Any question answered...

a website that...goes back to the early 90's

There's your trouble. Well, that and the grocers' apostrophe. The kind of detailed breakdown of pro gear your looking for only makes sense as a contemporaneous web article, so it only started when the web had enough audience to make it viable. Even now, the coverage is not comprehensive by reference to just the main news sites, so there's a bit of detective work to do among the sponsor sites and team publicity to nail down the more obscure services courses.

There are histories of some of the frame and equipment brands, but nobody was collating a list of which combinations were used by particular teams, and many of the histories are occult anyway, either because the brands have no interest in their own history and not enough cachet for a geek to compile them, or because they were never published in an accessible way and the companies are now defunct.

There is enough good quality photography from at least that early for an obsessive cataloguer to pore over to create such a resource, but it might fall to you to be that person.

ETA: 2002 looks like the practical starting point of the kind of thing you're after which is still accessible. Not comprehensive, but a start. You might have to tweak the details of the URL to get successive years, but the Autobus engine seems pretty flexible.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2002/features/probikes/

I'd also add that things which existed in the 90s might be gone now - my brother created a pretty comprehensive catalogue of major event (Grand Tours and Classics) results up to 1998 when the internet was all fields and maintained and updated it for about five years, but doing it just for fun stopped being fun when various things got in the way, such as changes in technology, the need to earn a living, and the number of asterisks required once the doping stopped being funny and started actually affecting the results. The resource is now gone as far as the public is concerned, and there's no prospect of its coming back because the effort of recoding far exceeds the reward.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2002/tech/probikes/phonak/bike.jpg

Wow...

I find this aspect of the Internet really interesting.

It feels like we've grown up with the idea that everything online is forever.

I quite often buy second hand books thinking that their information will never make it onto the internet and be lost forever.

Its that busy time of year again, retail, retail, retail.
Lots of temp staff are needed...
Amazon are offering quite a lucrative offer for new starters, £1500 bonus if you start before x date in leeds (nov the summmat).
The job is through a recruitment agency.
Whats the catch? Its very hard (still looking) to find T&Cs, I just want to know if anyone has experience with this. How does it work?

Many Thanks!

Wo! Mega reply. I had thought it would have to be a labour of love website but hadn't considered the older/now redundant 90s (grocers' apostrophe corrected) webpages vs. the web as we know it now.

The above link is super useful though and will no doubt lead to lots of new internet tabs to review.

Can you drop the agency a line expressing interest and asking for the T&Cs?

No direct experience but many sign up bonuses only pay out if you complete the probation period. With what’s been reported about Amazon’s working conditions, I wouldn’t be surprised if they make use of that strategy to entice people in and burn them out before they can claim the bonus. It’s entirely possible that they also aren’t doing that.

we've grown up with the idea that everything online is forever.

"once it's on the net, it's there forever" doesn't mean it will always be available at the original address, it means that even if you burn down the original address the resources can pop up again somewhere else because so many people will have local caches of them.

Websites often outlive their creators because storage is cheap and zombie sites usually have little traffic, so it costs more for the host to remove them than to leave them.

Is there a link between the taste of fresh produce and its nutritional value content?

Depends which produce and which nutrients you're measuring.

Thanks for the reply. Let’s say tomatoes: would a tastier tomato be indicative of higher nutrient content compared to a similar but insipid tomato? Please assume factors such as variety, maturity, region of origin are the same, but there could be variation in growth techniques, fertilisation, etc.

I don’t remember enough of my high school biochem classes to specify nutrients.

Depends. Peas lose nutrition very quickly after picking. Frozen peas are better for you than day old picked ones iirc.

So rather depends on a case by case basis, how fresh, how far it’s travelled etc. But generally most things dug up/harvested and got to plate asap will be better.

After that you have how the soil is looked after - artificial vs natural fertiliser eg agri chemicals vs regenerative techniques etc etc.

There are so many variables and they all interconnect.

Thanks. And is there a correlation between nutrient (quality? quantity?) breakdown and taste?

It might be a silly bunch of questions but I haven’t found an answer elsewhere. I want to know if the insipid produce sold at economical supermarkets could additionally be expected to be less nutritious than its flavourful peers, usually sold at a premium or at more expensive shops. Is that a question that makes sense given the variables involved?

Yes. Try pasture fed beef vs grain fed. Better flavour, different types of fat etc etc

In my head animal-derived food would be different but that’s a good example. Thanks!

Though don't most studies show that e.g. organic produce isn't more nutritious than conventionally-farmed stuff? I reckon tastiness is probably its own reward, e.g. you're likely to eat more fruit and veg when it tastes good, and that any marginal difference in nutrients is secondary to this.

There must be a limit on the amount of nutrients that a tomato plant can produce? So would a variety that has the positives of a large crop (ie a cheaper, less tasty cherry tomato) probably have fewer nutrients per tomato than one that was bred(?) for it's flavour (ie a lower yielding crop)?

would a tastier tomato be indicative of higher nutrient content compared to a similar but insipid tomato?

Only if the tasty chemicals are also good for you. The tasty part of a tomato (and most other things) is a very tiny proportion of the total mass. Because of the way taste is experienced (i.e. mainly olfactory detection of volatile organics), serving temperature makes more difference than cultivation conditions all else being equal.

Need help big boss's

Want to replace the headset for a black one engine11 never help or reply on my email

What diameter should i need

1 Attachment

EC34 top
EC44 bottom

Probably

What fork is it? Looks like a Columbus 1 1/8 to 1 1/4 tapered in a 34-44mm ID tapered headtube.

If the tasty chemicals are good for you, or more likely if the same thing that affects how much tasty stuff there is also affects how good it is for you.

Cheap supermarket food is cheap in part because of their expertise at things like storage conditions meaning 'fresh' stuff might be on the shelves long after being picked.

At a guess this lack of freshness would reduce tastiness and nutrients. And partly explain why supermarket tomatoes taste nothing like home gown ones.

I’ve had an old Condor frame repainted but the carbon forks would have been a bit spendy. Any suggestions to smarten up the carbon fork? It’s quite scratched but nothing too major. Some sort of auto polish?