Yet more drivel from Maasland???? PLEASE, NO MAS!!!
Here is a question and answer session for Mr. Maasland, the self- appointed protector of the CR list and criticizer of all things Bicycle Quaterly-related:
Question 1) Is it true that you are a bitter curmudgeon with too much
time on your hands and a desperate need to make yourself feel better by attacking people, especially Jan Heine, on the CR list? Answer: Quite obviously so! Remember Mom's adage: "If you have nothing positive to say, don't say anything at all."
Question 2) Is it true that you are a world-class Monday Morning Quarterback? Answer: Quite obviously so! You criticize every day, but
when do you take the time and energy to do something positive from your own initiative? Nope, that's beyond your scope: you can only criticize in response to what others do.
Question 3) Is it true that you contribute nothing positive or friendly in your myriad posts to this list? Answer: Quite obviously so! You come off as Jerk Number One on this list every day. Either you're too self-absorbed to notice or you just don't care. But remember "it's not the critic who counts..."
Question 4) Is is true that you liked through your teeth when you stated that Jan Heine won't publish dissenting articles or letters to
the editor in his magazine? Answer: Quite obviously so! He runs them along with every road test, etc that he publishes!
Question 5) Is it true that very, very few of us care to read your self-important, boorish, grand-standing myriad posts to/about Jan and
are, in fact, turned off by you and your pompousity? Answer: Well, this is opinion now (as compared to the factual answers above), but you are the king of opinion so you'll have to allow me to state mine for a change: YES, WE ARE SICK OF YOU! Get a life, Maasland, and give
us something positive and useful to read or nothing at all! (And I dare you to take the time to research and write something worthy of publishing in BQ; if you had something useful and accurate to say, you'd put your petty differences aside and write it for publication in the magazine, rather than hiding behind your keyboard and posting it to this little email list.)
Sincerely, Chris Kostman Oak Park, CA USA
PS Disclaimer: I am a proud advertiser on the back cover of every
issue of Jan's magazine. I do this despite the fact that every event
we organize sells out and we thus have no need to advertise. I do
this because I support what Jan and his colleagues are doing with
Bicycle Quarterly. It's easily the most comprehensive, most useful,
and most entertaining contribution to the world of cycling history,
technology, randonneuring, and more. That doesn't make Jan and BQ
"the word of god," but it does mean that Jan et al are making a
supreme effort to put forth something POSITIVE and USEFUL to the
community, quite the opposite of Maasland and his Pasadena side-kick
do here on a daily basis.
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:23:26 -0400
> From: "The Maaslands" <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
> To: "CR" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
> Subject: [CR]
> PART 6 and final: Jan heine's contribution (?) regarding tread / Q
> factor
> Message-ID: <017501c78639$118c8c70$0200a8c0@HPLAPTOP>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset="Windows-1252"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Precedence: list
> Message: 7
>
> Jan wrote in response to Marcus Hellman's great questions:
>
> Question 1) Does anyone have pictures or other documentation showing a
> particular racer using aluminum cranks in the mountains, and steel
> cranks on the flats?
>
> Incomplete answer 1: Yes. When we wrote the article in question for
> BQ,
> I worked with Aldo Ross, who found in his collection of contemporary
> magazines a number of photos of racers - mostly French - that used
> cotterless aluminum cranks in the mountains and cottered steel
> cranks on
> the flats.
>
> What is missing in the answer: you do not specify any rider by
> name, nor
> do you specify if the switch was repetitive or simply one switch
> during
> the year. Without such detail, it could be just as likely that the
> rider
> made a definitive switch from one type to the other between the two
> photos. Furthermore, what proof do you have that the cranks are indeed
> alloy or steel? Many grainy black and white magazine photos could lead
> one to mistakenly identify a 49d for a 49a or the contrary.
>
> Question 2) In the same season?
>
> Incomplete answer 2) Yes.
>
> How do you know they were in the same season? What documentation do
> you
> have to prove this?
>
> Question 3) In the same race?
>
> Incomplete answer 3) I think so, but I'd have to check with Aldo.
>
> You write your editor title on each post as well as on every issue of
> you rag. You therefore have no right to say you are not sure. You can
> also not hide behind somebody else's knowledge if you are as
> thorough in
> your research as you claim.
>
> Question 4) Was this common or the exception?
>
> Evasive answer 4) The photo in BQ Volume 4, No. 3, p. 16 shows both
> Louison Bobet and Lucien Lazaridès with aluminum cranks, but Hugo
> Koblet on cottered cranks. 17th stage of the 1951 Tour, from
> Montpellier
> to Avignon via Mt. Ventoux - so it was mountainous. This indicates
> that
> several racer at least used aluminum cranks, but others stuck with
> cottered
> steel cranks - including that year's winner.
>
> The question posed by Marcus was whether or not a same rider used both
> alloy and steel cranks in a same season and more precisely in the same
> race as you had previously intimated. You are now making a red herring
> statement comparing different riders, hence something completely
> different to what was asked.
>
> Question 5) Did these racers switch cranks or switch bikes?
>
> Evasive answer 5) That I don't know. However, from what I read, they
> appear to have used the same bike for the entire race. One report says
> that the mechanics complained about the workload of switching the
> gearing on almost every bike almost every night. (Back then, the Tour
> was for national teams, and for most of them, the Tour's organizers
> provided the mechanics.)
>
> First you effectively retract what you claimed before by admitting to
> not having the information. Then you show the depth of your
> research and
> background information by stating that you are basing your
> statement on
> one person's unverified account. As for the workload of a pro bike
> mechanic, it has always been one of the heaviest jobs you could even
> imagine, so what you are saying about workload has no relevance to the
> question at hand. As for the claim that the tour organizers
> provided the
> mechanics, where did you come up with this jewel? This is at odds with
> all that I have read about all the competitive national teams. Are you
> perhaps referring to the small also-ran regional teams or the
> multinational teams where it would obviously be impossible for a
> national federation to supply a mechanic. Or perhaps you are referring
> to an earlier period, predating the period under discussion when
> riders
> were switching from steel to alloy cranks, and more pointedly, were
> supposedly so hot on reducing the Q factor.
>
> Question 6) Did they have other specialized equipment for the
> mountains
> or the flats?
>
> Evasive answer 6) The literature said that Hugo Koblet switched
> gearing
> a lot, but not bikes. See the article in BQ Vol. 2, No. 2 that
> describes
> Koblet's bike in detail (taken from the contemporary press, with
> Daniel
> Rebour drawings.)
>
> There has not been a single successful racer in the Tour, during the
> derailleur era that did not study possible changes in gearing from day
> to day to suit the race conditions. This is a non-issue as this is
> simply a mathematical equation change, not a technical change. Marcus'
> question was a more telling: are there other modifications made
> from day
> to day: ie different hubs, rims, tires, saddles, stems, brakes,
> cranks... Up until now, you have not supplied one single example of
> any
> change that took place in a race like the tour to get a mechanical
> advantage due to constructive variations, like different designs or
> material compositions in componentry.
>
> Question 7) Is there just some quotidian explanation? For example:
> "the
> next day, the bike with the aluminum cranks had a flat, so I
> grabbed the
> backup bike with the steel cranks." Or, "early in the season we rode
> the bikes with the steel cranks, but then Guiseppe worked a deal with
> someone, and we got some of the new, cool aluminum cranks."
>
> Incomplete and evasive answer 7) It seems to be pretty consistent,
> so I
> doubt the explanation is just coincidence. In many cases, both the
> steel
> and aluminum cranks were made by the same company, Stronglight.
>
> You get on Chuck's case for not supplying you with proper reference
> material to refute your outlandish claim and then you not only do not
> supply any reference yourself, but you go so far as to clearly state
> that you are basing your point of view strictly on your personal
> opinion. You can't have it both ways. Plus, you state that in 'many'
> cases both the steel and alloy cranks were made by the same company. I
> am uncomfortable with the word 'many', can you please define what you
> mean? Please give details of even one such case. You have still not
> done
> so.
>
> At this point, I will follow Chuck's lead and simply say "ça suffit
> avec ces niaiseries" and will stay away from any further comments made
> by Jan on this topic. It simply isn't worth anybody's time. I came to
> this conclusion when a former CR listmember from Boston, with whom I
> have not had a civil email exchange in a couple years, sent me an
> appreciated private attaboy email after my earlier posts. If
> opposition
> to another CR listmember's posts is sufficient to bridge the gap
> between
> the former member and myself, it shows that my position cannot be
> extreme or isolated.
>
> Steven Maasland
> Moorestown, NJ
> USA