Twenty Seven...27

Cobalt said:
Ok, lets say you have two people.

A. 6'3" skinny fruck weighing 175 lbs and having a VO2 of 6.1 liters
B. 5'11" athletic upper body weighing 175 and having same VO2 of 6.1

Their VO2Max is the same, but there is no doubt that the shorter guy has a much more efficient system if he decides that he does not need his upper body muscle and drops 30 lbs. The 6'3" guy is at his max VO2max, because to go any lower he would loose muscle mass from his legs. The shorter guy has another 30 lbs he can drop which would increase his VO2Max. So again, the true measure is the VO2 for certain heights.

And this is where the VO2max goes wrong. The measurement should be height not weight to determine your true potential.
Click to expand...


Hey Skunk, what is the MAX VO you can drink? I'll bet around a liter, much less for me! :D
 
That is partially a valid point. If you were to go to Salt Lake and get tested you’ll find that VO2 is just one test to get an athletes profile. The body is way too complicated to look at just one test. They do look at BMI (body mass index) and body fat%, and gross power at lactate threshold, and how long you can ride there, power per KG of body weight etc. etc. They will say things like well if you were 20 lbs lighter then you’d have a prayer. I’m one of those; even if fit I’m a nice fat 14%.

But VO2 is the BIG genetic limiter, if you don’t find the 6+ to 7 liter engine I don’t care what body you have, it is not going to win in a world class field. END OF STORY.

And if you want to see which 6-7 liter motor you want to spend $2.5 million on in 2007 (to put under contract to win)... you want the VO2 expressed as a function of weight. If the guy needs to lose 30 lbs you are not paying him to lose it on your dime. Rember Ulrich? Ok a possible exception, there is always one.

Cobalt said:
Ok, lets say you have two people.

A. 6'3" skinny fruck weighing 175 lbs and having a VO2 of 6.1 liters
B. 5'11" athletic upper body weighing 175 and having same VO2 of 6.1

Their VO2Max is the same, but there is no doubt that the shorter guy has a much more efficient system if he decides that he does not need his upper body muscle and drops 30 lbs. The 6'3" guy is at his max VO2max, because to go any lower he would loose muscle mass from his legs. The shorter guy has another 30 lbs he can drop which would increase his VO2Max. So again, the true measure is the VO2 for certain heights.

And this is where the VO2max goes wrong. The measurement should be height not weight to determine your true potential.
Click to expand...
 
Tony G said:
That is partially a valid point. If you were to go to Salt Lake and get tested you’ll find that VO2 is just one test to get an athletes profile. The body is way too complicated to look at just one test. They do look at BMI (body mass index) and body fat%, and gross power at lactate threshold, and how long you can ride there, power per KG of body weight etc. etc. They will say things like well if you were 20 lbs lighter then you’d have a prayer. I’m one of those; even if fit I’m a nice fat 14%.

But VO2 is the BIG genetic limiter, if you don’t find the 6+ to 7 liter engine I don’t care what body you have, it is not going to win in a world class field. END OF STORY.

And if you want to see which 6-7 liter motor you want to spend $2.5 million on in 2007 (to put under contract to win)... you want the VO2 expressed as a function of weight. If the guy needs to lose 30 lbs you are not paying him to lose it on your dime. Rember Ulrich? Ok a possible exception, there is always one.
Click to expand...

exactly. :thumbup:

But you mean they won't pay me to loose weight?:D
 
Tony G said:
OK two are missing because Garth is giving them a nose job. But there are 32 here.:D

BWWardens.jpg


AllGWSDSC05044.jpg


ALLGW.jpg


allgw2.jpg
Click to expand...



Tony, I didn't see one like the lower one in your pictures! :eek:


 
Hey that is a NICE JOB!!!!

Is that from a Skeleton or a SAR?

How hard is it to change the slabs?

I'd like to see some of that Black G-10 on a DC finish
:D.

The bad news is that when Skunk gets back you'll also be known as "Cross-dress-Ducci":eek: :eek: :eek:

TG

randucci said:
Tony, I didn't see one like the lower one in your pictures! :eek:


Click to expand...
 
I'd take 27 SH 1's. Keep one and sell the rest down the road when the going price is $1000 per. :D Then I would call Jerry and commission a few full on customs.

Edited to say Holy crap Tony! I guess I know where to go if I ever need to beg for a GW! Love the pics man.:eek: :D
 
Progunner said:
Edited to say Holy crap Tony! I guess I know where to go if I ever need to beg for a GW! Love the pics man.:eek: :D
Click to expand...


Thanks PG,

I do have an occasional photo that supports the theory that blind squirrels could find nuts.

I'm really partial to the B&W which is just a desaturated color digital photo. Some day when work has calmed down, I want to get out the good cameras and put in some slow and smoooooooth B&W film and see what the B&W prints of some Busse's look like.

TonyG

 
Tony G said:
I'm really partial to the B&W which is just a desaturated color digital photo. Some day when work has calmed down, I want to get out the good cameras and put in some slow and smoooooooth B&W film and see what the B&W prints of some Busse's look like.
Click to expand...

Tony-

What are the "good" cameras? MF or 35mm? What digital camera(s) do you use?
 
roppda said:
Tony-

What are the "good" cameras? MF or 35mm? What digital camera(s) do you use?
Click to expand...


I find that the best results I get are from a Leica M6 body (35mm) and also an old Mamiya 6x7cm; shooting 50 ASA Ilford. I develop the film (B&W) myself and then scan the negatives. I also have a Nikon F5 but it is a newer camera for me and I don’t connect with it yet.

The digital is a very old Sony that hardly works anymore.

I got my GF a Nikon D-70 for Christmas and for the money it is a dam nice camera. I’m not allowed to even think Canon; she went to Africa (for work) on two separate occasions and both times had a Canon and both times the Canon failed. Her back up was a manual Nikon with a hand held light meter, so she says that thanks to Canon she finally learned what the hell she was doing.

But isn't the camera it is the experience of taking a lot of photos and getting an idea of how what you are seeing will look like when printed. I have a friend that can outshoot me with a cardboard box painted black with a pin hole in it.

Actually he consistently does that!!!!:eek:

One thing I wonder about with digital is if we will lose the learning process of how to draw with light on film, not that the process ever had any effect on me:o , other than I can tell when someone else is good at it.

TG
 
Tony G said:
I find that the best results I get are from a Leica M6 body (35mm) and also an old Mamiya 6x7cm; shooting 50 ASA Ilford. I develop the film (B&W) myself and then scan the negatives. I also have a Nikon F5 but it is a newer camera for me and I don’t connect with it yet.

The digital is a very old Sony that hardly works anymore.

I got my GF a Nikon D-70 for Christmas and for the money it is a dam nice camera. I’m not allowed to even think Canon; she went to Africa (for work) on two separate occasions and both times had a Canon and both times the Canon failed. Her back up was a manual Nikon with a hand held light meter, so she says that thanks to Canon she finally learned what the hell she was doing.

But isn't the camera it is the experience of taking a lot of photos and getting an idea of how what you are seeing will look like when printed. I have a friend that can outshoot me with a cardboard box painted black with a pin hole in it.

Actually he consistently does that!!!!:eek:

One thing I wonder about with digital is if we will lose the learning process of how to draw with light on film, not that the process ever had any effect on me:o , other than I can tell when someone else is good at it.

TG
Click to expand...

I just got a Canon EOS...10 megapixel single lens reflex digital....it is sweet.
 
Tony G said:
I find that the best results I get are from a Leica M6 body (35mm) and also an old Mamiya 6x7cm; shooting 50 ASA Ilford. I develop the film (B&W) myself and then scan the negatives. I also have a Nikon F5 but it is a newer camera for me and I don’t connect with it yet.

The digital is a very old Sony that hardly works anymore.

I got my GF a Nikon D-70 for Christmas and for the money it is a dam nice camera. I’m not allowed to even think Canon; she went to Africa (for work) on two separate occasions and both times had a Canon and both times the Canon failed. Her back up was a manual Nikon with a hand held light meter, so she says that thanks to Canon she finally learned what the hell she was doing.

But isn't the camera it is the experience of taking a lot of photos and getting an idea of how what you are seeing will look like when printed. I have a friend that can outshoot me with a cardboard box painted black with a pin hole in it.

Actually he consistently does that!!!!:eek:

One thing I wonder about with digital is if we will lose the learning process of how to draw with light on film, not that the process ever had any effect on me:o , other than I can tell when someone else is good at it.

TG
Click to expand...

Tony-

Very cool. My ultimate drool cameras have always been Leica M series. I've come so close to buying an M6 or M7 many times over the years, but always run short of $$$ (well, allocate them to other hobbies). I also have pretty much given up shooting film these days, so haven't wanted to invest in a film camera. I'd like an M8, once they get all the bugs worked out, but will probably never spend the money.

I shoot with Canon myself, have a 1D (original), a 1D (mark IIN) and a 20D that I let the wife use. I've never had any problems, and have been very happy with them. Used to shoot Nikon in the old days, but just didn't like what they were doing in digital. The newer stuff (D200, D70, etc.) is very nice, though, so they seem back on track. Hard to beat Nikon glass...

I also just got my first digicam. The Leica D-Lux 3 and am very happy with it. Small, well built and all the controls of a real camera. It even shoots in RAW if I want. Noisy above ISO 100, but I can work with that. It has a native 16:9 CCD and LCD, and I can't wait to get out and shoot some ultra wide panoramic landscapes. Thats also a good format for knives (long and skinny).

The photographer definitely is more important than the gear, but I was just curious what you used since you mentioned the "good cameras" and your other pics using the "not good cameras" looked pretty good already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top