>> ^messenger:

Great call by Phil Liggett, one of my favourite sportscasters in any sport.


FANTASTIC CALLING. i went into this video knowing nothing about professional biking other than the fact that it existed, and he told me all that i needed to know. bravo.

Different strokes for different folks.

I was caught in a web of suspense. The mind games and tactics are excellent to watch, arguably more interesting than the actual sprint. I mean yeah it's fun to see humans go as fast as they can but it tends to be over in 10seconds or less. The build up is the captivating part.

>> ^SwimWithSharks:

the drafting comes into play when people are actually pushing the 200m, the positional jockeying is part of the overall strategy for the race, just like running the clock down to prevent your opponent from responding is in others. Once the "race" portion of the race starts in the final half lap there is definitely no looking back and people are definitely pedaling as hard as possible.
You might prefer to watch "individual pursuit" if you just want the racing without the strategy, in that format the riders start on opposite sides of the track and who goes fastest overall wins, there is no jockeying for position since you're never going to get close enough to each other to draft or influence each other's race in any way.
>> ^possom:
There is no drafting effect in play when moving this slowly and at some points STOPPED.



I second watching Pursuit, love that. Pity they got rid of the 1km pursuit in the Olympics. I recall Chris Hoy's run a few Olympics ago being incredibly thrilling.

I still don't get this event though. You'd think with any kind of distance event it would evolve so people maintained an optimum pace until they felt the need to sprint.

the drafting comes into play when people are actually pushing the 200m, the positional jockeying is part of the overall strategy for the race, just like running the clock down to prevent your opponent from responding is in others. Once the "race" portion of the race starts in the final half lap there is definitely no looking back and people are definitely pedaling as hard as possible.

You might prefer to watch "individual pursuit" if you just want the racing without the strategy, in that format the riders start on opposite sides of the track and who goes fastest overall wins, there is no jockeying for position since you're never going to get close enough to each other to draft or influence each other's race in any way.

>> ^possom:

There is no drafting effect in play when moving this slowly and at some points STOPPED.

There is no drafting effect in play when moving this slowly and at some points STOPPED.

The issue with being in front is that not only do you have to ride, steer, forward, you also have to be aware and even look back at the opponent to prevent them from passing you, detracting you from just pedaling as hard as possible and going forward (what the race should be)

It is interesting, but I don't see how it warrants a "Race" or sport. IF they wanted a sprint competition, they should just have a straight track equal to 1 lap of this oval, and let them "drag race" it out. While the strategy and stress of being in front or back is interesting, it plays out as very silly and unsportsmanlike. "I am going to try to get behind so I can win".

I did enjoy the video and did upvote;)

I don't mean deaths. I meant injuries to the riotters.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?

Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).
Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.
Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.
Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Payback:
You know, in hindsight I'm sure I would have regretted it... but if that was my truck and I was there? I'd punch the switch into 4H and give out a bit of road rash and street pizza to everyone in front of me... if you're not part of the solution, you're traction material.

And you wouldn't care if they sue you with multiple lawsuits?


Well... that's the neat thing about BC vehicle insurance. It's what's called a "crown corporation", basically a for-profit company controlled by the government. It means we have limited choice in insurance, but oddly, because our elected officials have to get insurance too, the rates stay low (oddly enough, ICBC still makes a solid profit... hmmm?).

Now, as for my little diatribe, which was mostly hyperbole and chest thumping. Should one decide to perpetrate what I described, BC law forces the plantiffs to either sue the driver directly (getting less than dick) OR sue/settle with ICBC (for guaranteed thousands). Not both. I would think most people would go for the guaranteed cash, rather than try to get blood out of a stone.

Another plus, if it was considered only one incident... my discount of 43% (safe driver) would go down to 0%, and, due to the already low insurance rates, I'd pay like $350 more than my previous 43% over 4 years, then I'd be back at 43%.

Also, there would be arguably enough evidence for self-defence to keep me out of jail. So it'd be win-win for everyone. I doubt I'd kill anyone, I'd only be going slightly faster than human sprinting speed.

>> ^Deano:

They still don't explain why though. They just say that Golinelli must lead the first lap. Why play cat and mouse? I'd like to see a rider just go for it and see what everyone else says.


at the speeds they are going if you are behind you're doing a LOT less work, so if the front rider just "went for it" the other rider will just stay in the draft, expend less energy, and get him towards the end (which is kind of what happened here).

It is possible to win from the front if you time your attack well, but it's definitely advantageous to be behind, both from a reaction time perspective and drafting

Your video, Cyclists bike as slow as possible in a sprint race, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No, I don't particularly care for car lap racing. I do enjoy drag racing.

They usually spend the first 299 laps making an effort to pass the car in front of them.


>> ^KnivesOut:

You must hate car racing. They have like 300 laps, but only the last one matters there too.
Right?>> ^possom:
How about 1 lap instead of 2 silly ones and one real one? I agree, weird.

>> ^KnivesOut:

You must hate car racing. They have like 300 laps, but only the last one matters there too.
Right?>> ^possom:
How about 1 lap instead of 2 silly ones and one real one? I agree, weird.



But in Car Racing they don't go 15 MPH around the track for 299 of the laps

You must hate car racing. They have like 300 laps, but only the last one matters there too.

Right?>> ^possom:

How about 1 lap instead of 2 silly ones and one real one? I agree, weird.

No wai, that was awesomely tense.>> ^Enzoblue:

Change the rules, that's just stupid..

>> ^blankfist:

Several minutes to prepare? You're obviously speculating. The reports of eye witnesses said the helis came fast as if they were out of nowhere.

This isn't Star Trek. Even if the heli instantly appeared above the compound it still either has to land or have the troops drop down. Then, even assuming there was no one but Bin Laden there, they still had to get into the building and up to the 3rd floor. At an all-out sprint with no confrontations along the way, I'm guessing 30 seconds minimum.

If you want to bring reports into it, shots were fired outside of the house and also when they were climbing the stairs... that's when they killed Bin Laden's son and shot at Bin Laden as he looked over the railing (missed at that point).

Then they got to his room (he went back to sleep I suppose?) and shot him. At least, that's the last version I read, so perhaps this is outdated.

>> ^blankfist:
As far as due process, what're you saying? That the premise for a trial is flimsy? And therefore assassination is a better recourse?

He wanted a trial? I'm pretty sure people can claim guilt and skip that whole "fair trial" thing, and I don't remember him being too ambiguous about his role in 911.

No, I'm not saying I'm happy about the events, but here's my list of what I would like to happen from most desired to least desired:

1. Stop occupying other countries and getting our people (and others) killed, all while providing great recruiting material for extremists.
2. Kill Bin Laden and get it the hell over with so we can get out of these other countries where we're getting the previously-mentioned people killed.
3. Capture Bin Laden, creating a political/media circus under the laughable pretext of a "fair trial" while spurring more extremists to kill people and take hostages "until Bin Laden is released".

If we can rightly assume that Bin Laden wasn't given the option of surrender (which I kinda do) then we can just as well assume that he wouldn't have taken the option if it were presented. Aren't assumptions fun?

Oh... you're sneaky Sprint. This should be marked *viral.
http://now.sprint.com/echo/?ECID=vanity:echo