This past weekend was the first collegiate cross event, hosted by UCIrvine and Bike Religion, and District Championships (states for all you pussies out there who live in states where one championship is enough).
The first day I arrived real early to help run registration and setup the BBQ. Everything went relatively smoothly, but I was still running around with start sheets and fixing the course up as the day went along. I was pretty tired by the time I got a few laps of warmup in... but I was familiar with the course and ready to take some points. I did the 3/4 on Saturday, and had a real good start, sitting in 2 or 3 through the first lap. The "Bobby Langin Jr" of this year, Eric Christensen came flying by at some point during the 2nd or 3rd lap, and I didn't have it to tack on, but John VD rode away with him. I battled it out for 3rd with some other guy I don't know, and managed to hold him off in the last corner by opening up the inside line ever so slightly, then firmly closing the door when he tried to squeeze by. You don't sneak by on the inside on the last turn on someone who weighs 170lbs... I just move my fat ass over.
Sunday was a whole different story. I did the Pro123 race, as that was where the cat3 championship would be fought out. I thought maybe I had a slight chance of trying to cling to wheels and give the win a shot at the line until the official asked those who were racing the 3s to raise their hands and a number of the guys who have been racing (and some placing top5) in the Elites all year raised their hands. Oh well.... Didn't end up mattering anyway, as anyone with a bike and a cat3 license passed me by at some point during the race. A few riders had the distinct privilege of passing me twice, which was just fine for me, as that meant one less lap for me! I was NOT ready for 60 minutes of that kind of racing. But at least I know what I need to get my body ready for.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
WCCC Cyclocross race
Next Saturday we'll be having the first WCCC Cyclocross race ever. Come be a part of history.
What I'm really proud of today, however, is that I've finally figured out all the bells and whistles of google maps "create a map" feature. Not that it was hard to figure out, but this thing rocks.
So come on out.... it's going to be schweet.
What I'm really proud of today, however, is that I've finally figured out all the bells and whistles of google maps "create a map" feature. Not that it was hard to figure out, but this thing rocks.
So come on out.... it's going to be schweet.
Friday, November 07, 2008
LA Comeback
No... not Los Angeles, this city does, and forever will, suck.
I've been thinking about Lance Armstrong's comeback. Not because I want to- I've read enough about douchebags leading up the election. But since it's the first story of every cycling website whenever Lance steps into a wind tunnel...it's hard to avoid.
This is quote from cyclingnews from today:
Armstrong is not necessarily looking for the position that will make the bike the fastest. "It has to be a perfect mix between position and power. If I am five percent slower due to the position, but have 25 percent more power, than that will be better."
Cyclingnews needs to do some better editing. "not necessarily looking for the position that will make the bike fastest"? Are you kidding? I think they meant to say not necessarily the most aerodynamic. That's the compromise.... aerodynamics and power. Not speed and power. You should be optimizing speed bar none.
Anyway... what I was really thinking about is my theory on Lance's comeback. I think he's seen a new wave of clean cycling hit the forefront. With teams implementing stronger anti-doping programs (Garmin and Columbia particularly) and tests being coordinated by drug companies (CERA) he wants to come back and prove to himself that he can win clean. I believe that he was on drugs when he won his Tours.... but can you blame just him? If many other people were doing it, it's hard not to, though I still blame him for doing it.... but it's not all on his shoulders. I think he looks at the sport now and thinks, wow even a clean cyclist might be able to win something now, maybe I'll see if I'm actually as good as my world championship ride in the rain had me out to be....but he was probably doping then too.
I've been thinking about Lance Armstrong's comeback. Not because I want to- I've read enough about douchebags leading up the election. But since it's the first story of every cycling website whenever Lance steps into a wind tunnel...it's hard to avoid.
This is quote from cyclingnews from today:
Armstrong is not necessarily looking for the position that will make the bike the fastest. "It has to be a perfect mix between position and power. If I am five percent slower due to the position, but have 25 percent more power, than that will be better."
Cyclingnews needs to do some better editing. "not necessarily looking for the position that will make the bike fastest"? Are you kidding? I think they meant to say not necessarily the most aerodynamic. That's the compromise.... aerodynamics and power. Not speed and power. You should be optimizing speed bar none.
Anyway... what I was really thinking about is my theory on Lance's comeback. I think he's seen a new wave of clean cycling hit the forefront. With teams implementing stronger anti-doping programs (Garmin and Columbia particularly) and tests being coordinated by drug companies (CERA) he wants to come back and prove to himself that he can win clean. I believe that he was on drugs when he won his Tours.... but can you blame just him? If many other people were doing it, it's hard not to, though I still blame him for doing it.... but it's not all on his shoulders. I think he looks at the sport now and thinks, wow even a clean cyclist might be able to win something now, maybe I'll see if I'm actually as good as my world championship ride in the rain had me out to be....but he was probably doping then too.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Historical Income Tax Brackets
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates Since 1913 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Applicable Year | Income brackets | First bracket | Top bracket | Source |
1913-1915 | - | 1% | 7% | Census |
1916 | - | 2% | 15% | Census |
1917 | - | 2% | 67% | Census |
1918 | - | 6% | 73% | Census |
1919-1920 | - | 4% | 73% | Census |
1921 | - | 4% | 73% | Census |
1922 | - | 4% | 56% | Census |
1923 | - | 3% | 56% | Census |
1924 | - | 1.5% | 46% | Census |
1925-1928 | - | 1.5% | 25% | Census |
1929 | - | 0.375% | 24% | Census |
1930-1931 | - | 1.125% | 25% | Census |
1932-1933 | - | 4% | 63% | Census |
1934-1935 | - | 4% | 63% | Census |
1936-1939 | - | 4% | 79% | Census |
1940 | - | 4.4% | 81.1% | Census |
1941 | - | 10% | 81% | Census |
1942-1943 | - | 19% | 88% | Census |
1944-1945 | - | 23% | 94% | Census |
1946-1947 | - | 19% | 86.45% | Census |
1948-1949 | - | 16.6% | 82.13% | Census |
1950 | - | 17.4% | 84.36% | Census |
1951 | - | 20.4% | 91% | Census |
1952-1953 | - | 22.2% | 92% | Census |
1954-1963 | - | 20% | 91% | Census |
1964 | - | 16% | 77% | Census |
1965-1967 | - | 14% | 70% | Census |
1968 | - | 14% | 75.25% | Census |
1969 | - | 14% | 77% | Census |
1970 | - | 14% | 71.75% | Census |
1971-1981 | 15 brackets | 14% | 70% | IRS |
1982-1986 | 12 brackets | 12% | 50% | IRS |
1987 | 5 brackets | 11% | 38.5% | IRS |
1988-1990 | 3 brackets | 15% | 33% | IRS |
1991-1992 | 3 brackets | 15% | 31% | IRS |
1993-2000 | 5 brackets | 15% | 39.6% | IRS |
2001 | 5 brackets | 15% | 39.1% | IRS |
2002 | 6 brackets | 10% | 38.6% | IRS |
2003-2008 | 6 brackets | 10% | 35% | IRS |
If you are in the top tax bracket, Obama won't raise your taxes, he'll just be undoing the damage done by Reagan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)