Colnago Lars Boom Cyclocross

We were told that we'd need to be really tall to merely fit on 29". Top execs at big bike and tire brands told me 29" would never work, or even get around any sort of corner. This was in 2004 when I was already a while into racing mine, a 2002 Gary Fisher and a 2003 Surly. Now, short ladies are getting XCC/XCO world cup podiums, their season best results on 32", and we're again told we need to be "this" tall. It will be restrictive in climbing and technical stuff. Seewald would have become XCM world champ on BMX bike and that he chose the bike for worlds having just received it days prior...he was probably forced by KTM, right? The evil ploy of the bikeluminiti to sell us bikes by making then better, arrrrrrrrggh! Oh, all the marketing millions being spent to force us to empty our wallets, why oh why? DH and Endoro are largely "safe", same as dirt jump and BMX was from 29". What's curious, is that the bike industry didn't test what size is best, for any terrain or rider height. 700C already existed and was resisted HARD by the big companies. 32" was invented by Walmart to make fun beach cruisers with, just because they wanted to. All of the multi billion bike industry didn't try a thing. Just copy-pasting last year's homework with a slight change, resistance all the new stuff best they could. Except electronic shifting, of course, every must have their bike connected to the mothership...

@mdavidford but it was grrrievious bodily harm!

@Motivated it’s strange how different riders ‘see’ things. My eyes are even older and I’ve done a series of all night road rides with my trusty Raveman 1200PR. Because a needed alight to last the full night, I ran it at 200 lumens, with the odd blast of full power in the trickier bits. I never thought I needed ‘more light’ and we weren’t hanging around. Mind you I come from early 80’s mountain biking when our double Eveready Night Riders were given a massive boost with ‘Xenon bulbs’. To us youngsters it was revolutionary. These and a Petzl Zoom seemed to create almost daylight even though the combined light output was probably around 30 lumens. Luxury…

I'm just confused about where the *inner* earflaps are. 🤔

"your occipital bone – you know, your head’s bum". LOL you should teach anatomy. I'll never forget that word now.

@mdavidford I must admit that my first reaction while watching was that Ciccone had got it. Two things that aren't clear are where exactly was the finish line supposed to be (along the centre of the white line) and what is the margin for error in setting up the scanner to give an unbroken beam signal / image? It may well be that the winning time difference quoted is less than the setup variability of the system. In which case the result should be a dead heat. Perhaps it is more important to have an absolute winner at the expense of a technically correct result?

Maybe that's just underreporting because people don't think it'll be taken seriously, though. "I reported a tiger mauling, and all they did was give me a crrr-ime number."

@TJCD to my 56 year old eyes, I have occasionally been surprised to pass pedestrians in dark clothes or I don't see their dog on a leash unless my light is in the 2000lumen setting. The light is several years old, so probably not putting out 2000lumens any more. When I replace that light, 2000lumen will be the minimum. That's why I read this article. I've also had good impression of CatEye products. I have also tried commuting with my new Exposure Axis Mk10 (1300lumen) and it's not sufficient. I only use it for road bikepacking in case of tunnels, etc. and because it's sturdy and small. For offroad, I think 4000lumen range is where you want to be.

@quiff Which stokes the headlight war even further, because to trigger the automatic system and avoid being blinded yourself, your bike light now has to be bright enough for it to recognise it. 🙃

Obviously police are going to go where the most crime is. Well, the most crime that's currently (un)fashionable with their bosses. Cold comfort to path users though - "the number of reports of people being mauled by tigers remain relatively low when considered across the entirety of the route..." But ... a good fraction of people are going to be traversing a chunk of the route Is imagine, not just crossing it. And - it's a *route*. (Even allowing for the fact it actually goes round Bristol, not straight in...). Certainly far more appealing that the traffic-heavy junction-rich steeply-inclined roads thereabouts. (Not a local but have visited the area a few times now).