[ad_1]
So I guess pro cycling is getting crashier.
One possible solution?
Heavier bikes!
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:
[ad_1]
So I guess pro cycling is getting crashier.
One possible solution?
Heavier bikes!
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:
