Phone calls, barbecues, and bingeing Gossip Girl: What do Tour de France teams get up to on rest days?

@judda6610 Oh please Lord no, don't start telling them they can tell a dodgy bike by the rider not pedalling, I can already imagine the dimwitted local rozzers pulling me over and seizing my bike to crush as I desperately try to explain the concept of "riding downhill" to them.

This effects absolutely no one except professionals. Its like arguing the size of the engine on an F1 car. it only effects those who compete at that level. If bike brands want to they can and do make sub 6.8kg bikes. And there are many bikes in the pro peloton that sit above the 6.8kg mark still. So what is the fuss about? If anything it helps keep a technological level playing field so we know its mostly down to the rider not the equipment.

@OnYerBike If we're going with "Primacy of man/women over machine", there ought to be a minimum weight *in proportion to the weight of the rider*, as well as a minimum CdA for a bike. At that point though there's not much point in developing bike technology though, unless those limits are set significantly lower than what is currently possible, while maintaining structural integrity.

This one again? My answer hasn't changed: An overall weight limit is a obviously stupid way of ensuring bikes are structurally sound. Want to run super lightweight wheels//handlebars/frame/? Fine as long as the overall bike weight is >6.8kg. Hell, you can build a bike as light as you like, and it's fine as you glue some lead weights to the bottom. The opposite is true too - just because something is heavy doesn't mean it's structurally sound (see Bastion's Ti track handlebars in the Tokyo Olympics). If what matters is structural integrity, then the test should be of structural integrity. In some ways this is already enforced by the commercialisation rule, because in order to sell a bicycle component to the public, it needs to have met certain safety standards that relate to ability to withstand loads, fatigue cycles etc (e.g. ISO 4210). If the UCI believes compliance with the relevant standard is insufficient to ensure safety (slightly concerning for the wider public if true), then the UCI could mandate their own, higher standards along the same lines. There might be other reasons to keep the weight limit - for example it is in keeping with the principle of the "primacy of man over machine", and I think it is good for customers that most brands have moved towards a one-bike model for racing (rather than separate aero and climbing bikes). But just stop pretending it's doing anything for safety.

@lesoudeur I blame Marvel.

What is the difference between super predicable and predictable...why is everything "super"?

Kent Police confirmed that there are only 3 people working on these, and they get around 900 submissions every month, so they will only prosecute the most serious cases (though they didn't state collisions). The officer in charge did give me her email address to send links to private YouTube videos in case of any other incidents like this, however one I sent a couple of months ago of a punishment pass bounced back, so there may well be even fewer people in the department now.

Ignorance is not an excuse but it is a reason. A year or so ago, I was contracted by the Met Police in North London to do some free bike checks with them. We would set up on cycle lanes etc and the Police would offer advice on how to lock a cycle correctly and what types of lock to buy and they would offer to security mark the cycle. My small team would offer free bike checks. It was very well intentioned and all about ‘community relations’. However, the Police didn’t have a clue ..They were stopping illegal e-motorbikes and asking me to check the brakes (wot brakes? LOL) etc. I was pointing out to them - without causing any trouble for anyone - that these were not bicycles. The riders had no idea these were e-motorbikes. The police and riders all thought these were bicycles.

I'm curious about that saddle! Looks a bit like a Fizik Terra Argo but flatter from nose to tail, just what I'm after...

@GravelIsNothingNew If it doesn't catch any doping cheats then it shows it's justified as the threat of being tested at any hour has stopped people doping. Interesting logic though, investigations can only be justified if they're certain to discover a particular outcome, in which case there's no sense in having the investigation in the first place...