I got this from Mike Smith, who does great cartoons on NASCAR. I like Mike's perspective on not going back to "stock" cars, and knowing what I know from being in the sport, I think he makes some cogent arguments, particularly about safety.
A stock car can’t come from the showroom floor
By Mike Smith
As Ronald Reagan said in a presidential debate with Jimmy Carter: “There you go again.” Those are exactly the words that come to my mind when I hear a NASCAR fan say that the sport should return to using cars that are in their stock configuration. Time and time again I have heard and read this ridiculous comment from fans of Sprint Cup racing who are convinced the sport would improve if it turned the clock back to the days when drivers raced the same car they drove to the grocery store every week. Competing in cars taken from the showroom floor makes about as much sense as adding a row of seats to the Wright brother’s plane and calling it a commercial jetliner.
Pretend for a moment that the cars we drive on the street were used in NASCAR. How exciting would it be to watch a pack of front-wheel-drive cars with six-cylinder engines huff and puff their way around the high banks of Talladega? (The Impala SS is the only model sold with a V8)
Frankly, I’m not sure these cars could maintain enough speed to create the centrifugal force needed to keep the cars from sliding down the banking. And since the engines and transmissions of these cars aren’t engineered to withstand the sustained high RPMs we see in Sprint Cup racing, there wouldn’t be a single car capable of finishing 50 laps let alone 500. If you think the racing is boring now, imagine what a snoozer this race would be.
And what about safety? It would be absurd for anyone to suggest that welding in a roll cage and bolting in a racing seat to a car straight off of the showroom floor is enough to protect a driver.
I’ve read a few comments from racing fans suggesting that the stock bodies should be applied to the current racecars. Assuming this is possible, how would NASCAR insure that one manufacturer didn’t have an aerodynamic advantage? The sport’s pursuit of parity on the racetrack would die.
I don’t think the COT is perfect. I can understand the frustrations many fans have regarding the cookie-cutter look of the COT and I think there has to be a balance between trying to achieve parity and allowing for some individuality in the design area. But going back to racing cars from a car dealer’s showroom floor is an option that makes no sense.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Rethinking The Auto Crisis
Check out this point of view. It's a little over the top at times, but I like to study positions from all sides. After reading this, does your perspective change? About the car companies? About Congress?
What Auto CEOs Should Have Said Posted by Gary Witzenburg
Shouldn't those auto/government hearings have been reversed? Did it occur to anyone else that those oh-so-painful auto CEO/government hearings should have been the other way around?
Instead of the heads of America's three remaining automakers groveling, begging and enduring live public floggings trying to sell their case for government loans to get them past the global economic crisis and credit freeze that government greed, corruption and incompetence has created, shouldn't they have been vein-popping outraged and angry? Shouldn't they have pointed accusatory fingers at that sorry collection of arrogant, auto-ignorant Senators and Congressmen who got them into this mess and demanded their assistance? Shouldn't they have looked those pompous public-trough pinheads straight in the face and demanded to know why investment firms, banks and big insurance get hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout dollars no questions asked while what's left of America's once-mighty manufacturing muscle begs for loans totaling 1/28 of that initial $700 billion Wall Street bailout? Where were the public humiliation hearings and newly viable business plans for those guys? Here is what I'll bet those long-suffering auto CEOs wanted to say, but couldn't:
"You ignorant morons! How dare you accuse us of building cars nobody wants? We sold 8.5 million vehicles in the US last year and millions more around the world. GM still handily outsells Toyota here, Ford outsells Honda and Nissan, and Chrysler sells more than Nissan and Hyundai combined. How many of our new cars have you driven lately? How many quality surveys and plant productivity reports have you reviewed? Have you bothered to check your own EPA's fuel economy ratings? "Have you paid any attention in the last several years as we've turned our companies upside down, closed dozens of plants, shed hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who did nothing to deserve it, canceled slow-selling models and spent billions of hard-earned dollars redesigning the rest? Are you idiots even aware that we renegotiated our union contracts last year to make our US labor and health-care costs fully competitive by 2010?
"Would you recognize a good business plan if one smacked you upside the head? Have any of you ever run a business, made a business decision or even held a real job? Is there any more dysfunctional organization on the planet, any that more desperately needs a new business plan, than the US Congress? Let's compare our public approval ratings to yours.
"You scold us for using private aircraft? We run global companies flying people, parts and equipment all over the world every day. We use private planes for security and productivity and cost savings over commercial alternatives. If it were not cost effective, we would not do it, and we've been doing a lot less of it lately. Tell us, Ms. Pelosi, how much does that big private 757-200 of yours cost taxpayers to fly you home and back between your tough 3-day weeks?
"For decades, your national energy policy has been summed up by two words: 'cheap gas.' Now you want to punish us for building the big, capable, comfortable vehicles Americans wanted to take advantage of that policy...and for not building millions more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that, until recently, almost no one wanted, and that we can't make a buck on if we build them here thanks to the high business costs you've imposed upon us through the years.
"You have blocked every avenue of domestic exploration and construction that could lead to eventual energy independence, preferring instead to pump hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to purchase the energy Americans need, much of it from countries that are not our friends. You have piled billions of dollars of unrecoverable costs on us with excessive taxation, overkill regulation and relentless litigation that our off-shore competitors do not have to bear. Then you have rolled out the red carpet to predatory, low-cost foreign competitors who come here to take our market and pump hundreds of millions more dollars out of this country.
"Is there any other country fortunate enough to have an automotive industry that does not support, protect and nourish it in every possible way? We are the only nation on earth too blind and stupid to recognize and treasure the enormous economic and national security advantages of having its own healthy, prosperous auto industry and manufacturing base.
"Now you have passed an enormously expensive new regulation requiring 40 percent higher corporate average fuel economy in hopes of someday reducing the less than 0.2 percent of global human-sourced CO2 attributable to US light vehicles. That will cost us an estimated $100 billion, and even if you believe that is really worth doing at such a cost, where are we going to get that kind of money? Talk about unfunded mandates!
"With recent resizings and restructurings and our new labor contracts, we were well on our ways to full financial competitiveness and profitability. We could have survived and the sudden $4 gas explosion - not our fault - that shifted buyer demand overnight from larger, more profitable vehicles to small unprofitable ones. We have millions of highly desirable, much more fuel-efficient small cars and engines in the pipeline for 2010 and beyond.
"Then came your mortgage meltdown and fast-frozen credit crisis, which no one in this credit-driven business can survive unaided for long: not us, not our suppliers, not our many thousands of independent dealers, not even our most cash-rich foreign competitors. They, too, are asking their governments for assistance. Will they get it? Of course! No other nation will stand idly by and watch its auto industry die.
"There was no end of election rhetoric about creating new jobs. How about saving several million of the ones we have? Can any of you begin to understand how this industry is a huge, fragile, interdependent house of cards? If GM should fail, or declare Chapter 11, so will most of its 3,690 suppliers, beginning with the 2,000 in the US that operate 4,550 facilities in 46 states. Since most also supply key components to everyone else, that will bring down all of us, including US transplant production. Don't believe us? Ask Toyota.
"Vehicle assembly, engine, transmission and parts plants nationwide will shut down. Have you seen a plant town whose plant has died? It's a jobless ghost town whose out-of-work residents, including owners and employees of the small businesses that depended on plant workers' incomes, can't afford to move because their homes – like their hopes and dreams – are worthless. How many of those communities will be in your states and districts? US dealers of all brands, with no new cars, credit or credit-worthy customers, will drop like flies. Without once lucrative auto advertising, many media will shrink and some will die? The predicted initial loss of 3 million jobs will be just the beginning. Can you spell depression?
"Yes, we have lost a lot of market share. Where did you think all those millions of cars and trucks our foreign competitors import and assemble here in taxpayer-subsidized plants in cheap-labor states would be sold, and out of whose hides did you think they would come?
"Yes, we have made mistakes, some bad products and bad business decisions in the past. And so has every one of our competitors. We are entirely different companies today with new leadership and new priorities. We have wide varieties of high quality, high fuel efficiency, highly desirable new products that Americans, as they get to know them, absolutely do want to buy. Why continue to punish us, and the millions of incredibly dedicated, hard-working people at all levels who still depend on us to feed their families, for the sins of our predecessors?
"Why punish the entire country and millions in other countries as well? If you can think of any good reason, we would like to hear it. And don't come back at us with your usual name-calling, finger-pointing, blame-shifting, uninformed opinions, decades-old perceptions and self-serving, grandstanding rhetoric. We have offered our business plans and all the facts behind how we got here and why we need and deserve to survive and prosper for the good of this country and every citizen in it.
"You know full well that this life-threatening position you have put us into is entirely your fault, not ours, and that our future viability depends completely on you. We're anxiously awaiting your business plan for guiding this country out of the economic morass you have created, beginning with the bridge loans we desperately need."
What Auto CEOs Should Have Said Posted by Gary Witzenburg
Shouldn't those auto/government hearings have been reversed? Did it occur to anyone else that those oh-so-painful auto CEO/government hearings should have been the other way around?
Instead of the heads of America's three remaining automakers groveling, begging and enduring live public floggings trying to sell their case for government loans to get them past the global economic crisis and credit freeze that government greed, corruption and incompetence has created, shouldn't they have been vein-popping outraged and angry? Shouldn't they have pointed accusatory fingers at that sorry collection of arrogant, auto-ignorant Senators and Congressmen who got them into this mess and demanded their assistance? Shouldn't they have looked those pompous public-trough pinheads straight in the face and demanded to know why investment firms, banks and big insurance get hundreds of billions of taxpayer bailout dollars no questions asked while what's left of America's once-mighty manufacturing muscle begs for loans totaling 1/28 of that initial $700 billion Wall Street bailout? Where were the public humiliation hearings and newly viable business plans for those guys? Here is what I'll bet those long-suffering auto CEOs wanted to say, but couldn't:
"You ignorant morons! How dare you accuse us of building cars nobody wants? We sold 8.5 million vehicles in the US last year and millions more around the world. GM still handily outsells Toyota here, Ford outsells Honda and Nissan, and Chrysler sells more than Nissan and Hyundai combined. How many of our new cars have you driven lately? How many quality surveys and plant productivity reports have you reviewed? Have you bothered to check your own EPA's fuel economy ratings? "Have you paid any attention in the last several years as we've turned our companies upside down, closed dozens of plants, shed hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who did nothing to deserve it, canceled slow-selling models and spent billions of hard-earned dollars redesigning the rest? Are you idiots even aware that we renegotiated our union contracts last year to make our US labor and health-care costs fully competitive by 2010?
"Would you recognize a good business plan if one smacked you upside the head? Have any of you ever run a business, made a business decision or even held a real job? Is there any more dysfunctional organization on the planet, any that more desperately needs a new business plan, than the US Congress? Let's compare our public approval ratings to yours.
"You scold us for using private aircraft? We run global companies flying people, parts and equipment all over the world every day. We use private planes for security and productivity and cost savings over commercial alternatives. If it were not cost effective, we would not do it, and we've been doing a lot less of it lately. Tell us, Ms. Pelosi, how much does that big private 757-200 of yours cost taxpayers to fly you home and back between your tough 3-day weeks?
"For decades, your national energy policy has been summed up by two words: 'cheap gas.' Now you want to punish us for building the big, capable, comfortable vehicles Americans wanted to take advantage of that policy...and for not building millions more smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that, until recently, almost no one wanted, and that we can't make a buck on if we build them here thanks to the high business costs you've imposed upon us through the years.
"You have blocked every avenue of domestic exploration and construction that could lead to eventual energy independence, preferring instead to pump hundreds of billions of dollars overseas to purchase the energy Americans need, much of it from countries that are not our friends. You have piled billions of dollars of unrecoverable costs on us with excessive taxation, overkill regulation and relentless litigation that our off-shore competitors do not have to bear. Then you have rolled out the red carpet to predatory, low-cost foreign competitors who come here to take our market and pump hundreds of millions more dollars out of this country.
"Is there any other country fortunate enough to have an automotive industry that does not support, protect and nourish it in every possible way? We are the only nation on earth too blind and stupid to recognize and treasure the enormous economic and national security advantages of having its own healthy, prosperous auto industry and manufacturing base.
"Now you have passed an enormously expensive new regulation requiring 40 percent higher corporate average fuel economy in hopes of someday reducing the less than 0.2 percent of global human-sourced CO2 attributable to US light vehicles. That will cost us an estimated $100 billion, and even if you believe that is really worth doing at such a cost, where are we going to get that kind of money? Talk about unfunded mandates!
"With recent resizings and restructurings and our new labor contracts, we were well on our ways to full financial competitiveness and profitability. We could have survived and the sudden $4 gas explosion - not our fault - that shifted buyer demand overnight from larger, more profitable vehicles to small unprofitable ones. We have millions of highly desirable, much more fuel-efficient small cars and engines in the pipeline for 2010 and beyond.
"Then came your mortgage meltdown and fast-frozen credit crisis, which no one in this credit-driven business can survive unaided for long: not us, not our suppliers, not our many thousands of independent dealers, not even our most cash-rich foreign competitors. They, too, are asking their governments for assistance. Will they get it? Of course! No other nation will stand idly by and watch its auto industry die.
"There was no end of election rhetoric about creating new jobs. How about saving several million of the ones we have? Can any of you begin to understand how this industry is a huge, fragile, interdependent house of cards? If GM should fail, or declare Chapter 11, so will most of its 3,690 suppliers, beginning with the 2,000 in the US that operate 4,550 facilities in 46 states. Since most also supply key components to everyone else, that will bring down all of us, including US transplant production. Don't believe us? Ask Toyota.
"Vehicle assembly, engine, transmission and parts plants nationwide will shut down. Have you seen a plant town whose plant has died? It's a jobless ghost town whose out-of-work residents, including owners and employees of the small businesses that depended on plant workers' incomes, can't afford to move because their homes – like their hopes and dreams – are worthless. How many of those communities will be in your states and districts? US dealers of all brands, with no new cars, credit or credit-worthy customers, will drop like flies. Without once lucrative auto advertising, many media will shrink and some will die? The predicted initial loss of 3 million jobs will be just the beginning. Can you spell depression?
"Yes, we have lost a lot of market share. Where did you think all those millions of cars and trucks our foreign competitors import and assemble here in taxpayer-subsidized plants in cheap-labor states would be sold, and out of whose hides did you think they would come?
"Yes, we have made mistakes, some bad products and bad business decisions in the past. And so has every one of our competitors. We are entirely different companies today with new leadership and new priorities. We have wide varieties of high quality, high fuel efficiency, highly desirable new products that Americans, as they get to know them, absolutely do want to buy. Why continue to punish us, and the millions of incredibly dedicated, hard-working people at all levels who still depend on us to feed their families, for the sins of our predecessors?
"Why punish the entire country and millions in other countries as well? If you can think of any good reason, we would like to hear it. And don't come back at us with your usual name-calling, finger-pointing, blame-shifting, uninformed opinions, decades-old perceptions and self-serving, grandstanding rhetoric. We have offered our business plans and all the facts behind how we got here and why we need and deserve to survive and prosper for the good of this country and every citizen in it.
"You know full well that this life-threatening position you have put us into is entirely your fault, not ours, and that our future viability depends completely on you. We're anxiously awaiting your business plan for guiding this country out of the economic morass you have created, beginning with the bridge loans we desperately need."
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Cost of Now
I got this from Seth Godin's blog, and it really hit home:
The high cost of now
The closer you get to the source and moment of information, the more it costs.
If you wanted to be the first person to see Nokia's new phone, you could have flown to Berlin, as Robert Scoble did. Or you could have been the second person by obsessively hitting refresh on his posts. Or you could have been the tenth person by having it show up in your feed later in the day. Or you could wait a week and see it everywhere. Or in a year, get one on eBay for $5...
If you want to know how the stock market did in 2006, you can spend ten seconds and find it in Wikipedia. If you want to know about today, you'll need to invest a few clicks and you'll get the delayed results. Or you could pay a lot of money for a stock market terminal and get the current prices. Or you could even risk prison and get some inside information about what's going to happen before it happens.
More than ever, there's a clear relationship between how new something is and how much it costs to discover that news.
You can check your email twice a day pretty easily. Once every fifteen minutes has a disruption cost. Pinging it with your pocketphone every sixty seconds is an extremely expensive lifestyle/productivity choice.
Sure, go ahead, stay hyper-current, but realize it's not free.
Zara, the European clothing chain, deliberately invests more than the competition in getting close to the 'now' of unit sales by store. As a result of this investment, they are far more agile (and more profitable) than most other stores.
The interesting questions:
Are you getting what you're paying for in your quest for now?
Is it worth it?
Sometimes, in our quest for the new, we overpay. Most of the time, moving down the curve will decrease your costs dramatically, without hurting your ability to make smart decisions. Alternatively, when you choose to spend the time (or money), leverage it like crazy.
I bet you are overspending on now. Not everywhere, just in the wrong areas. Worth an audit, probably.
I have to admit to overspending somewhat. Not "playing the lottery" type of spending (i.e., basically throwing money away) or "buying drinks until you puke" spending (i.e., regret doing it later), but more of the type of "investment" spend associated with reading the paper or the Business Journal. I'm not sure how I will use the info, or not sure if I will gain from it, but it's worth checking out. Also, I like to look for disparate pieces of information and try to connect them. The info also gives me a better understanding of what's going on around me.
I am sure most people who do tend to be attached to their Blackberrys hear from their friends and family from time to time with "why do need to check that thing all the time?!!!" This is undertandable and certainly inappropriate at times. More so now, with the desire to post a Tweet more and more often. There has to be a balance, and definitely "no checking your Blackberry" times. I suspect I am overspent a little, leveraged a little, but not to the subprime mortgage level. Getting a Blackberry Storm didn't help. We'll see how this investment in NOW turns out.
The high cost of now
The closer you get to the source and moment of information, the more it costs.
If you wanted to be the first person to see Nokia's new phone, you could have flown to Berlin, as Robert Scoble did. Or you could have been the second person by obsessively hitting refresh on his posts. Or you could have been the tenth person by having it show up in your feed later in the day. Or you could wait a week and see it everywhere. Or in a year, get one on eBay for $5...
If you want to know how the stock market did in 2006, you can spend ten seconds and find it in Wikipedia. If you want to know about today, you'll need to invest a few clicks and you'll get the delayed results. Or you could pay a lot of money for a stock market terminal and get the current prices. Or you could even risk prison and get some inside information about what's going to happen before it happens.
More than ever, there's a clear relationship between how new something is and how much it costs to discover that news.
You can check your email twice a day pretty easily. Once every fifteen minutes has a disruption cost. Pinging it with your pocketphone every sixty seconds is an extremely expensive lifestyle/productivity choice.
Sure, go ahead, stay hyper-current, but realize it's not free.
Zara, the European clothing chain, deliberately invests more than the competition in getting close to the 'now' of unit sales by store. As a result of this investment, they are far more agile (and more profitable) than most other stores.
The interesting questions:
Are you getting what you're paying for in your quest for now?
Is it worth it?
Sometimes, in our quest for the new, we overpay. Most of the time, moving down the curve will decrease your costs dramatically, without hurting your ability to make smart decisions. Alternatively, when you choose to spend the time (or money), leverage it like crazy.
I bet you are overspending on now. Not everywhere, just in the wrong areas. Worth an audit, probably.
I have to admit to overspending somewhat. Not "playing the lottery" type of spending (i.e., basically throwing money away) or "buying drinks until you puke" spending (i.e., regret doing it later), but more of the type of "investment" spend associated with reading the paper or the Business Journal. I'm not sure how I will use the info, or not sure if I will gain from it, but it's worth checking out. Also, I like to look for disparate pieces of information and try to connect them. The info also gives me a better understanding of what's going on around me.
I am sure most people who do tend to be attached to their Blackberrys hear from their friends and family from time to time with "why do need to check that thing all the time?!!!" This is undertandable and certainly inappropriate at times. More so now, with the desire to post a Tweet more and more often. There has to be a balance, and definitely "no checking your Blackberry" times. I suspect I am overspent a little, leveraged a little, but not to the subprime mortgage level. Getting a Blackberry Storm didn't help. We'll see how this investment in NOW turns out.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
I have been warned of the impending revolution that is Twitter. My friend Jeff Holt (who has over 500 people following him on Twitter) is convinced that Twitter is going to take over the social networking frontier and be the primary tool for communicating. There are a lot of neat ideas on how to utilize Twitter, both personally and for business. Obama utilized several of them in his campaign, and we are looking at some for 24 Hours of Booty.
The trick is to keep pushing info out there, while also absorbing the flow of info coming from the people you are following. It can be quite absorbing. However, the information coming from that feed, if thought about and processed, could lead to new directions, accelerated decision making, and/or just feeling more connected to people and the community.
What is boring, or benign, or worthy of a post? Who knows. I do know that Chris Carmichael (Lance's coach) is getting better on his runs up the Incline in Colorado. And that he's sick right now. Why is that important? Not sure, but I am more informed and might even send Chris a get well note.
I'm Twittering at www.twitter.com/spencerlueders. Viva la Revolution!
The trick is to keep pushing info out there, while also absorbing the flow of info coming from the people you are following. It can be quite absorbing. However, the information coming from that feed, if thought about and processed, could lead to new directions, accelerated decision making, and/or just feeling more connected to people and the community.
What is boring, or benign, or worthy of a post? Who knows. I do know that Chris Carmichael (Lance's coach) is getting better on his runs up the Incline in Colorado. And that he's sick right now. Why is that important? Not sure, but I am more informed and might even send Chris a get well note.
I'm Twittering at www.twitter.com/spencerlueders. Viva la Revolution!
Friday, October 10, 2008
Start something in your neighborhood
Have you ever thought "I wish I/we knew more people in the neighborhood" or "I/We never see people in the neighborhood"? Even if you live in a suburban cul de sac and are tight with your close neighbors, what about the rest of the neighborhood?
For the past several years, my wife and I have organized and thrown a neighborhood BBQ. The response has been fantastic, as we take over a low-traffic street and let the kids run crazy (and there are a lot of them) while the parents and neighbors eat, drink, and socialize. Not only do folks get to meet each other, but you end up generating a nice neighborhood "roster" for communications and services (pet sitting, babysitting). It also builds more neighborhood cohesiveness and goodwill. It also gives the local police department a chance to come out and address the neighbors and talk about what they are doing for us (and the kids dig the police car). And it's just fun to do.
Too much work to set this up? Not really. Distribute flyers, organize enough tables, make sure you have a place to hold it, and off you go. Ask a few friends to help and give input (we do!). Bottom line is, the value you will bring to your neighborhood by making the effort will far outweigh the time setting this up. What's holding you back from making a difference?
For the past several years, my wife and I have organized and thrown a neighborhood BBQ. The response has been fantastic, as we take over a low-traffic street and let the kids run crazy (and there are a lot of them) while the parents and neighbors eat, drink, and socialize. Not only do folks get to meet each other, but you end up generating a nice neighborhood "roster" for communications and services (pet sitting, babysitting). It also builds more neighborhood cohesiveness and goodwill. It also gives the local police department a chance to come out and address the neighbors and talk about what they are doing for us (and the kids dig the police car). And it's just fun to do.
Too much work to set this up? Not really. Distribute flyers, organize enough tables, make sure you have a place to hold it, and off you go. Ask a few friends to help and give input (we do!). Bottom line is, the value you will bring to your neighborhood by making the effort will far outweigh the time setting this up. What's holding you back from making a difference?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
3Twelve?
Three Twelve. As in three hundred twelve or 312. Miles, that is. That number is significant to me because it is the number of miles I rode at the first 24 Hours of Booty. I have vivid memories of that initial solo ride, but one part I have not really spoken of was the bike I was on for that ride.
I chose the weekend of November 3-4 for the ride, and my last race of the season was in mid October (Hincapie's Michelin Classic crit). I had an opportunity to sell my race bike right after that race, so I did. Without a bike, I was in a pinch. The thought of riding an unknown bike was not appealing, but I turned to my long time homeboy and best friend, Jeff Corbett, for a rig. Jeff was running the 7UP Pro Cycling Team at the time, and it just so happened that I had Jeff's "Team Sebnup" bike with me after the Michelin Classic. It would be nice to think Jeff called offering his support and graciously offer his bike, but this is Crusty Corbett. Truth is, I basically commandeered his bike. "Don't fuck it up," he said. I didn't.
It was a 58cm frame with 175 cranks. Perfect. I rode the small ring exclusively, using the 39x16 on the uphill portions. I was surprised at how easily I adapted to the bike, even the saddle. Of course, having two pairs of bibs on probably helped with adapting to the saddle, not because I was getting saddles sores, but because it was freezing at night! No mechanicals the whole ride, just pumped up the tires and went. So big props to Jeff for being part of the first 24 Hours of Booty. I'm hoping he's part of many more.
I chose the weekend of November 3-4 for the ride, and my last race of the season was in mid October (Hincapie's Michelin Classic crit). I had an opportunity to sell my race bike right after that race, so I did. Without a bike, I was in a pinch. The thought of riding an unknown bike was not appealing, but I turned to my long time homeboy and best friend, Jeff Corbett, for a rig. Jeff was running the 7UP Pro Cycling Team at the time, and it just so happened that I had Jeff's "Team Sebnup" bike with me after the Michelin Classic. It would be nice to think Jeff called offering his support and graciously offer his bike, but this is Crusty Corbett. Truth is, I basically commandeered his bike. "Don't fuck it up," he said. I didn't.
It was a 58cm frame with 175 cranks. Perfect. I rode the small ring exclusively, using the 39x16 on the uphill portions. I was surprised at how easily I adapted to the bike, even the saddle. Of course, having two pairs of bibs on probably helped with adapting to the saddle, not because I was getting saddles sores, but because it was freezing at night! No mechanicals the whole ride, just pumped up the tires and went. So big props to Jeff for being part of the first 24 Hours of Booty. I'm hoping he's part of many more.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Resistance to change
I would like to think that I am a pretty progressive guy, at least in terms of paying attention to new technology. I may not be a "first mover," but I like reading about the latest stuff and figuring out how I can use it. Of course, I also look at all the new bike stuff and geeking out on the latest components, frame designs, etc. However, there's one area that I have yet to move away from: my saddle. Here's why:
For the past 10+ years I have used the same type of saddle, a Selle Italia Turbomatic 4. This is a big, heavy, low-tech saddle that evolved from the Turbo saddle that Miguel Indurain used back in the early '90's. There was a Turbo II, then a Turbomatic 3, and finally the Turbomatic 4. This is a saddle that probably 1/3 of the european pro peloton used in its heyday. Comfy and ready for riding all day.
I liked the feel and stuck with it under the "comfort is king" mantra. I knew every curve of my saddle, to the point that I could even tell if my rear tire was slightly low on air because of the change in pitch of the saddle caused by the tire going down. Sure, I attempted to stray a couple times with some new fangled saddle, but everything felt like a piece of steel or about as wide as a ruler. Usually both. I didn't need to change, and frankly didn't want to, but Selle Italia discontinued the Turbomatic 4. Not a problem at first, thanks to eBay. I loaded up on six of them and put them on my road bike, tt bike, fixed gear, and mountain bike. Spares were used when a saddle was crashed or went bad (unlike the new carbon saddles, the foam in the old saddles starts to sag and plastic bases bend). I'm now down to my last saddle.
So I decided to try another saddle one more time. But this time, I relied on some new technology. At 24 Hours of Booty this year, the Trek guys had the new Bontrager saddle fitter thingamajig that could measure your sit bones and recommend a new InForm saddle in the appropriate width. Sounded a little gimmicky, but I tried it anyway.
I bought an InForm RXL in the 146mm width per the saddle fitter. The saddle is very minimal with hollow titanium rails and felt pretty damn firm, especially compared to the old faithful Turbomatic 4. I measured it as close as I could with my Turbomatic position and took it out for a spin. And, much to my amazement, it felt not only bearable, but actually as if my sit bones were taking the load like the saddle propaganda advertised. I felt fine on it in one ride with no soreness either. Amazing. It feels strange to not have the sides of the saddle rubbing my inner thighs like the Turbomatic, but that's a good thing. Also lightened up the bike by almost a pound, which I can only really tell when I'm out of the saddle stepping on the gas and the bike is rocking back and forth.
So I'm a happy camper with my new saddle, and a little proud of myself that I could finally let my old saddles go. It was kind of strange to have an $8,000, full-carbon bike with an old school '90's saddle anyway....
For the past 10+ years I have used the same type of saddle, a Selle Italia Turbomatic 4. This is a big, heavy, low-tech saddle that evolved from the Turbo saddle that Miguel Indurain used back in the early '90's. There was a Turbo II, then a Turbomatic 3, and finally the Turbomatic 4. This is a saddle that probably 1/3 of the european pro peloton used in its heyday. Comfy and ready for riding all day.
I liked the feel and stuck with it under the "comfort is king" mantra. I knew every curve of my saddle, to the point that I could even tell if my rear tire was slightly low on air because of the change in pitch of the saddle caused by the tire going down. Sure, I attempted to stray a couple times with some new fangled saddle, but everything felt like a piece of steel or about as wide as a ruler. Usually both. I didn't need to change, and frankly didn't want to, but Selle Italia discontinued the Turbomatic 4. Not a problem at first, thanks to eBay. I loaded up on six of them and put them on my road bike, tt bike, fixed gear, and mountain bike. Spares were used when a saddle was crashed or went bad (unlike the new carbon saddles, the foam in the old saddles starts to sag and plastic bases bend). I'm now down to my last saddle.
So I decided to try another saddle one more time. But this time, I relied on some new technology. At 24 Hours of Booty this year, the Trek guys had the new Bontrager saddle fitter thingamajig that could measure your sit bones and recommend a new InForm saddle in the appropriate width. Sounded a little gimmicky, but I tried it anyway.
I bought an InForm RXL in the 146mm width per the saddle fitter. The saddle is very minimal with hollow titanium rails and felt pretty damn firm, especially compared to the old faithful Turbomatic 4. I measured it as close as I could with my Turbomatic position and took it out for a spin. And, much to my amazement, it felt not only bearable, but actually as if my sit bones were taking the load like the saddle propaganda advertised. I felt fine on it in one ride with no soreness either. Amazing. It feels strange to not have the sides of the saddle rubbing my inner thighs like the Turbomatic, but that's a good thing. Also lightened up the bike by almost a pound, which I can only really tell when I'm out of the saddle stepping on the gas and the bike is rocking back and forth.
So I'm a happy camper with my new saddle, and a little proud of myself that I could finally let my old saddles go. It was kind of strange to have an $8,000, full-carbon bike with an old school '90's saddle anyway....
Sunday, September 14, 2008
How to take 3 kids for a bike ride
Here's how we do it: I have a baby seat that fits on the top tube between the seat and handlebar, which is really nice because the kid can see and you can communicate better. I've never crashed with a kid in the seat, but I suppose if you did your arms would protect the kid better than a rear-mounted baby seat. A "free loader" tag-along type bike (no front wheel) is connected at the seat post, so you have a little stoker back there. Then one on a separate bike. The cruiser bike I use is a Trek Clyde with internal 4-speed hub. It was one of the first generation cruiser bikes that are fairly common now, it looks cool and has old school lines. Pretty decent workout with two kids attached to the bike, and we do about an hour riding around the neighborhoods. A couple times we have also attached a Burley trailer to the bike of the free loader and filled it with bikes, toys, etc, and rode to a destination. Now THAT is a sight!
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Suburban dad?
Today marks the first fall soccer game for any of my kids. Ironically, my daughter is starting first. My mind goes back to my first soccer team when I was 4, the Cobras. We were purple and white, with fully flammable polyester jerseys. I played left wing then since I was one of the few lefties, didn't switch to goalkeeper until late elementary or junior high. Even though I sort of burned out after playing through college, the old juices are starting to come back seeing my daughter get ready. I will probably find myself coaching at some point, and that's cool by me. Will this be the start of the classic suburban weekend pattern of sports games? Probably. Bring it on.
Friday, September 12, 2008
I am old school, I guess...
At the urging of my friend Jeff Holt, off I go into blogging. Who knows how relevant my post are to your life, but I'm interested to see how things go. First thought:
When Lance announced he was coming back for the Tour, my initial reaction was "Crap, he won't be coming to 24 Hours of Booty!" Then, almost reflexively, I thought "Crap, I have to go to France!" I'm hoping to make that happen, but depends if my wife can go with or if it's some sort of weekend sortie with my dad.
Seems like Lance can go nowhere but down, I mean the guy left at the top of the sport. But think of the result if he wins. He would blast into the statosphere and be a bigger icon than he is.
He has a lot riding on it in a sense, but at the same time doesn't. With the cancer community following the 7-Star General of the LiveSTRONG Army, and with the sporting world watching as well, he cannot have anything go wrong or some sort of scandal break out. If he doesn't win, it's not the end of the world, but his star may lose some shine as a "declining athlete coming back and finding he can't compete." My sense is that he has vetted the race and the riders in contention and thinks he can school them, so I say rock on.
When Lance announced he was coming back for the Tour, my initial reaction was "Crap, he won't be coming to 24 Hours of Booty!" Then, almost reflexively, I thought "Crap, I have to go to France!" I'm hoping to make that happen, but depends if my wife can go with or if it's some sort of weekend sortie with my dad.
Seems like Lance can go nowhere but down, I mean the guy left at the top of the sport. But think of the result if he wins. He would blast into the statosphere and be a bigger icon than he is.
He has a lot riding on it in a sense, but at the same time doesn't. With the cancer community following the 7-Star General of the LiveSTRONG Army, and with the sporting world watching as well, he cannot have anything go wrong or some sort of scandal break out. If he doesn't win, it's not the end of the world, but his star may lose some shine as a "declining athlete coming back and finding he can't compete." My sense is that he has vetted the race and the riders in contention and thinks he can school them, so I say rock on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
