There's no denying the past twelve months have been exciting. Days after the launch of the S-Works McLaren Venge at the spectacular F1 HQ in Woking, Matt Goss stormed to victory aboard the Venge at Milan San Remo. A few weeks later I was back in Europe shooting a gritty, dusty Paris Roubaix. The Tour of California gave me my first chance to shoot a major stage race from a moto (alternately thrilling and terrifying me), then it was back to Europe for the press launch of the Tarmac SL4 in Switzerland with Roman Kreuziger. I struggled with the altitude at the US Pro Cycling Challenge in Colorado but bounced back in the mountains of Utah as the Specialized Ride to Vegas knocked off a dramatic new route to interbike. I shot Levi and Alberto in California and then the new Specialized Lululemon camp and Bicycling Magazine features as the year came to a close. Not bad for what was my first year of shooting full time.

I remain critical of my own work but having just put the latest VeloDramatic photo annual to bed (Jens on the cover above), I think I got a little better. Certainly I've had to up my studio game and come to terms with lighting and more complex shooting scenarios. To that end I've been extremely happy with the Canon 1D MK IV and my Canon glass. The Pocket Wizard Mini TT1 and TT5s proved they could supply reliable wireless fill in a variety of working conditions, and I'm likely to add another four 430EX IIs to my speedlite arsenal to double my hi-speed sync output. I could have used them all shooting surfers at dusk ala Dave Black in Oceanside during a break from the recent team camp.

Last week I plunked down a healthy deposit for a Canon 1DX that's due out, fingers crossed, late March. I expect I'll get my body in the first or second shipment that makes it to Keeble & Shuchat. There have been no reviews yet but the specs really hit the sweet spot for me. Barring a negative AF assessment from the esteemed Rob Galbraith I'm fully committed. If it does miss the mark I've already decided I'll be switching to Nikon.

A+ for Apple

Technology didn't always help matters in 2011 but one company proved again and again that they deserve my business. I took the iPad2 plunge mid year and it immediately became an invaluable tool for navigation (Google Maps and Tour Trackers); showing clients dailies and wireless tethering; finance (mobile banking and TripCubby); not to mention the all-important video diversions needed to survive long trans-Atlantic flights in Economy.

My 15" MacBook Pro is nearly four year old and despite stuffing it with 6GB of RAM and 1.2 TB of internal storage (crazy how we take these numbers for granted now) it's having a tough time keeping up with the demands of my workflow. Now well beyond its warranty the video system abruptly died mid October. I took it to my friendly neighborhood Apple store and remarkably they confirmed they had a known video issue with the original mainboard. They wrote up the $500 repair then credited me for the whole amount promising a five-day turnaround. The next day, less than 24 hours later, the store called to say the repair was done and the MBP ready for pickup. Superb!

Now you could chalk this video resurrection up to luck, but twice during the year I had power bricks fail. The Apple mag connector is very cool, but like all cables eventually wires pull loose. Both times, with no prompting from me, Apple representatives replaced the adapters free of charge. In an age where service and customer loyalty are largely forgotten, Apple does all the little things to earn my trust. I don't think I'm alone and that's why Apple is doing so well.

Because of that experience my next laptop will be a Mac. In the last two weeks of the year I got very close to pulling the trigger on a new machine but held off because there's still no viable way to ingest images faster than the Expresscard slot on my MBP, and that slot is now only available on the 17" model (adding a tough-to-justify pound to my on-the-limit carry-on essentials). A Thunderbolt card reader may be the answer but so far no one has stepped up to make one. So I'm waiting for the Spring and the prospect of faster Ivy Bridge processors, rumors of a Retina display and USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt salvation.

B (Best Book) for MyPublisher

Fourteen months ago I wrote Going All in with MyPublisher. The New York based service still produces the best quality photo books I've seen but disappointingly they haven't meaningfully addressed the professional market yet. Last week I completed the third MP photo book since I wrote that piece; and it's worth noting again the pluses and minus of the current product.

Version 7.1 of the MP software is rock solid. My 86-page book contained 157 photographs. The application never flinched during the layout with plenty of shifting and swapping that occasionally froze earlier versions. With the MyStyles feature enabled it's possible to customize any of the MP layout patterns. Unfortunately the implementation of this very useful feature is hamstrung by two things. First, even though MP can toggle on a visual grid, there's no snap-to or true alignment capability, so getting really accurate sizing between boxes is difficult and tedious. Second, the MyStyles layouts cannot be managed, and if minute changes are made later on a subsequent page, additional versions appear in the MyStyles panel. Speaking critically this is symptomatic of MP's aversion to the mere suggestion of complexity, even when false simplicity (auto saving) is actually less intuitive and confusing.

Two page spreads are well supported, and very nicely realized if the rather expensive lay flat page option is chosen. Another small issue surfaces if a large file is shifted vertically with the hand tool. Because of the tight tolerances of MP's background auto-fitting routine this often leads to a yellow-warning border showing up on the left or right edge. Selecting auto-fit eliminates the problem but in the process shifts the image back to its original vertical positioning. MP should support a horizontal nudge left or right to solve this all too common layout problem.

MP has an image refresh feature but it certainly doesn't behave as it should. In my original article I indicated that any editing outside of MP that saves over a project image, should update the book image via the refresh command. It currently doesn't do this and frankly I can't figure out what it IS doing.

The last major difference worth talking about is the MP Bookshelf. I'm purposely choosing not to use the "MyBookshelf" label that MP gives this web site listing of previous orders because fundamentally it's NOT my bookshelf unless I can manage it. As the screenshot below shows, MP's order-centric model results in a confusing proliferation of the same book icons. I cannot delete any of them. MP even seems confused by it's own order-centric model when it renders its Order History and Order Details tabs. The default Order History tab presents a list view that naturally would lend itself to multiple reorders of the same book, except that even when a book has been reordered the list never has more than a single entry. Until the MP database recognizes "the book" as its record key, just take us to the Order Detail tab and save us a superfluous click.

One of the reasons why MP seems reluctant to allow us to delete books from the bookshelf, is that shared books truly have a life of their own. Once shared a book has no connection back to its creator. There is no aggregation of orders or visibility for the creator. Once shared a book can be reshared. This I believe is the crux of the problem, and why we can't manage the bookshelf. If we actually deleted one of our books, and that should imply deleting all book data, then dissociated shared books (and reorder opportunities) would go away. Philosophically, I believe book creators should have the ultimate control over our books. We should decide when OUR book cannot be reprinted regardless of when or how it was shared. MP really needs to change the way this works.

The bookshelf also is buggy. Books Icons can be "named" but right now the string length appears to have a completely useless 11-character limit and actually isn't saved. Clearly this needs more polish in addition to a serious rethink of the underlying database model.

Outside of large prints, books are the most impactful marketing tool for my business. MyPublisher continues to delight me with their end product but 2011 was a missed opportunity to develop a MyPublisher Pro offering. Blurb's ProLine gives a clear indication that the competition are taking the professional market seriously. If you're listening MP, it's time we had that conversation.

Adobe Gets a C

I was dismayed when Adobe's CS4 Master Collection wouldn't run on Windows 7. Then I was annoyed at the sheer ineptitude of Adobe's technical support system (horrible phone system, dropped calls, hours wasted with useless CSRs). Adobe's plan to require previous-version status for future upgrade eligibility was the bitter final insult in a year that was only rescued by the continuing brilliance of Lightroom.

Related rant. Having spent a decade in the Silicon Valley mines, I've seen the transparent self-interest that has outsourced tech jobs overseas, and the stupidity of mid-level executives who've gone along with a scheme that has undermined service, reduced quality and hurt usability, all in the name of a false economy that only serves to line the pockets of the guys who right their own checks. It's time we started repatriating jobs and paying better wages at the expense of C-Level compensation. I may be self employed with a strong entrepreneurial streak but OWS is on the right track. Better software and service may seem vastly removed from the criminality of wall street and too-big-to-fail banks but it's symptomatic of the same corporate miscalculation that's got us into this mess. Companies like Adobe had better smarten up or they'll be in for a rude awakening from a new class of nimble competitors like Pixelmator.

D - there's nothing Quick about QuickBooks

It's truly hard to imagine a company that can master the U.S. tax code and produce a wonderful product like TurboTax can screw things up so badly with a mature product like QuickBooks. With absolutely no compelling functionality to justify an upgrade to the latest version I was forced to do so to get compatibility with Windows 7. My 2009 version ran perfectly on Windows Vista 64-bit but wouldn't start on 64-bit Windows 7. The new product, thanks to some poor coding, obfuscated a relatively simple problem with online banking that prevented me doing any accounting for weeks following the upgrade. Again, I had to pass through multiple layers of useless support before I finally got to knowledgeable people who could diagnose the problem. Thanks to my UK pal Jon Moss, I'll be using FreeAgent as my accounting software in 2012. It's early but I'm already feeling good about saying goodbye to Quickbooks, even if I'm perversely looking forward to using TurboTax to dispatch this year's tax chores.

There's no escaping the fact that photography depends heavily on all this technology. Here's hoping that 2012's grade point average is better than this year's. Meanwhile I'm looking forward to getting off the computer and getting back to shooting.

Well, two days ago Canon ended the rumors and suspense with the announcement of the 1DX. While it remains to be seen whether the new features will live up to the estimated $6800 price tag, I'm definitely interested.

What's Currently in My Bag

My normal working kit consists of a 1D IV and a 5D II... occasionally I'll have a third 1D IIN along for insurance or to act as a remote. The 1D MK IV handles all the action with it's advanced Auto Focus, 10 fps and 1.3 crop factor. It incorporates both a Compact Flash and SDHC card slot; the latter coming in very handy for wireless tethering via an Eye-Fi X2 to iPad running ShutterSnitch. In contrast the 5D II handles static shots (it's AF is terrible and its AF point coverage inadequate) but as a full-frame camera it doesn't compromise the focal length of my wide angle lenses.

What appears to be a good division of labor actually is quite frustrating to work with. Don't get me wrong the 5D II is an amazing camera and a great bang-for-the-buck but operationally jumping between the two is awkward. Little things like a mode dial that's prone to move, a battery grip that likes to unscrew itself, software differences and the aforementioned AF limitations seem to show themselves at precisely the wrong time (read any time the camera is stretched beyond it's static sweet spot).

It's not clear yet whether the 1DX's lineage will make it a better working partner for the 1D IV but I suspect it will. If it's not a seamless partnership I'll have to accept the expensive reality of a pair of 1DX bodies. If I sold my 5D, 5D II, 1D IV and 1D IIN plus an assortment of lenses I don't use much I might just get within shouting distance (and out of Juli's shouting distance) of that purchase.

X Marks the 1DX Spot

The switch to a new 18 MP full-frame sensor is a great call. Minus the 1.3 crop I can live with the reduced reach with my telephotos in exchange for the benefits of true focal length at the wide end. 12 fps (and the possibility of 14 fps shooting jpgs) will be a boon provided the new 61-point AF matrix lives up to its billing. The 1D IV certainly improved on the poor AF performance of it's predecessor but it still is quirky and unpredictable at times in bright sunlight and when subjects are moving straight at the camera.

I like the move to dual Compact Flash slots. The mixed storage option always struck me as odd. Yes, I'll miss the Eye-Fi functionality (unless Eye-Fi announces a change of heart and develops a CF option) but the 1DX's built in ethernet should fill the gap via Canon's compatible wifi transmitter or a third-party mini router.

The addition of a second multi-controller gives vertical shooting ergonomic parity, and Canon has enlarged and moved the AF-ON button leftwards from its strange angled-surface position on the 1D IV (more on that in a bit). I'm not sure how the touchpad will operate within the quick control dial but let's assume it's a positive development that will speed command and control. The front of the camera plays host to two pairs of programmable buttons that will surely provide new utility. Their position suggests photographers who can play the accordion will have a head start putting them to use.

Most importantly with a new sensor and processors 1DX image quality promises to be better. If Canon has in fact closed the 2-stop advantage Nikon now enjoys at ISOs above 1600 I'll be ecstatic. In truth I've been seriously considering switching sides because of that strategic advantage alone. Armed with two Digic 5+ processors and a Digic 4 dedicated exclusively to AF and exposure the 1DX is going to be capable of some incredible in-camera processing throughput.

The creative possibilities of the new in-camera multi-exposure feature appear limitless. I can imagine photographers carrying small libraries of images shot with the 1DX to be used as the starting point for future in-camera composites. Landscapes with better skies, scenes with new protagonists and perhaps, the possibility of journalistic abuse (meta data traceability not withstanding). The moment of capture becomes a performance.

So What's Missing

I noted before that Canon has resized and moved the AF-ON button. They recognize that we sport shooters use our thumbs to activate AF and our forefingers to fire the shutter. On the Mark IV I continue to use the (*) button. Why? Because it's immediately adjacent to the button that activates focus point selection. My thumb darts back and forth between these two buttons constantly.

If it turns out that it's possible to shift the focus point selection functionality to the (*) button on the 1DX then the new AF-ON button will work for me (the two functions will still be triggered by two adjacent buttons), if not I'd continue with my current ergonomic pattern. Sorry if all of this is confusing without a diagram.

I mention this because I think Canon continues to miss the point here. Instead of independent buttons to initiate the two functions, we should have a single large button that behaves like a multi-controller to select the focus point with a light pressure and when stabbed with a heavy pressure triggers AF. One button, two intrinsically-linked functions and my thumb never has to move. Short of eye-tracking to establish my focus point there's no better way to marry/decouple these critical functions.

The last thing I'd hoped to see was effective Liveview AF (and I'm not talking about video AF). Canon has yet to realize that there are times when we'd like to use the LCD for active composition and focus, and we'd like it to behave just like the viewfinder. Somewhere down the line we may have an articulated LCD or even an off-camera remote viewfinder. I'm not looking to be completely separated from the camera (as in a true remote) but be able to put the camera through fences, under and over barriers etc. and still have full AF control. Next time perhaps.

Beyond the camera, Canon still needs to catch up with Nikon by improving the EOS flash system. I continue to dream about a "white" 50mm, 85mm or 100mm in the arsenal. In the meantime I'm looking forward to the arrival of 1DX field tests from Rob Galbraith and others. AF is critical. If Rob declares the 1DX superior to the 1D IV I believe I'm going to have to bite.

July began under a little gray cloud. Wilfred and I planned to be in France with our Reve Grand Tour project, but with only a half-dozen riders confirmed for the 2011 team in April, we were nine short of the 15 we needed to green light the trip. We're optimistic that we'll get our numbers next time around since everyone will have a full year to train. Look for some good news here and on the Reve site soon; 2012 is on.

Like the rest of you I was glued to this year's tour. The major story lines and subplots just kept coming, and nothing, with the possible exception of Gilbert winning Stage one seemed predictable. I should have put some money on that one after Roman Kreuziger made him a lock while we were in Switzerland photographing Specialized's Tarmac SL4 in the middle of June (above). Seems the whole peloton believed he was unbeatable right out the gate.

As the body count rose during the first week's carnage it was difficult to see how this could turn out to be one of the best Tours in memory. Narrow roads, crosswinds and inattention clearly played a role but I thought the main reason there were so many crashes was the lack of a real patron in the peloton. With Contador's status in doubt, we were left with the soft-spoken Schlecks and Cadel as the potential GC captains. Of course they all turned out to have plenty of grit later on but none of them exerted the magnetic force (of attraction and repulsion) that Armstrong did to keep the pack in line.

In the absence of a single dominant force it seemed anything could happen, and by the time that French TV car took out Flecha and Hoogerland, it had. That got me scared. I was reasonably comfortable on the moto during the Tour of California but I was super nervous watching the peloton and vehicles negotiate the TDF stages on TV. It's likely I'll never find out if I've got the guts to shoot a mountain stage at race pace in the TDF... maybe that's a good thing. I'm actually amazed these collisions don't happen more often.

Hushovd was the first big surprise, power climbing with Gilbert and Cadel and riding with all of his veteran wile to keep the yellow jersey for a week, then topping that with two tactically-brilliant stage wins. After demonstrating he could climb away from a breakaway in Stage 13 I don't know how he managed to get away with it again in Stage 16.

It was good to see Cav and Greipel bury the hatchet, clasping hands after Marks victory in Stage 11 (repeated after the final sprint in Paris). Like boxers who trash talk each other before a fight, when they've traded blows in the ring, respect invariably replaces bravado.

While all of that was inspiring, it was just an appetizer for Voeckler's second act. His gritty performance in the Pyrenees hanging with the best climbers in the sport, closing the gaps and fighting for wheels was the best thing I've seen at the Tour in years. Andy had yet to prove he would actually take a chance to win the race, and frankly all that looking over his shoulder for his brother was irritating the hell out of me. Tommy more than filled the void, and even when he made the wrong decision to try for that solo bridge in the Alps you couldn't help but root for him. Surely he proved something to himself, but it remains to be seen if he can rise to that level next year, just ask Bradley Wiggins about that. I think anyone who loves cycling hopes he does, he'd be a great champion and I don't blame the French for getting a little tired of everyone else winning their race.

Ultimately he couldn't manage those last mountain stages where Andy cast aside his conservatism and Cadel proved his tenacity and class. The whole Europcar team, particularly Rolland was solid in support, I think they took him as far as they could and validated their invitation to race.

Last but not least, how amazing was Jens this year. Forty and still beating the living daylights out of everyone riding that merciless tempo on the front. I hope he never retires.

Not quite sure how I'm resisting the gravitational pull of the hotel bed behind me, but here goes with a few words and images from today's stage of the ATOC. Again full marks to the organizers for a good call in Tahoe, but I can't help feeling the riders blew a real opportunity yesterday to demonstrate they are ready to assume a leadership role in their own sport. With their input a good decision was made in the interest of rider safety, but what about Tahoe? Instead of disappearing immediately into the hotel and team buses I wish they'd grabbed warmer gear (it was needed) and spent an hour signing autographs, taking pictures with fans, showing off their bikes and maybe popping a wheelie or two.

It was cold, but Tahoe deserved a little more warmth from the peloton. Again I'll cite the NASCAR example. If they had to call off an event you can bet drivers would be signing autographs and t-shirts, doing donuts in the parking lot... and generally connecting with their fans.

And to the question of whether the ATOC should go back to Tahoe and risk the unpredictability of the Sierras next year; my answer is a resounding yes. This is what many of us asked for; a chance to take our race into our Mountains (capital M). We got unlucky this year, but other than the good folks of Tahoe no one really suffered. I say tee it up again, we're due for some better luck in the weather department. And if it keeps raining we have one more argument for the jackasses who still question climate change.

Two locations today. A short punchy climb just beyond the Nevada City start. The peloton went by en masse in 20 seconds or less. The finish circuit in Sacramento was a little better but my best stuff today were faces.

With still photographers relegated to a position well back from the line for TV's sake, I gambled on a position in the Rabobank VIP area courtesy of a Tour for Kika friend. I was half the distance to the line in a perfect spot for Mr. Swift's triumph but I didn't count on the bloody cell phones. Virtually every person stuck an arm out with a cell phone, playing havoc with AF, and forcing me to pick up the riders too late to get the key shot. Had it kept raining hard for that last circuit it would have worked. The cell phones ran for cover when the sprinkles got heavier.

Notes: Andrew Messick, Jim Birrell and Bob Roll all looked good today in Classic softshell's courtesy of Rapha. HTC had a full complement of their New Team Issue Venge bikes; Saxo had a couple of McLaren Venges in the mix (still my favorite).

I doubt there's a more loaded word in the modern lexicon. We kid ourselves that the next bit of technology will put us ahead in the game but in truth we're all just hamsters madly spinning our wheels as file sizes, bandwidth and obsolescence conspire to put the brakes on productivity. If you're a photographer you experience the friction every time you pull a card out a camera and prepare to spend as much or more time processing as you did shooting.

My last desktop machine lasted 27 months, the one before that 36 months. Faced with an ever-decreasing lifespan, it's a good thing I take a perverse enjoyment in the chase.

I'm completely agnostic when it comes to my operating system. I cut my design teeth on the Mac, took a right-click onto Windows and now seem to have settled on a hybrid arsenal of both. I carry a MacBook Pro and the new iPad2 on the road, but my last few desktops have been PCs Admittedly I gave some thought to a Macintosh workstation this time around, but ultimately opted to build a Windows 7 desktop. No cards or letters please, I've happily made my contribution to Apple for this quarter.

Below the desk the new box is a stealthy matte black Corsair 800D, clean lines and wonderfully engineered inside for wire management and cooling. Fueled by gaming there's been a quantum leap in presentation, and every component from CPU coolers and fans to video cards and RAM are now designed to be seen but not heard. There's a large acrylic window in the Corsair case for our cats to view all this trick componentry: Asus Maximus Extreme IV motherboard; i7 3.4 GHz 2600K CPU (overclocked to 4.2 GHz); H60 CPU cooler; 16GB of Corsair Vengeance Ram; a 1200AX PSU; OCZ Vertex 3 SSD (boot drive); a pair of OCZ 2 SSDs (lightroom catalog and cache); a 2TB WD HDD for raw images and a 1TB WD HDD for final client export files. I'll fore-go the photographs, since BikeSnobNYC who's always poking about the VeloDramatic archives, will only use it as material on a slow day.

Between assignments it took several days to assemble the hardware trying always to think two steps ahead before committing to the next move. There was a minor delay when temperatures indicated the CPU cooler needed to be reseated and a standoff broke in the process. Thankfully Corsair is virtually round the corner in Fremont, so a quick drive over to their office and a parking lot hand off replaced the unusual fastener. It also took a while to get full SATAsfaction... as the various SSDs and HDDs were temperamental about the motherboard ports and order they were added to the system. After a good deal of reading I organized the system to avoid unnecessary writes to the boot SSD, moving temp files, logs, email data and the page file elsewhere. I freely admit that without Google none of this would have been possible; can anyone remember what life was like before that search engine provided all the answers about silly stuff like "trim, environmental variables and %appdata%"

And this was the easy part. The true difficulty comes in reinstalling all the applications, applying patches, transferring presets, plugins and finding invariably that your two-year-old Adobe CS4 Master Collection has compatibility issues with Windows 7. As I type this I'm sitting on hold@adobe listening to the same 30-second Muzak clip looping endlessly. Total time on hold with them this afternoon approaching 3.5 hrs. What's worse is I know they won't be able to solve the problem because I've already confirmed the answer doesn't exist on Google. Ultimately there's only one way to make things right and it's going to involve my credit card.

So the question is was it worth it? Absolutely... Lightroom is lightening quick, the new NEC screen is calibrated and sharp. So now I can get back to shooting and spend a little less time in front of the computer.

Adobe Postscript (no pun intended). Today has been an absolute case study in negative customer support. All of us have heard the familiar words "this call may be recorded..." Well all I can say is I hope today's three calls were recorded, but I'm quite sure no CS manager at Adobe would sit and listen to 3.5 hours of Muzak. Adobe saved the best for last, the final call tonight was the clincher. After two aborted 90-minute holds for level 2 support I once again called the main support number, waited 35 minutes till a script-reading rep took the call and told me she 1) had no way of knowing how long I might wait for someone to answer at level II when she transferred me 2) had no way of requesting level II to call me when a technician was finally available 3) Assured me that once transferred if I waited indeterminately someone would eventually answer the phone. She transferred me... the phone clicked and the voice said "Adobe Technical support business hours are ya-da-ya-da-ya-da, call back during regular business hours. I rest my case, which by the way is #182320640

It's worth mentioning that there still are some companies that have great support. While Adobe seems intent on dropping the ball, I had a great experience with Other World Computing (OWC) as the source for the 30" NEC PA301W that's now my main working monitor. It ships with NEC's Spectaview II software and hardware (based on the X-Rite Eye-One 2) which makes short work of calibration. Lloyd Chamber's informative Mac Performance Guide highly recommended the NEC and OWC; both recommendations are well founded... thanks Lloyd. Shipping was fast and very reasonable for this heavyweight screen.

This in response to McQuaid's logic as explained in a Velonews piece by John Wilcockson

If Pat McQuad would write his statements down, take 30 minutes to proof read them and then censor himself, he might be better off. If we go along with his pyramid metaphor even a cursory knowledge of world archeology would confirm that there are plenty of flat-top pyramid structures all around the world. In the business and administration of world cycling there's nothing inherently wrong with the UCI controlling a structure that only goes so far. Professional athletics has changed... and the patriarchal/feudal system espoused by the UCI no longer is in sync with the professional dynamic. Attempting to lay a guilt trip on the riders and teams who might entertain another vision for the sport is merely McQuaid protecting his own increasingly marginalized piece of turf.

A pro league might be the new start the sport needs, if and only if, the teams are prepared to address their own deficiencies when it comes to marketing and sponsor ROI. Cervelo was on the right track when they created their Test team vision. A team who's bottom line was broader than the top step of the podium. Manufacturers supply millions of dollars worth of product to teams and then go begging for access. Riding is only 50% of a professional cyclist's job description, the other 50% is serving the needs of sponsors. Watch a NASCAR post-race interview to see how it's supposed to be done.

All parties have a long way to go expand the sport's audience, revenue and rider benefits. I'm not convinced that taking the point of the pyramid away from the UCI is any riskier than the status quo

I was thinking about McQuaid and Mubarak. One of them has ruled his domain with an iron hand, refused to implement democratic reforms, stood in the way of progress, suspended due process and generally dismissed the people he is supposed to serve. But enough about McQuaid.

Facebook, Tweet, take to the streets. There appears to be a greater chance of overthrowing an entrenched Egyptian despot than getting the UCI to embrace democracy in the affairs of cycling. The rider protest of the race radio ban in Mallorca was a start but the revolution has a long way to go before it secures a real voice in the governance of the sport. Perhaps it's time to start pulling up the pavement in case the UCI launches a camel charge, they've already invalidated race results and threatened to cancel elections, I mean races. Isn't it time the U.S. state department started putting diplomatic pressure on McQuaid to step down.

Elsewhere the revised version of the UCI approval protocol for frames and forks resurfaced with all the grace of a Mubarak concession speech. Oh, that's right, there wasn't one. Little has changed in the new document. It bears the same autocratic sense of a entitlement, but there's been nothing short of a miraculous reduction in the cost of scrutiny. Perhaps the Swiss government's willingness to freeze Mubarak's bank accounts caused the UCI to rethink the usurious sums they were trying to extort from manufacturers. For those that thought the original price structure was a naked money grab, I'd say the new fee structure confirms it.

The full approval process for monocoque frames requires a "contribution" of $6,200 instead of $12,000 and it only applies to time trial and track categories. Monocoque road frames are now subject to the intermediate procedure which means road frame approval has effectively been marked down from $12,000 to $3,800. Corporate bean counters take note, this is how to waterboard squeeze your suppliers. Apparently there was a significant amount of padding in the original lab fees. What a surprise.

There's even mention of tolerances between drawing and prototype for the first time. It's a shame there's no easy way to quantify intolerance because this regime has plenty of it and its high time professional cyclists get out the saddle and on to the barricades. It's not like they have to worry about tanks showing up at the official sign in... do they?

As events have shown us a lot can change in eighteen days. I like to picture McQuaid and Mubarak in retirement opening the charming M&M B&B in Sharm el-Sheikh complete with UCI-approved bike rentals that only a Saudi prince could afford. It's just a matter of time, I think the hieroglyphics are on the wall.

Faced with what was reported to be a united front of manufacturers, the UCI took a step back to regroup. A revised protocol will be released early in February, but based on the short message that appears on the UCI site, don't expect them to throw in the towel.

A revised version of the « Approval Protocol for Frames and Forks » will be published at the beginning of February 2011. The number of approval requests expected means it is necessary to adapt several measures in the protocol. Thank you for your understanding.

I've highlighted the second sentence because I think it offers an insight into the mindset of the organization. The fact they think they'll be overwhelmed with the number of approval requests presupposes that manufacturers will go along. Given the industry reception the protocol has received I think it demonstrates an incredible arrogance.

BikeBiz.com reported that an email sent to manufacturers (read it in its entirety here) included the following. Again the bold emphasis is mine.

We will contact you again before the end of next week in order to inform you of a procedure that has been adjusted to take your contributions into account. As a consequence, the procedure in its current form is suspended until 1st February. From this date, a revised version will come into force.

We are confident that this process, which in no way questions the foundations and the objectives of the approval procedure, will benefit all concerned. We will endeavor to carry out the necessary modifications as quickly as possible. Thank you for your understanding.

The UCI reaction reminds me of boxers who've just been rocked by a big shot... smiling, and shaking of the head often precedes a trip to the canvas. If I'm in the manufacturer corner, I'm telling them to stay aggressive and go for the knockout. ]]> http://www.velodramatic.com/archives/6438/feed 2 http://www.velodramatic.com/archives/6408 http://www.velodramatic.com/archives/6408#comments Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:34:09 +0000 Velodramatic http://www.velodramatic.com/?p=6408

I'll admit, I like writing these harder-edged pieces as a change of pace from the generally positive tone of this blog. Like ticks, bureaucrats just naturally get under the skin, and you have to scratch back. Comments on the original UCI post raised a number of interesting questions that may only be answered in time if the protocol is accepted by manufacturers. In the meantime here are a few more thoughts on the matter and a stab or two at those difficult questions.

The Real Costs

I've given more thought to the question of what this is going to cost manufacturers, both in currency and time. It's not clear how many models a manufacturer will want to have certified for UCI competition but if we look at the current top-end norm, many pro teams are provided with road, cobble-specific road and tt frames. Philosophies differ on womens' specific models (Specialized vs Cervelo for instance) but let's count one, plus a track and a cross model. This brings our total to six at the high end of the market, with no inclusion of the 2nd tier bikes that have been promoted to smaller teams and racing on a budget initiatives.

Let's assume that only one third of this 6-model lineup is updated each year, so we have $25,000 in UCI testing fees payable annually just for bikes. The protocol's documentation requirements are significant with both profile and sectional views for each of the eight possible frame sizes in two formats STEP and PDF. These drawings must anticipate the manufacturing tolerances of production which will be tested later during the prototype phase and eventually spot-checked by commissaires at races on actual production bicycles.

Several readers have expressed well-founded doubts about whether the UCI will be sufficiently staffed to live up to the detail of their own protocol but it's also quite evident that manufacturers will have to devote additional resources towards the preparation and administration of their responsibilities under the requirements.

Given the stakes, manufacturers will not simply spit out the documentation package and send it off to Switzerland hoping for the best, nor I imagine will they designate the task to their Taiwanese factory if that's where their frames originate. This is not a negative reflection on those factories, I just believe the compliance work will remain the responsibility of the bicycle company's home office and engineers.

If we include the murkier area of technical innovation as it applies to helmets, clothing etc. it's easy to see this taking 50% of one employee's time to oversee all stages of preparation, tracking and internal testing. I highlight the last point because no manufacturer is going to produce technical drawings or prototypes for certification without careful internal scrutiny. I'll argue this is different and in addition to normal QA testing no matter how rigorous.

Up to now, manufacturers have simply been able to change designs if QA found issues, moving forward the UCI-influenced picture is not nearly as simple, so it will require a profound level of confidence that all engineering/production issues have been anticipated and allowed for. Not so much because of cost overruns, mold changes are always very expensive, but because getting a submission wrong could totally destroy marketing timelines and associated budgets.

I'm not privy to engineering salaries in the bicycle industry but let's assume $80-$100K for a mid-level engineer, fully loaded that employee costs the employer $150K. If that employee spends half his or her time on the UCI protocol, that's $75K. Add the $25K for the two bike submission and you have $100K.

I may be overestimating the percentage of time an employee would have to devote to the issue but I've got plenty of experience estimating complex projects. If it were me allocating resources given all the unknowns and the historical difficulty working with the UCI, this is what I'd budget for.

Monocoque or Not

Reader Touriste-Routier brought up a number of interesting points, one of which was dependent on the specifics of frame assembly. The UCI protocol clearly differentiates between frames that are assembled from tubes and single-piece (monocoque) production, but I'm not sure if manufacturers could bypass the heavy fees and process of the latter by being clever about production. For instance if they produce a bike in two pieces; in other words circumvent the requirements by being able to argue that their bike is not a single-piece construction. Bikes like BMC's Impec are as sophisticated as any on the market. I assume they will benefit from the simplified approval process and fees since they are not single piece constructions.

I'm left wondering if a host of manufacturers switched production methods, would the UCI amend the protocol fee structure? Right now their motivation for extending the simplified rules is to help small and artisan builders, not necessarily to help large bicycle companies that choose multi-piece construction have an easier time with the protocol.

To the question of whether bicycles that originate from a common frame model and supplier (Taiwan) require individual certification; my reading of the protocol is yes.

Tip of the Iceberg

Reading between the lines it would appear that the UCI wants to extend its hegemony far beyond bikes and forks alone. There's too much at stake here for manufacturers, particularly the biggest ones, to cut a check and appease the UCI. Competitive cycling needs a healthy bicycle industry, free to deliver the innovation that racers and enthusiasts thoroughly enjoy. Time for the bicycle industry to check the lay up schedule on its collective backbone. If we ever needed more stiffness in that backbone now's the time.

I understand where the UCI is coming from. They seek to level the playing field for all competitors in UCI-sanctioned events by mandating that they compete exclusively on approved equipment (1.3.001bis). I spent the day with the new Approval Protocol and came away feeling, while not entirely without merit, it's a reactionary response to progress which threatens the very engine that drives the sport.

If I was a bicycle manufacturer I wouldn't be happy. Why, because I now have a not-so-silent business partner with an agenda that's going to dramatically change what, when and how I bring products to market. I don't buy the central premise, that technology is ruining competition. Once again, golf was there first and I'm very familiar with the equipment rules of the USGA and R&A. More on that in a bit, because some of the parallels are interesting.

For simplicity's sake let's confine this discussion to road cycling. Each year approximately 180 riders line up at the start of the Tour de France. Most are part of the supporting cast with no chance whatsoever for individual glory. And then there are the gc contenders. A handful of riders who can climb, time trial and stay out of trouble for three weeks. I believe that this select group could, assuming proper fit, exchange bikes on that Tour starting line, and the best rider among them would still win. Even the much vaunted F1 project that worked to give Lance Armstrong every advantage during his reign, didn't assure him victory.

Competitive R&D already levels the playing field

The world is now too small, science and technology too ubiquitous, and reverse-engineering too easy for any one company to possess a technological advantage sufficient to determine the outcome of the race. Is any one remotely surprised to know manufacturers buy and test each others bikes and equipment? Even patents can be ingeniously circumvented if necessary. In these days of too-big-to-fail bailouts the superiority of unfettered markets can no longer go unchallenged, but cycling doesn't need a soviet-era central planning committee. I'd argue that bicycle companies have a done a good job of keeping the playing field level.

I will acknowledge that the governing bodies of sport have a difficult job. Golf has struggled with this for decades. Equipment advances, particularly in the golf ball have effectively shortened many championship courses. Over the years various proposals to create a single competition golf ball have come and gone, principally because the average golfer wants to hit the ball further. Spectators at golf tournaments want to see the ball go further too.

The average cyclist, and that includes most racers and pros, love technology. I believe they (we) appreciate that a governing body exists to establish sensible principles for the bicycle (3.2.2). We don't want the Tour de France contested on recumbents, but that's where it ends. Set the basic physical parameters so that bicycles look like bicycles, but otherwise let the industry innovate.

Inverting the natural order

The new protocol subverts the natural order of things. Bicycle companies have traditionally used the professional ranks as the test bed for new technology. In fact riders and fans enjoy the one offs and special engineering that appears for the grand tours. It makes sense to develop product this way, to have the best riders in the world torture test them under the toughest race conditions. When it works, the product or innovation makes it into general production soon after. The UCI program stands all that on its head. Bicycles and forks have to be generally available in the marketplace come race time, and one-off bicycles and components are specifically outlawed. (4.1 comments on the principles)

More disturbing still is section 3.1.2 Technical Innovations. No accessory, helmet, equipment, clothing or means of communication can be used in competition unless it has been approved by the UCI executive bureau before June 30th of the previous year. In other words if you want riders to use a new TT helmet at the 2012 Tour de France, it will have to be approved before the start of the 2011 Tour. In a word this is ridiculous. I'm not clear on whether the executive bureau means the UCI president and three vice presidents, but regardless it gives the impression that these matters will be summarily decided by executive fiat.

Time to market

Throughout the protocol the UCI seems indifferent to realistic time frames. With a maximum of one month to approve technical drawings and up to two months to approve a prototype, I don't know where the UCI thinks industry players will find an extra three months in their development cycles. The UCI would probably counter that after an initial adjustment, the industry would simply anticipate these necessary steps and build it into their schedules. I'm sure the UCI understands that development is not evenly spaced throughout the year. I'm left wondering if they're truly prepared to respond in a timely fashion when hit with a wave of simultaneous submissions. If we consider how long it takes for doping decisions to be made, I shudder to think where this might end up.

I encourage you to read the protocol for yourself. There are three basic steps: the application; technical drawing submission; prototype submission, but even here there are a couple of gray areas worth noting. First, section 5.1.1 encourage pre-application dialog, which reads to me like a formula to get turned down before you even get started.

Before the Application Form is submitted, the UCI encourages manufacturers to let them know about their ideas and concepts, in order to avoid any clear breaches of the regulations, to allow a model that complies with the requirements to be designed without delay and to avoid unexpected issues when the technical drawings are checked.

Value add - all the graphic appeal of a bar code

After approval, manufacturers need to consult with the UCI to find out where they can place the official sticker. If it were me I'd be looking to put it somewhere unobtrusive since I like my designs clean. I doubt that will pass muster and I'll wager somewhere on the front-facing seat tube is where they'll all land. I won't get into the silliness that insists the stickers are applied at the time of initial painting and that after-market, third-party repainting can't reapply the sticker to the frame. If that's not restraint of trade I don't know what is.

Smaller manufacturers and artisan builders will be afforded a simpler process by virtue of the fact they don't produce monocoque frames. Frames that are assembled from individual tubes, welded, brazed, glued etc. appear to be exempt from the full technical drawing package and the prototype requirements. They do still have to pay a fee, much smaller but still substantial (approx. $800 + VAT if applicable) per model.

One piece frame submissions, covering up to eight discreet sizes, will cost manufacturers a whopping $12,000 + VAT if applicable. Compare this to the schedule of fees from the USGA golf labs where certification of a set of irons (max 10-12 clubs) costs $500. Granted the rules for golf clubs are simpler with fewer variables but the relative cost just feels more realistic. If the UCI argues their analysis involves much more complex measurement and evaluation, I'd ask... who's responsible for that?

If the oil spill in the gulf and the meltdown in the financial industry have taught us anything, it's critical that there must be barriers between industry and regulators. The protocol does make clear the importance of confidentiality and secure communications. It does not specify that regulators, those who test equipment, cannot cross over into industry. I would like to see a clause which prevented any individual involved in UCI testing from assuming an industry position for two years after leaving the employ of the UCI or it's delegates.

Might it actually compromise safety and increase differentiation

The UCI declares that protocol approval has nothing to do with safety certification, and that they assume no responsibility for any approved product that is rejected by safety standard organizations or for any injuries that result from protocol-approved bicycle usage. That's fine and to be expected. What's not good is that it's easy to imagine the protocol actually hurting overall safety. Here's why.

Manufacturers currently have unlimited scope to improve production of a given model. As product comes off the line, random samples are subjected to routine QA. Often these tests yield valuable insights that are cycled back into production improvements immediately. I worry that these kind of optimizations may not happen when the manufacturer has to consider whether the change constitutes a new model with the associated costs and delays under the protocol, or whether the modified bicycles could be disqualified at a later date after UCI scrutiny.

I'll also argue that the protocol may actually produce more differentiation between manufacturers than the intended effect of narrowing it. By staging innovations to appear after June 30th (provided they've been approved one year earlier), a manufacturer could conceivably have a window of 18-months of exclusivity on the innovation before competitors can respond. If this interpretation is correct, perhaps large manufacturers would embrace this as a competitive advantage, but it would be terrible to be on the outside looking in as your teams and riders complained about missing out on a key feature. One final note on this point. Given that the UCI is so innovation averse, perhaps this point is moot... nothing will be approved.

No thank you

In conclusion, I believe it's time that manufacturers collectively stand up and refuse to abide by these regulations. If they all refuse what's the UCI going to do, hold meaningless races where no one shows up because none of the bikes are approved. Riders, teams and manufacturers need to realize they hold all the cards and its time they assumed their rightful place at the table. Under the guise of collaboration and dialogue the protocol is an expensive take-it-or-leave it ultimatum that serves neither the racer nor the consumer. Going along is the worst thing that manufacturers can do.