Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
Yes and yes.
We had the transaxle out anyhow, and I decided to send the clutch to AP for inspection. It works fine, but I (and McLaren and AP) would like some insight into why I have got 10x the recommended life out of it. Based on measurement of gross depth, it's still only about 1/3 worn.
One thing we have discovered already (before they have inspected it) is that my clutch has a stiffer diaphragm spring than most of the others do. That may have contributed to lower wear. When they unbolt a clutch pack, normally a bunch of carbon dust falls out. When they unbolted mine, there was no dust.
No doubt driver skill played a large part.We had the transaxle out anyhow, and I decided to send the clutch to AP for inspection. It works fine, but I (and McLaren and AP) would like some insight into why I have got 10x the recommended life out of it. Based on measurement of gross depth, it's still only about 1/3 worn.
One thing we have discovered already (before they have inspected it) is that my clutch has a stiffer diaphragm spring than most of the others do. That may have contributed to lower wear. When they unbolt a clutch pack, normally a bunch of carbon dust falls out. When they unbolted mine, there was no dust.
waremark said:
flemke said:
Yes and yes.
We had the transaxle out anyhow, and I decided to send the clutch to AP for inspection. It works fine, but I (and McLaren and AP) would like some insight into why I have got 10x the recommended life out of it. Based on measurement of gross depth, it's still only about 1/3 worn.
One thing we have discovered already (before they have inspected it) is that my clutch has a stiffer diaphragm spring than most of the others do. That may have contributed to lower wear. When they unbolt a clutch pack, normally a bunch of carbon dust falls out. When they unbolted mine, there was no dust.
No doubt driver skill played a large part.We had the transaxle out anyhow, and I decided to send the clutch to AP for inspection. It works fine, but I (and McLaren and AP) would like some insight into why I have got 10x the recommended life out of it. Based on measurement of gross depth, it's still only about 1/3 worn.
One thing we have discovered already (before they have inspected it) is that my clutch has a stiffer diaphragm spring than most of the others do. That may have contributed to lower wear. When they unbolt a clutch pack, normally a bunch of carbon dust falls out. When they unbolted mine, there was no dust.
In the case of the F1, I do take care to avoid unnecessary use of the clutch which when you put your mind to it probably requires about one-third as much use as one normally would practise. Carbon-carbon clutches were not designed for commuting, or for hill starts!
A slightly tangential question flemke but I know you’re keen on cycling as well as cars. Will you be supporting the Bahrain McLaren team this season? Or do you share the view that the UAE and Bahrain teams (along with the god-awful Middle East races - possible Tour of Saudi Arabia anyone?) amount to sportswashing by oppressive regimes?
lauda said:
A slightly tangential question flemke but I know you’re keen on cycling as well as cars. Will you be supporting the Bahrain McLaren team this season? Or do you share the view that the UAE and Bahrain teams (along with the god-awful Middle East races - possible Tour of Saudi Arabia anyone?) amount to sportswashing by oppressive regimes?
As a fan I tend to support riders rather than teams. Last year I supported EF Education First because they're American, they had the best shirt design, and I like Vaughters. Second might be Deceuninck - Quick-Step because I respect the way they do things and they have a range of interesting riders.My main sentiment regarding supporting a team is that I hope Team Skyneos never win another race. I was really hoping that Brailsford would not find another sponsor and the team would collapse. The team's behaviour ever since it was being formed in 2009 has been contemptible.
Before the team even competed in its first race, Brailsford was already breaking the rules by tapping up Ben Swift and Brad Wiggins. Brailsford's simultaneous managing of both Sky and British Cycling was a blatant conflict of interest that should never have been allowed. Jiffy bags; the dodgy Dr Freeman; the claim that Simon Cope was going to the Alps for a pre-arranged visit to Emma Pooley when at the time she was hundreds of miles away in Spain; the most obsessively detail-orientated team in the sport somehow having no records of what drugs they were buying, who authorised them, what their purpose was or who used them: give me a break!
One could say that all this was sort-of business as usual in cycling and Sky's sin was the hypocrisy of pretending that they would elevate the ethics of the sport when at best they were ignoring them, if not lowering them. That however is not my primary criticism of them.
My biggest complaint about Sky is that they abused their position by grossly outspending all the other teams. First, they hoovered up as many of the best riders (best climbers and domestiques as well as GC contenders) as they could by offering them the biggest salaries. This had the simultaneous effect of strengthening Sky and weakening other teams. Then Sky would pull stunts such as providing (if I recall the details correctly) private motor homes to every pair of their riders in a grand tour to give them better sleeping conditions than their rivals had. (Between stages the race organisers assign to the teams the hotels at which they must stay, in order to keep things even across the peloton. Sky was attempting to bypass that protocol.) When the organisers forbade that, Sky's next trick was to drive numerous superfluous vans and cars to that night's hotel early, consuming big swathes of the parking lots before the competing teams could arrive with their own essential vehicles. These were low tactics.
In 2019 Sky's contract finishes and Brailsford manages to persuade Britain's richest man, chemicals baron Jim Ratcliffe, to become the new sponsor. Does Ratcliffe - who supposedly "really cares" about cycling - use this opportunity to bring the team's budget down to normal scale and cease their practice of trying to buy success? Heck no. One of the very first things they did was to sign the young winner of the 2019 Giro for their team, continuing to try to exploit their financial advantage over their competitors. Just more of the same BS.
If Ratcliffe and Brailsford "really care" about cycling, why don't they do something to help support women's cycling, which is inspirational and exciting but desperately short of proper funding? They could take just €2m out of their €50m budget and use it to sponsor a women's team. By doing that women's cycling would have another sustained, solid team and the men's Skyneos would still have a budget about twice as big as that of any other men's team.
Ratcliffe and Brailsford "really care" about cycling? How about chipping in fifty grand - almost literally loose change to Skyneos and too small for Ratcliffe even to notice - to help keep the Lincoln GP in the city centre or to ensure that the Eddie Soens Memorial can keep going?
Some people talk about "sportswashing". To my eye the most obvious sportswashers have been Sky and Ratcliffe. They couldn't care less about the sport; for them, it's only about PR for their otherwise unpopular companies. Bahrain and UAE may be trying to make themselves look good by associating with the sport, but at least they are not trying to ruin the sport by using a disproportionate budget to distort results and buy success rather than earn it.
The irony is: do we know how good a grand tour rider Chris Froome really is? If his team has had three other riders win the Tour within the last decade, how much have Froome's Tour victories been down to his own ability and how much down to being on the strongest team? Froome's (and G's, Bernal's and some of Wiggo's) accomplishments will forever be vitiated by the suspicion that any of the other top GC riders (Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde) might have done as well as they did if not better if they had only been at Skyneos.
The politics of the Middle East and illegitimate or dubious regimes is probably a subject for another day.
Edited by flemke on Monday 10th February 14:19
flemke said:
Froome's (and G's, Bernal's and some of Wiggo's) accomplishments will forever be vitiated by the suspicion that any of the other top GC riders (Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde) might have done as well as they did if not better if they had only been at Skyneos.
Maybe, but if, as you suggest, Sky merely hoovered up the best riders on salaries other teams can only dream of, why didn't they hoover up them if they're that good? It's interesting that you cite Nibali and Valverde, both have a somewhat controversial past to more than rival anything Sky have ever been accused of.Antony Moxey said:
flemke said:
Froome's (and G's, Bernal's and some of Wiggo's) accomplishments will forever be vitiated by the suspicion that any of the other top GC riders (Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde) might have done as well as they did if not better if they had only been at Skyneos.
Maybe, but if, as you suggest, Sky merely hoovered up the best riders on salaries other teams can only dream of, why didn't they hoover up them if they're that good? It's interesting that you cite Nibali and Valverde, both have a somewhat controversial past to more than rival anything Sky have ever been accused of.Not entirely sure Valverde or Nibali could ever have been trusted for that - indeed Frome struggled on a couple of notable occasions when he was supposed to be supporting Wiggins...
That did lead to perhaps two of the classiest things I've ever seen in a Grand Tour - the reigning World Road Race champion dropping back to the team car to pick up food and drink for the rest of the team, and the Yellow Jersey leading the aforementioned incredible sprinter on the Champs Elysee...
king epic. gives me goosebumps WCZ said:
I honestly wish they'd just allow doping in cycling, would be easier that way.
The problem is that by doing so you would be putting in danger young people with loads of ambition but without the maturity needed to make wise judgments for themselves. This is not to mention the medical risks inherent in uncontrolled performance-enhancing drugs. A century ago in the Tour, it was common for riders to keep going by ingesting everything from cocaine to arsenic.More recently (early-mid-'90s when doping was rampant and EPO was not being tested), there were 20-something cyclists in absolute peak physical condition dying in their sleep from heart failure. Autopsies revealed that their blood was nearly as thick as jam.
Would you want a son or daughter who aspired to be a professional athlete subjected to those sorts of pressures - dope or you'll never succeed?
Many libertarian principles are appealing, but not at the extreme.
Antony Moxey said:
flemke said:
Froome's (and G's, Bernal's and some of Wiggo's) accomplishments will forever be vitiated by the suspicion that any of the other top GC riders (Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde) might have done as well as they did if not better if they had only been at Skyneos.
Maybe, but if, as you suggest, Sky merely hoovered up the best riders on salaries other teams can only dream of, why didn't they hoover up them if they're that good? It's interesting that you cite Nibali and Valverde, both have a somewhat controversial past to more than rival anything Sky have ever been accused of.I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if it's "Why didn't Sky also hoover up Nibali, Dumoulin, et al?", there would be at least two reasons. The first would be that not every athlete is motivated by only money. The second would be that, in addition to a team leader or GC candidate, a cycling team needs role players, just like the best starting eleven in football wouldn't be all strikers, even if they were the eleven best strikers in the world. To play those different roles, Sky used their money to buy the best role players they could find.
Sway said:
Antony Moxey said:
flemke said:
Froome's (and G's, Bernal's and some of Wiggo's) accomplishments will forever be vitiated by the suspicion that any of the other top GC riders (Nibali, Dumoulin, Valverde) might have done as well as they did if not better if they had only been at Skyneos.
Maybe, but if, as you suggest, Sky merely hoovered up the best riders on salaries other teams can only dream of, why didn't they hoover up them if they're that good? It's interesting that you cite Nibali and Valverde, both have a somewhat controversial past to more than rival anything Sky have ever been accused of.Not entirely sure Valverde or Nibali could ever have been trusted for that - indeed Frome struggled on a couple of notable occasions when he was supposed to be supporting Wiggins...
That did lead to perhaps two of the classiest things I've ever seen in a Grand Tour - the reigning World Road Race champion dropping back to the team car to pick up food and drink for the rest of the team, and the Yellow Jersey leading the aforementioned incredible sprinter on the Champs Elysee...
flemke said:
I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if it's "Why didn't Sky also hoover up Nibali, Dumoulin, et al?", there would be at least two reasons. The first would be that not every athlete is motivated by only money. The second would be that, in addition to a team leader or GC candidate, a cycling team needs role players, just like the best starting eleven in football wouldn't be all strikers, even if they were the eleven best strikers in the world. To play those different roles, Sky used their money to buy the best role players they could find.
A not unreasonable point, however as said, if they were really that good then why weren't Sky ever interested. It's also somewhat ironic that two of the three you originally mentioned in your argument against unethical practices have themselves been less than squeaky clean. Antony Moxey said:
flemke said:
I'm not sure that I understand your question, but if it's "Why didn't Sky also hoover up Nibali, Dumoulin, et al?", there would be at least two reasons. The first would be that not every athlete is motivated by only money. The second would be that, in addition to a team leader or GC candidate, a cycling team needs role players, just like the best starting eleven in football wouldn't be all strikers, even if they were the eleven best strikers in the world. To play those different roles, Sky used their money to buy the best role players they could find.
A not unreasonable point, however as said, if they were really that good then why weren't Sky ever interested. It's also somewhat ironic that two of the three you originally mentioned in your argument against unethical practices have themselves been less than squeaky clean. In any case, my friend, I don't see why you are focusing on those two riders whom I used merely as examples of the many excellent GC riders who might have won more big races if Sky had not used its riches to bully the sport. The point was just as valid for the examples I used in my latter post.
flemke said:
Do we know that Sky "weren't ever interested"?
In any case, my friend, I don't see why you are focusing on those two riders whom I used merely as examples of the many excellent GC riders who might have won more big races if Sky had not used its riches to bully the sport. The point was just as valid for the examples I used in my latter post.
I focused on those two because you were using them in a point about ethics in cycling which i thought ironic considering both have been accused of being less than whiter than white. It just struck me as amusing that of all the riders you could have chosen - you did later list a number of others - you chose those two. In any case, my friend, I don't see why you are focusing on those two riders whom I used merely as examples of the many excellent GC riders who might have won more big races if Sky had not used its riches to bully the sport. The point was just as valid for the examples I used in my latter post.
My question seems to have kicked off some interesting debate!
Thanks for the background info on Sky flemke. I've only been following pro cycling in the last five years and therefore Sky have been part of the furniture rather than the new kids on the block. Whilst I was aware of their budgetary advantage and philosophy of marginal gains, I'd not really considered it from the moral or ethical standpoint. It's now bit clearer where some of the anti-Sky sentiment has come from amongst some fans.
That said, I think Froome is one of the greats of his generation and watching him ride into pink in the 2018 Giro remains the most incredible sporting feat I've watched unfold live on tv.
And whilst it seems that some of Sky's tactics have been questionable, plenty of others have been widely adopted in pro racing. It seems crazy to me that it was Sky who only fairly recently pioneered the use of turbos at the end of stages for the riders to warm down properly. There are marginal gains and then there's just common sense.
Thanks for the background info on Sky flemke. I've only been following pro cycling in the last five years and therefore Sky have been part of the furniture rather than the new kids on the block. Whilst I was aware of their budgetary advantage and philosophy of marginal gains, I'd not really considered it from the moral or ethical standpoint. It's now bit clearer where some of the anti-Sky sentiment has come from amongst some fans.
That said, I think Froome is one of the greats of his generation and watching him ride into pink in the 2018 Giro remains the most incredible sporting feat I've watched unfold live on tv.
And whilst it seems that some of Sky's tactics have been questionable, plenty of others have been widely adopted in pro racing. It seems crazy to me that it was Sky who only fairly recently pioneered the use of turbos at the end of stages for the riders to warm down properly. There are marginal gains and then there's just common sense.
Antony Moxey said:
flemke said:
Do we know that Sky "weren't ever interested"?
In any case, my friend, I don't see why you are focusing on those two riders whom I used merely as examples of the many excellent GC riders who might have won more big races if Sky had not used its riches to bully the sport. The point was just as valid for the examples I used in my latter post.
I focused on those two because you were using them in a point about ethics in cycling which i thought ironic considering both have been accused of being less than whiter than white. It just struck me as amusing that of all the riders you could have chosen - you did later list a number of others - you chose those two. In any case, my friend, I don't see why you are focusing on those two riders whom I used merely as examples of the many excellent GC riders who might have won more big races if Sky had not used its riches to bully the sport. The point was just as valid for the examples I used in my latter post.
I am not here to defend anyone, but I believe that Valverde was deservedly convicted of doping offences that occurred during the 2007 and 2008 seasons - before Sky existed. None since (AFAIK).
Nibali I believe was sanctioned not for doping but because after a crash he held onto the team car for too long. Every rider on every team holds onto the team car; Nibali simply overdid it and was noticed - probably because the TV cameras concentrate on the top riders. I am not defending that, but it is hardly an ethical issue on the same level as the illegal use of PEDs or the systematic abuse of the TUE system (which at least one Sky official has admitted Sky did as a regular practice).
With the notable exception of the serial dopers of Astana, I think that in the last decade Team Sky have crossed the ethical boundaries of cycling more than any other team has. The only reason Sky's lowlife behaviour does not get more scrutiny here is because they are British.
By coincidence, I am amused but nor surprised to see that Jim Ratcliffe has done it again. Now Ineos are sponsoring Mercedes-Benz in F1 - another team that has dominated by virtue of outspending other competitors.
Ratcliffe's not a very creative guy, is he? Does his imagination extend no further than backing them who are already the richest winners?
lauda said:
My question seems to have kicked off some interesting debate!
Thanks for the background info on Sky flemke. I've only been following pro cycling in the last five years and therefore Sky have been part of the furniture rather than the new kids on the block. Whilst I was aware of their budgetary advantage and philosophy of marginal gains, I'd not really considered it from the moral or ethical standpoint. It's now bit clearer where some of the anti-Sky sentiment has come from amongst some fans.
That said, I think Froome is one of the greats of his generation and watching him ride into pink in the 2018 Giro remains the most incredible sporting feat I've watched unfold live on tv.
And whilst it seems that some of Sky's tactics have been questionable, plenty of others have been widely adopted in pro racing. It seems crazy to me that it was Sky who only fairly recently pioneered the use of turbos at the end of stages for the riders to warm down properly. There are marginal gains and then there's just common sense.
Re Froome, I am not a fan in part because his wife (then-girlfriend) had a field day making snarky tweets about Wiggins on his way to winning the 2012 Tour. It was none of her business and she should have kept her mouth shut, so to speak.Thanks for the background info on Sky flemke. I've only been following pro cycling in the last five years and therefore Sky have been part of the furniture rather than the new kids on the block. Whilst I was aware of their budgetary advantage and philosophy of marginal gains, I'd not really considered it from the moral or ethical standpoint. It's now bit clearer where some of the anti-Sky sentiment has come from amongst some fans.
That said, I think Froome is one of the greats of his generation and watching him ride into pink in the 2018 Giro remains the most incredible sporting feat I've watched unfold live on tv.
And whilst it seems that some of Sky's tactics have been questionable, plenty of others have been widely adopted in pro racing. It seems crazy to me that it was Sky who only fairly recently pioneered the use of turbos at the end of stages for the riders to warm down properly. There are marginal gains and then there's just common sense.
My other complaint against him is that cycling is supposed to be an elegant sport. The gracefulness of the riders is one of its appeals. There even used to be an official award in the Tour for the most graceful rider. It's not Froome's fault that he has the biceps of a ballerina and an awkward way of riding (even Merckx had a somewhat awkward style, although nowhere near as bad as Froome). When Froome packed himself into that stupid little ball, it was brave and very effective, but goodness he looked ridiculous!
There will always be financial winners and losers in sport (funding wise), that’s just the nature of the beast I guess. The only real solution is salary and budget caps, and those caps enforced rigidly. Even now Saracens are still getting away with it this season, and if they keep their players next season, regardless of whether they loan them out or not, they’ll still be getting away with.
Trouble is money talks and the biggest and richest will never sanction such caps despite what the governing bodies try to implement. Look at football, try it there and the top teams will up and leave and form their own league. Perhaps the real answer is to adopt the American draft system.
Trouble is money talks and the biggest and richest will never sanction such caps despite what the governing bodies try to implement. Look at football, try it there and the top teams will up and leave and form their own league. Perhaps the real answer is to adopt the American draft system.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff