So I guess pro cycling is getting crashier.
One possible solution?
This would introduce “greater factors of safety,’ which is a fancy way of saying…safety:
Why use one word when you can use four? Why call Froot Loops “delicious” when you can say they have a “higher factor of deliciousness?” I guess it’s the same reason bike reviewers can no longer mention “price” and instead have to refer to “price point.” Does anybody walk into a bodega and say, “Hey, my man, what’s the price point on these Tic Tacs?” No they do not. I have no idea what the difference between “price” and “price point” is, but I do think they should take it all the way and go with “price point factor.”
But yes, I agree a bike with a greater factor of weight would introduce a greater factor of safety–with the added benefit that it would probably reduce the price point factor considerably. I’d start with a more robust frame material, then raise the bars a bit and expand the wheelbase factor for added stability, and perhaps even increase the tire width factor for greater traction and better shock absorption. All of this would no doubt have the added benefit of an increased factor of comfort, which would result in a correspondingly reduced factor of exhaustion at the end of a long stage, ultimately enhancing the factor of safety even further. In fact, the UCI is already working with bicycle designers as I type this, and I just happen to have spy photos of a prototype:
And if they really want to introduce a greater factor of safety enhancement, they should get rid of the press motorbikes and give each rider an analog camera to keep in his waxed handlebar bag, sort of like when people hand out those disposable cameras at weddings. Then after the race they could develop the photos and release them to the media. Problem solved.
Speaking of non sequiturs, here’s one–when I think of my formative bicycling years, one brand that stands out perhaps more than any other is GT:
[From here.]
I never had a GT bike, but I did have various GT parts, like handlebars, and a layback seatpost, and tires I thought were super cool because they came in colors and had knobs that spelled out “GT.” I also remember the winged logo that said “Huntington Beach, CA” on it:
As a kid in dreary New York thumbing through magazines, it seemed like life in California must be an endless existence of ramps, empty pools, BMX bikes and skateboards, and Black Flag shows.
Anyway, even though GT has something of a Proustian effect on me, I haven’t paid attention to them in quite awhile–and presumably I’m not alone, because it sounds like this may be the end:
The story notes GT’s BMX, mountain bike, and road legacy:
And of course they also supplied bikes for the US National Team:
[GT Superbike, via Classic Cycle]
And who could forget this?
But apart from the BMX bikes of my youth, the other thing I most associate with them is their aluminum bikes of the late ’90s and early aughts:
[Via here]
It seems like they became just another Pon brand, but maybe instead they should have reinvented themselves as a throwback aluminum bike company. After all, aluminum is the new steel–just ask Ultraromance, who’s made a cottage industry of bringing back the sorts of ’90s-era aluminum bikes that were once GT’s stock in trade:
And what about the GTB?
[From here.]
Despite being completely unremarkable apart from the triple triangle, it’s become a cult classic. Have you seen what people want for these things?
I mean get real:
Ironically, if GT had simply brought back the GTB exactly as it was and sold it and nothing else, they’d probably be thriving right now. But instead it seems like they’re selling a bunch of bikes nobody really asked them for because every other company will sell you pretty much the exact same thing:
There’s still time, GT. Bring back the Zaskar, the GT ZR-whatever the Lotto road bike was, and the GTB, unchanged. That’s all you need. You can’t miss.