What would you do if you were told that Will you have to write your next articles on a typewriter instead of a computer? After all, if you're suggesting that riders limit their gear, you should consider the same thing for yourself, right?
The typewriter
If they told me I'd have to use a typewriter from now on, I'd initially need more time. I used it a lot as a boy, less at work, but I used it. I needed it the last time for my professional exam, and the same thing every time I saw people in the press rooms. Gino Sala or Gianni Mura who kept hitting us on it, I also understood their attachment and strenuous resistance.
It takes more time. It takes trained fingers. It takes precision so you don't have to tear the paper every time and use correction fluid. You need to know grammar, because there's no computer to tell you if you're making a mistake. Copying and pasting would disappear.But ultimately, if you have content to express, you get it out regardless of the tool you use. The good ones would remain good, the others would have a harder time hiding..
Would it be helpful?
If anything, the next question should be asked: Would it really be useful? The most obvious answer is no.Beyond the convenience of the writer, the transmission system would need to be revised, and someone would still be needed to subsequently transfer the texts into a computer. Unless we wanted to take the world back thirty years.
Nevertheless, the prospect of reading correct sentences (because one would somehow be forced to study grammar) and the greater effort required of those who draw heavily from the work of others would be very interesting topics, for readers and colleagues.
The limitation of relationships
A few days ago, Filippo Lorenzon proposed a question to three prominent cycling figures: would anything change on the climbs if we got rid of the compacts and somehow limited the metric development of the gear ratios?
Yes, it would change, and a lot. If the computer and the typewriter do not affect the final result, the compact seals can influence it. and in fact this has been happening regularly for years.
Have you ever wondered why there were such large gaps between Bartali, Coppi, Merckx, Pantani and the others? For the physical strength of the strongest who, with the same metric development, was able to turn the gear more quickly than the others.
It was said: Pantani is more agile on climbs. But when? Garzelli gave the correct interpretation: «Pantani is not more agile, simply it makes the same gear turn more than the others, therefore it goes faster».
The three interviewees did not go into the merits of the case, but understandably implemented an ex officio defense: it would be pointless, it is no longer possible. Only Cattaneo raised an interesting question: if we limit the demultiplication of the ratio, then it makes sense to do it with long relationships too. It might make sense.
Would it be helpful?
Equal ratios for all, means that the difference is made by menIf technology smooths out the differences, a reflection is needed. The combination of reduced gear ratios, power meter, and radio creates the perfect machine.
To push for tougher relationships, as Cattaneo says, more work is needed, but in the end you surrender to the force of gravity. manage the effort, knowing that you cannot respond to every change of pace of the lightest. You need to know each other. And ultimately, if you lose ground on the climb, you'll have to find a way to catch up elsewhere.
“I’m fine with losing four minutes to Ullrich in the time trials,” Marco said. “What I can’t stand is having him on my wheel on Alpe d’Huez.”
Cycling today is more credible. Let's not hide behind the facile equation that tougher races are an incitement to doping: Ethics is independent of certain aspects and knowing how to manage adverse phases must be part of everyone's background.
So, for the more skeptical, the research into electric motors would probably be It is impossible for a 70-kilogram rider to respond to the rapid acceleration of a climber on a slope greater than 10 percent.. Not for too long, at least. Every kilo would make a difference.
It would not be possible or very unlikely for example for a rider like Froome (66 kilos) to resist and defeat Chaves (57 kilos) on the Zoncolan as happened in 2018. That blender-like pedaling frequency with a 39×32 would not have been possibleYates would have suffered too, but each of those 9 pounds lost would have been a boost for him.
On equal terms
Do you know when the saying “on equal terms” was born? From the duels of the past, those in which the two contenders were facing each other and could use identical tools, whether a gun or a knife, with witnesses called to verify this.The reasons for the contest were the most disparate and in the end the fastest, the most lucid, the one with the best aim always won.
So in answering the questions, It's not always helpful to look at the finger, but every now and then to look at the moonThe balance of power would change, there's no doubt about that. The squadrons will always have a good game, but at least mechanically they should fight on equal terms.They'd still win, but the 65 km/h speed on the flat before reaching the climb would also weigh on the legs of the rouleurs. And the spectacle, we're sure, would be greatly enhanced.
