignore what the material is. It's dominated by temperature. At close to room temperature, that'll be predominantly in the infrared. Anyone curious about this should Google "black body radiation".
And was the camera in the video picking up infrared light that was bouncing off the cassette? No. The cassette was radiating an equal amount in all directions. Also, there was no source for it to reflect. If there was, it would have reflected to various degrees by most of the bike. It's also HUGELY unlikely that the reflected source just happened to be the exact intensity that it did.
John Swanson
Tom the Engine said:
Sorry I got all wordy. Comes down to, aluminum, as most metals are, is shiny. Metal oxides are not shiny. At least when it comes to infrared. That paper had an excellent example of various aluminum oxides and their absorption spectrum. You can ignore the bulk of it and just look at the graph. Anyone curious about this should Google "free electron model". It'll explain why some things are shiny and some aren't.
When it comes to radiating, you can pretty much ignore what the material is. It's dominated by temperature. At close to room temperature, that'll be predominantly in the infrared. Anyone curious about this should Google "black body radiation".
And was the camera in the video picking up infrared light that was bouncing off the cassette? No. The cassette was radiating an equal amount in all directions. Also, there was no source for it to reflect. If there was, it would have reflected to various degrees by most of the bike. It's also HUGELY unlikely that the reflected source just happened to be the exact intensity that it did.
John Swanson
Re: Re:
The usefulness of the measurement is that it found some objects were warmer than you'd expect. It also found the same objects on other bikes that were at the temperature you'd expect. Was the measurement reliable enough to have confidence in what was observed? Yeah. FLIR is pretty well understood and has been used as a measurement technique for ages. It's right up there with "can you trust a ruler to measure length"? Yeah. yeah you can.
John Swanson
Tom the Engine said:
The usefulness of the measurement is that it found some objects were warmer than you'd expect. It also found the same objects on other bikes that were at the temperature you'd expect. Was the measurement reliable enough to have confidence in what was observed? Yeah. FLIR is pretty well understood and has been used as a measurement technique for ages. It's right up there with "can you trust a ruler to measure length"? Yeah. yeah you can.
John Swanson
Re:
Okay that was a fair comment and one I deserved.
Personally I wouldn't say that the documentary has been debunked, but that there is now rightfully so much doubt as to the veracity of the evidence presented that we cannot and should not take the evidence presented at face value and basically should not use it to make a case for motor use by any of the riders featured in the documentary.
Tienus said:
Okay that was a fair comment and one I deserved.
Personally I wouldn't say that the documentary has been debunked, but that there is now rightfully so much doubt as to the veracity of the evidence presented that we cannot and should not take the evidence presented at face value and basically should not use it to make a case for motor use by any of the riders featured in the documentary.
Re: Re:
It was my post that Tienus is mis-representing. I never claimed a single posters contribution had rubbished the Stade 2 documentary, I claimed the thread had. There is a big difference.
GJB123 said:
It was my post that Tienus is mis-representing. I never claimed a single posters contribution had rubbished the Stade 2 documentary, I claimed the thread had. There is a big difference.
Re:
I stand by those comments. The evidence presented was useless.
That's awfully close to a textbook definition of "debunked".
Tienus said:
I stand by those comments. The evidence presented was useless.
GJB123 said:
That's awfully close to a textbook definition of "debunked".
That's exactly what it does not explain. It's an extremly oversimplified toy-model for metals that gets a couple of good results on a few properties of basic metals but nothing else. In particular it fails to explain why there is anything else than metals let alone describe those different characteristics. You could just as well have cited the classical Drude model. Stop the name-dropping of stuff you once heard of. Or I can do the same, but with something that actually makes sense and I know inside out: Anyone really curious about this should google "Density Functional Theory".ScienceIsCool said:
Oh yeah, just look for a graph that has the right labels on its axes and disregard the rest. Because, you know, all those pesky details that surround the experiment (like thickness of the coating) and how they relate to the situation you're interested in are irrelevant. Please.ScienceIsCool said:
So you say everything is close to a perfect black body. It's painful to read such nonsense.ScienceIsCool said:
It's the spectrum that is dominated by temperature and has the same material-independent shape for any fixed temperature. But the amount of radiated power is highly dependent on material and surface properties. Only perfect black bodies would have an emissivity of 1. Different materials have very different emissivities. And that's one of the reasons that make thermal imaging intricate.
I think I start to see now what's going on: You don't understand how a thermal camera works.ScienceIsCool said:
Is it possible that you mix it up with a spectrometer of some sort? A thermal camera does not infer temperature from a spectrum (i.e. getting intensities for different wavelenghts and the fitting Plancks formula to get a temperature like we for example do when getting those 2.7 K in the almost perfect fit for the cosmic microwave background). It measures the total power over its bandwidth and then simply uses the fact that warmer objects emit more power. More precisely: Power is proportional to the fourth power of temperature as follows from integrating over frequencies and solid angles in Plancks black body radiation formula. (If somebody is still reading along: What you actually wanna google is "Stefan-Boltzmann-law".) And to estimate the temperature this way you have to preset one value for emissivity for your whole picture. And if this value is off for some regions then the corresponding temperature value is off, too.
And when it comes to reflections, there's no need for any huge coincidences. Every bit of radiation within the right bandwidth that gets partially reflected from a spot into the camera gets simply added to the real emitted radiation and therefore distorts the temperature measurement on this spot.
You're completely missing my point.ScienceIsCool said:
The correct comparison would be "can you trust a ruler in the hands of a 2-year old kid to precisely measure the length of dog that is jumping around?" You probably can't. And it's not because of the ruler but because of the dog that is difficult to measure and the little kid who is probably not well-trained on the ruler yet.
I'll summarize for the last time my concerns with their measurements (no bold claims, just concerns) and then I'm done with it as I start repeating myself:
1) Everybody working in this business writes that thermal imaging is a tricky thing with a lot of pitfalls you can fall into. And that measurements and calibrations have to be conducted with uttermost care otherwise you might end up with unreliable results. But if (and only if) you're doing it the right way it's a great method no doubt. I never even remotely questioned the technology in general.
2) It's everything but a standard measurement in well-controllable (maybe even static) conditions the way it's done most of the time. It's not controllable at all. Measuring a bike race from the road-side is very chaotic and messy. The camera swings around quickly. The objects of interest are very fast and are often only measured for a fraction of a second. They're almost never as close as you'd want them to be. Cars and motobikes flash by all the time. Autofocus of the camera jumps around as does temperature range. Interesting objects are made of different materials that you cannot really (but absolutely should) control for. I could go on. It's not an easy measurement. And again, I'm not claiming it to be impossible but it's very non-trivial for sure.
3) Apparently the measurement was conducted by a journalist with a camera they rented (they said it costs less then 100 bucks per day to do so). And even if somebody gave him a couple of hints beforehand, by no means can we assume that he was very experienced in doing this.
Combined: It's a challenging task under quite difficult circumstances executed by someone with next to no experience. To me that sounds like recipe for disaster.
Over and out.
This question was not directed at you at all. It was meant for every reader.Tienus said:
I like this careful attitude. But maybe you could apply it a bit more balanced..Tienus said:
We actually see the guy filming on tape. Of course I can't exclude that it was just fake as the negative can never be proven. But I can't imagine you taking an equally cautious stand when we see something so clearly on tape that fits your expectations a bit more..
That was neither my claim nor my goal. I just wanted to add another perspective to this discussion.Tienus said:
Yes, apologies, such generalizations are inappropriate.Tienus said:
Tom the Engine
Look, I took some shortcuts so that I wouldn't end up writing a wall of text the way you did. Absorption of radiation by metals is governed by a free electron model. One that has been modified to account for interactions with protons and further modified by interactions with phonons and the like. This modifications explain why some absorption happens (i.e., gold reflects differently from aluminum). This is what I studied at the University of British Columbia, and not the first thing I found on Google.
Same for my understanding of how infrared cameras work. I've actually published in the field of optics. I'll concede that you gave a much more detailed and correct description of what is happening. I don't, however, agree with your conclusions. I believe that they correctly measured temperature differences where they existed. One of the biggest clues in that regard is that there aren't any other unexplained anomalies in any of the pictures taken. The people are the temperature you'd expect. The bikes are the temperature you'd expect. The tires, the cars, the background, the road, etc.
And yeah, give a ruler to someone and I'm pretty sure they could get a correct estimate of how big a jumping dog is. Especially if they have photographs to analyze. Will it be completely accurate? No.
John Swanson
Look, I took some shortcuts so that I wouldn't end up writing a wall of text the way you did. Absorption of radiation by metals is governed by a free electron model. One that has been modified to account for interactions with protons and further modified by interactions with phonons and the like. This modifications explain why some absorption happens (i.e., gold reflects differently from aluminum). This is what I studied at the University of British Columbia, and not the first thing I found on Google.
Same for my understanding of how infrared cameras work. I've actually published in the field of optics. I'll concede that you gave a much more detailed and correct description of what is happening. I don't, however, agree with your conclusions. I believe that they correctly measured temperature differences where they existed. One of the biggest clues in that regard is that there aren't any other unexplained anomalies in any of the pictures taken. The people are the temperature you'd expect. The bikes are the temperature you'd expect. The tires, the cars, the background, the road, etc.
And yeah, give a ruler to someone and I'm pretty sure they could get a correct estimate of how big a jumping dog is. Especially if they have photographs to analyze. Will it be completely accurate? No.
John Swanson
Re:
John Swanson
No. That's not what I'm doing. I was being accused of grabbing whatever I could find from Google because I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to show that although I'm an idiot, I did study the things I'm talking about and can display a modicum of competency at it. As always, evaluate anything I say based on its own merits. I'm often wrong and/or mistaken and don't mind.King Boonen said:
John Swanson
Re: Re:
It's exactly what you've done. Tom explained exactly why you were wrong and why what you were referencing didn't make sense and you instantly jumped to the argument from authority. If you disagree, then explain why, so far you've just said because. If you have relevant publications feel free to share them.
ScienceIsCool said:
It's exactly what you've done. Tom explained exactly why you were wrong and why what you were referencing didn't make sense and you instantly jumped to the argument from authority. If you disagree, then explain why, so far you've just said because. If you have relevant publications feel free to share them.
Re: Re:
I wholeheartedly disagree, but congratulations. You win. I'm outta here.
John Swanson
King Boonen said:
I wholeheartedly disagree, but congratulations. You win. I'm outta here.
John Swanson
Re:
I made a post to demonstrate that thermal imaging might suffer from problems that laymen don't anticipate. And I explicitly stated that it was oversimplified and not a claim that that's what really happenend in this situation. You went after this post (that's fine) but in a quite condescending way (telling me to look up very basic concepts and throwing in a semirandom publication). I politely asked you not to do this but you went on to reinforce it in your next post.
So if you want to drag it to a more formal level I'm very happy to follow. Some of your arguments about physics were spectacularly flawed. You showed a mediocre at best understanding of the scientific concepts you name-dropped and they were adequate but not spot on. And the publication you cited is not relevant for this discussion except for some matching keywords. Combined this is a textbook pseudo-scientific approach to impress laymen and I have no reservations to call it out for what it is.
You've acquired some expert status in this forum when it comes to engineering and quite a few people give your words a lot of weight. This comes with the responsibility to not abuse this power. Either maintain a high scientific standard or keep it informal. There's nothing in-between.
And how much warmer does Roglics hub appear than what you'd expect? What value would you expect in the first place? It's not 10 degrees warmer than others. And not 5 degrees. Now are you really sure that the cars that you mentioned for example are measured correctly everywhere plus/minus 3 degrees? How would you know? Looking kinda reasonable overall (right order of magnitude) and being really accurate everywhere are two completely different stories. You're massively overconfident in your ability to judge accuracy (I don't mean you personally, we all are usually).
If you take a thermal camera with default settings, start filming running cars and specifically focus on the details I guarantee you that you'd find a lot of strange stuff in your footage.
(2) How many seconds of footage have we seen in total? Only very few (out of reported 3 hours). And most of the scenes we've seen are specifically selected because apparently something looks strange with the bikes at the positions we're focusing on. Drawing general conclusions from this (like that there are no anomalies otherwise) is opening the door wide for selection bias. We'd need to watch a lot more footage and also focus on other things than possible locations of motors like hubs and cranks or bikes in general to get a better feeling on what is going on in these thermal images of a bike race.
(3) We completely lack a comparison to baseline. What would we see when we do thermal imaging of a bike race under similar circumstances where we know for sure that the bikes are clean? Anomalies like this one only get meaningful if we're reasonably confident that they never occur with clean bikes.
Since these thermal images look like photographs we automatically implicitly assume that they're equally "precise" no matter the circumstances. But they aren't (everywhere), that's the whole point of this discussion.
I really wasn't calling you an idiot or any other personal attack. Respecting people and respecting their arguments is very different and should not be mixed up.ScienceIsCool said:
I made a post to demonstrate that thermal imaging might suffer from problems that laymen don't anticipate. And I explicitly stated that it was oversimplified and not a claim that that's what really happenend in this situation. You went after this post (that's fine) but in a quite condescending way (telling me to look up very basic concepts and throwing in a semirandom publication). I politely asked you not to do this but you went on to reinforce it in your next post.
So if you want to drag it to a more formal level I'm very happy to follow. Some of your arguments about physics were spectacularly flawed. You showed a mediocre at best understanding of the scientific concepts you name-dropped and they were adequate but not spot on. And the publication you cited is not relevant for this discussion except for some matching keywords. Combined this is a textbook pseudo-scientific approach to impress laymen and I have no reservations to call it out for what it is.
You've acquired some expert status in this forum when it comes to engineering and quite a few people give your words a lot of weight. This comes with the responsibility to not abuse this power. Either maintain a high scientific standard or keep it informal. There's nothing in-between.
That's great. But in a discussion there are really only two options: Either you improve your argument or if you're not capable to do that then you acknowledge it. Referring to background, education, past achievements or whatever instead is - apologies but I have to agree with King Boonen - argument from authority.ScienceIsCool said:
I'm not even concluding anything. And I'm very open to the possibility that it's indeed a motor we're seeing there. Time will tell. But for now I'm not convinced at all that the material presented is of good and reliable quality for a plethora of reasons.ScienceIsCool said:
If you don't ignore the consequences of different emissivities again then you'd realize that not all of these objects can be measured accurately at the same time. By design.ScienceIsCool said:
And how much warmer does Roglics hub appear than what you'd expect? What value would you expect in the first place? It's not 10 degrees warmer than others. And not 5 degrees. Now are you really sure that the cars that you mentioned for example are measured correctly everywhere plus/minus 3 degrees? How would you know? Looking kinda reasonable overall (right order of magnitude) and being really accurate everywhere are two completely different stories. You're massively overconfident in your ability to judge accuracy (I don't mean you personally, we all are usually).
If you take a thermal camera with default settings, start filming running cars and specifically focus on the details I guarantee you that you'd find a lot of strange stuff in your footage.
(1) That's not entirely true. Have you actually tried to convince yourself of the opposite before reaching this conclusion? I didn't do a thorough search at all but here are two screenshots with other stuff that looks a bit odd (marked in red boxes: here and here). Nothing spectacularly strange and you could probably come up with possible explanations - but different looking than other shots nonetheless. I'm sure there's more.ScienceIsCool said:
(2) How many seconds of footage have we seen in total? Only very few (out of reported 3 hours). And most of the scenes we've seen are specifically selected because apparently something looks strange with the bikes at the positions we're focusing on. Drawing general conclusions from this (like that there are no anomalies otherwise) is opening the door wide for selection bias. We'd need to watch a lot more footage and also focus on other things than possible locations of motors like hubs and cranks or bikes in general to get a better feeling on what is going on in these thermal images of a bike race.
(3) We completely lack a comparison to baseline. What would we see when we do thermal imaging of a bike race under similar circumstances where we know for sure that the bikes are clean? Anomalies like this one only get meaningful if we're reasonably confident that they never occur with clean bikes.
Nono, in this analogy we can't take photographs to estimate the dog. We'd have to rely on the value that the kid with the ruler reports to us. That's what corresponds to a measured temperature value.ScienceIsCool said:
Since these thermal images look like photographs we automatically implicitly assume that they're equally "precise" no matter the circumstances. But they aren't (everywhere), that's the whole point of this discussion.
Very naughty editing on main site.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/first-moto-driver-disciplined-under-new-uci-rules-news-shorts/
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/first-moto-driver-disciplined-under-new-uci-rules-news-shorts/
One thing I find somewhat puzzling about the speculation here is that there seem to be a couple of arguments which don't reconcile well. The first is that bike changes are potentially indicative of motor-doping, the second being that the UCI testing is fairly obviously a joke.
As individual phenomena, both seem entirely reasonable to accept given what we know. But if we here know the testing is a joke, why would racers bother with bike changes? Certainly the teams/racers know far better than we do what to fear from testers?
On a separate note, why change into a motorized bike before the finish, where the motor would presumably be the most useful? I mean I get it, you coiuld save energy by using a motor early than ditching it before the finish, relying on your own power. But when I think of the classic examples of suspicion like Cancellara at Flanders and Froome on Ventoux, these are finishing efforts. Presumably those riders crossed the line with a motorized bike.
Do the UCI do the testing at the end of races? If yes, why change into a motorized bike? If no, why not just use the motorized bike the whole way? Weight? That doesn't make sense given the UCI limit and how light bikes are now.
Does someone have a good summary of the testing process in terms of when they test bikes? Seems it's before the races, yes? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the podium finishers and the bikes they're using right off the finish line just like drug testing? Or mix it up? A combo of both?
I don't really understand the testing protocol enough to answer my first couple of questions. Would appreciate any insight.
As individual phenomena, both seem entirely reasonable to accept given what we know. But if we here know the testing is a joke, why would racers bother with bike changes? Certainly the teams/racers know far better than we do what to fear from testers?
On a separate note, why change into a motorized bike before the finish, where the motor would presumably be the most useful? I mean I get it, you coiuld save energy by using a motor early than ditching it before the finish, relying on your own power. But when I think of the classic examples of suspicion like Cancellara at Flanders and Froome on Ventoux, these are finishing efforts. Presumably those riders crossed the line with a motorized bike.
Do the UCI do the testing at the end of races? If yes, why change into a motorized bike? If no, why not just use the motorized bike the whole way? Weight? That doesn't make sense given the UCI limit and how light bikes are now.
Does someone have a good summary of the testing process in terms of when they test bikes? Seems it's before the races, yes? Wouldn't it make more sense to take the podium finishers and the bikes they're using right off the finish line just like drug testing? Or mix it up? A combo of both?
I don't really understand the testing protocol enough to answer my first couple of questions. Would appreciate any insight.
^Fair questions.
Some general comments/thoughts:
1. Beyond or besides being *a joke*, more to the point imo is that the testing is *rigged*.
2. I would indeed argue that the purpose of the bike changes is first and foremost to recharge (at least for Cance 2010 it quite clearly was) and/or to switch from a non-motorized to a motorized bike/wheel.
3. As you allude to, the other thing that might prompt wheel and/or bike changes is weight considerations. Although what/how/why exactly remains guess work.
4. I agree motors will be most useful at the end of the race. If there is any testing at all at the finish, again see under #1.
5. In the context of the Van Aerts rumors it was reported on twitter recently that there has been no, zero, nada, bike testing at any of the pro cyclo cross races post-worlds. Also, the UCI has been in the habit of putting out press releases whenever they tested for bikes. The absence of such press releases in recent months seems to indicate that bike testing has been rare.
Some general comments/thoughts:
1. Beyond or besides being *a joke*, more to the point imo is that the testing is *rigged*.
2. I would indeed argue that the purpose of the bike changes is first and foremost to recharge (at least for Cance 2010 it quite clearly was) and/or to switch from a non-motorized to a motorized bike/wheel.
3. As you allude to, the other thing that might prompt wheel and/or bike changes is weight considerations. Although what/how/why exactly remains guess work.
4. I agree motors will be most useful at the end of the race. If there is any testing at all at the finish, again see under #1.
5. In the context of the Van Aerts rumors it was reported on twitter recently that there has been no, zero, nada, bike testing at any of the pro cyclo cross races post-worlds. Also, the UCI has been in the habit of putting out press releases whenever they tested for bikes. The absence of such press releases in recent months seems to indicate that bike testing has been rare.
Re:
Thanks–I think I still have the same questions.
I don't really understand the weight argument with the UCI limit. If one is using a crank or hub motor, and all bikes (motorized and not motorized) are right at the limit, why bother changing? It seems likely that you can put a motor in the bike and be right at the weight limit. No weight advantage in changing to/from a lighter bike, as all bikes must be over the limit. Presumably this equation changes with a wheel motor, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Cancellara or Froome examples are wheel motors.
That leaves the notion that the testing, however it's conducted, happens before the races.
That still leaves one wondering a bit, as I tend to doubt they're examining the EXACT bike, in the hands of the rider, as they approach the start line. Rather they're examining a lot of bikes in the pit area before the race.
So assuming the latter, why not just roll to the start with the motorized bike? Maybe teams are saving the "hot" bike for the last in case there are accidents or mechanicals. That does seem to make sense.
I guess I kind of answered my own question, but would love to hear others' thoughts on when they do testing or any of the rest.
sniper said:
Thanks–I think I still have the same questions.
I don't really understand the weight argument with the UCI limit. If one is using a crank or hub motor, and all bikes (motorized and not motorized) are right at the limit, why bother changing? It seems likely that you can put a motor in the bike and be right at the weight limit. No weight advantage in changing to/from a lighter bike, as all bikes must be over the limit. Presumably this equation changes with a wheel motor, but I don't think there is any evidence that the Cancellara or Froome examples are wheel motors.
That leaves the notion that the testing, however it's conducted, happens before the races.
That still leaves one wondering a bit, as I tend to doubt they're examining the EXACT bike, in the hands of the rider, as they approach the start line. Rather they're examining a lot of bikes in the pit area before the race.
So assuming the latter, why not just roll to the start with the motorized bike? Maybe teams are saving the "hot" bike for the last in case there are accidents or mechanicals. That does seem to make sense.
I guess I kind of answered my own question, but would love to hear others' thoughts on when they do testing or any of the rest.
Re: Re:
The risk of damage/puncture is quite high so why risk when you know when you will need to use.
I'm not sure there is any structure to the testing for motors , it seems ad hoc testing with great fanfare if they don't find anything . Happy to be wrong on that.
I tend to agree that risk of damage to the bike would be the major factor in keeping the bike until necessary.red_flanders said:
The risk of damage/puncture is quite high so why risk when you know when you will need to use.
I'm not sure there is any structure to the testing for motors , it seems ad hoc testing with great fanfare if they don't find anything . Happy to be wrong on that.
Agreed, the potential for a mechanical is a good point.
As I posted upthread, when the UCI introduced their I-Pad + software to the press, the argument for why they went with the I-pad and not with infra-red cams was that the I-Pad method was cheap(er) and allowed for a high quantity of testing at as many races from different disciplines as possible.
But in bleak contrast to what they promised the press at that press conference, there has not been a single bike check in cyclo cross post-worlds and, as far as I can tell, there has hardly been any testing at pro tour road races either post-TdF.
Roglic just won the Volta Algarve and it looks like there wasn't any bike testing.
It's piss take.
As I posted upthread, when the UCI introduced their I-Pad + software to the press, the argument for why they went with the I-pad and not with infra-red cams was that the I-Pad method was cheap(er) and allowed for a high quantity of testing at as many races from different disciplines as possible.
But in bleak contrast to what they promised the press at that press conference, there has not been a single bike check in cyclo cross post-worlds and, as far as I can tell, there has hardly been any testing at pro tour road races either post-TdF.
Roglic just won the Volta Algarve and it looks like there wasn't any bike testing.
It's piss take.
Re:
I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?
How many times did Greg change his bike back in the day?red_flanders said:
I think if you think about it ,,,,,,, whats with all the bike changes? Is it a arms race?
Re:
Yep watched Roglic climb like Dan Martin then TT like Tony Martin. When they said he had a big engine they might have been rightsniper said:
Re: Re:
No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...
Seems quite odd.
Semper Fidelis said:
No idea. Don't recall it being a thing even 10-15 years ago, was too young in Greg's day to be noticing stuff like that. Not sure what he has to do with my questions though...
Seems quite odd.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram