Bike porn

re
and
seatpost
and pedals

Nice post. Very nice post.

Beautiful Bishop Sportif;

Mudguards have dimples, must be fast.



http://f.cl.ly/items/3p183b3T1N1I0P2H3a3u/Screen%20Shot%202012-05-15%20at%2010.06.03%20AM.png

NDS shot fail. Nice bike though. Or would be when they level the bars a bit.

The difference I refer to is how they feel to ride, which are more comfortable and which ultimately aid or inhibit performance because of that.

They feel odd at first, but you adapt quickly. Even with minimal adaptation time, nobody has been able to measure a significant difference in any performance metric by changing crank length by quite large amounts. So, people don't have an optimum, as far as anybody can tell, and if they do nobody knows what it is with a precision of ±1.25mm, which is what the offering of cranks in 2.5mm increments would suggest. Of course, this much should be pretty obvious when you look at the huge range of people who are perfectly happy with 170mm cranks; if there were some ideal crank length, you would expect it to vary more or less in proportion to some morphological measure, yet people from Emma Pooley (5'2") to Theo Bos (6'3") successfully use essentially the same cranks.

Bike porn

it seems that "he" doesn't like bikes

That bishop, dear lord.

Galibiers

are ugly.



oh fuck. wow.

http://f.cl.ly/items/3p183b3T1N1I0P2H3a3u/Screen%20Shot%202012-05-15%20at%2010.06.03%20AM.png

NDS shot fail. Nice bike though. Or would be when they level the bars a bit.

Who rides that?! Willy the Wimp?

I just made a sex wee

WANT!

I need this bike in my life.

They feel odd at first, but you adapt quickly. Even with minimal adaptation time, nobody has been able to measure a significant difference in any performance metric by changing crank length by quite large amounts. So, people don't have an optimum, as far as anybody can tell, and if they do nobody knows what it is with a precision of ±1.25mm, which is what the offering of cranks in 2.5mm increments would suggest. Of course, this much should be pretty obvious when you look at the huge range of people who are perfectly happy with 170mm cranks; if there were some ideal crank length, you would expect it to vary more or less in proportion to some morphological measure, yet people from Emma Pooley (5'2") to Theo Bos (6'3") successfully use essentially the same cranks.

Would smaller cranks not be more aero and also provide less of a dead spot due to the smaller distance they have to cover?

That Bishop is serious business. It's not often I really long to own a bike posted in this thread, but that is one I'd do bad things for.

Bishop is mdcc's favourite kind of bicycle he'd longed to own one day.