Things that piss me off

Camerawise I really hate bad design.  Not just in cameras.. Any bad design.  Design is a process of thinking what is good for others to touch and use.   To put this into perspective let me quote Dieter Ram's 10 design "tips".  Dieter was the design guru ar Braum, and the inspiration behind Jonathan Ives. Anyone know what Jonathan has designed? iMac, iPhone, iPad..

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Rams)
Rams introduced the idea of sustainable development and of obsolescence being a crime in design in the 1970s. Accordingly he asked himself the question: is my design good design? The answer formed his now celebrated ten principles.
Good design:

• Is innovative - The possibilities for innovation are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for innovative design. But innovative design always develops in tandem with innovative technology, and can never be an end in itself.

• Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy certain criteria, not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could possibly detract from it.

• Is aesthetic - The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.

• Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.

• Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.

• Is honest - It does not make a product more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.

• Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.

• Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.

• Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.

• Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Now I don't want to go into the detail of these "rules".  Rather mine is a very subjective issue with bad camera design.  For me bad design really shows how some manufacturers couldn’t give a stuff about their customers.  One such culprit is Canon.  They make cameras. And lenses.  And printers.  And other industrial stuff.  Let’s look at their camera stuff, seeing that is what I am interested in (the Blog title “Fotografics” is a bit of a giveaway..).  They make many different models, so in order not to be two nit-picky and maybe go for their cheapest camera to pick on, let’s go straight to the top, to the pinnacle of “perfection”, their top-tier camera.  The Eos 1DX is the latest incarnation of the Eos cameras which began way back in 1998 with the Eos 3 film camera and then later the Eos 1V.  The camera has a Canonesque philosophy about it.  Button placement has largely remained unchanged throughout it’s long run (Eos 1V, 1D, 1Ds, 1DMkII, 1DsMkII, 1DsMkIII).   

The ergonomics likewise have changed very little, maintaining a philosophy of considered simplicity and complete hard-headedness that is difficult to fathom.  Simple because one you have mastered the very complicated system, you can use almost any of the Eos1 cameras without too many issues.  The hard-headedness because to this day the vertical grip, which became integrated in the 1D versions, is simply as useful as a spade handle made in the 19^th century, which is in no way different to the same spade made in the 16^th century.  It’s round. You hold it. Design be damned!  To comprehend how offensive this “design” element of the 1D series cameras is, and the film versions before it (the separate vertical grip has exactly the same shape), one need only look at how other camera makers have dealt with the same question.  

Nikon has a nicely contoured vertical grip that has some passing resemblance to the main grip.  In fact Nikon took design to a whole new level when they called in Giorgetto Giugiaro to design their first AF camera, the F4, which started it's life with an altogether interesting integrated (but removable) vertical grip.  He'd also done their F3 before that, and continues to make designs for them for newer camears.. However perfection is not the exclusiveright of one designer or another, and so others have looked at the problem of the vertical grip and found more interesting solutions..

Enter Minolta. Minolta (then Konica Minolta and now Sony) outdoes EVERYONE by proposing an EXACTLY THE SAME vertical grip to its horizontal one.. same button placement, same shape grip.  The only different bit is the viewfinder which is now in a different orientation. 

One could imagine a zen-moment when the camera disappears from perception as the photographer frames his subject and instinctively takes his picture in such a scenario.  What amazes about Minolta’s design is not that it is so radical or strange, but that it is so LOGICAL.  Why would it be any other way??? Why does Canon insist on adding their ergonomically uncomfortable and bizarre vertical grip when they could try, attempt at least, something just a little bit more user friendly?!

And in the words of noted motoring journalist and polarizing TV-Personality, Jeremy Clarkson, "How hard can it be?!?!".

Some of this is down to simple pig-headedness as Marketing gurus espouse their peculiar "design Philosophies".  Canon is basically saying.. f^&%k you.

Rui Ferriera Commemorative Ride - commentary

Rui Ferriera Commemorative Ride

On Sunday 28^th of October 2012, a little over a year since our friend and cyclist Rui Ferreira left us definitively, we held a race in his memory.  The 15 lap 60km main race around the ex-Facim block and including the viaduto climb was a tough circuit offering sprints, climbs and fast descents.  The huge turnout was a testament to the feeling cyclists have for their own, as well as the sign of a growing interest in the sport. No foreign riders joined us so it was all home-grown support which was excellent to see.  A strong contingent of junior cyclists braved the course and managed their 3 laps admirably, with maybe a few friendly pushes up the hill but largely on their own steam and with a real sense of being part of the cycling scene.  The ladies contingent was small but some new faces were there and current ladies champion, Yara Suleimane, won the ladies race and not content with winning (with a flat tyre) then went ahead to do a few more laps with the boys.  The men’s race was a war of attrition as the climbs slowly claimed riders with heavier bikes, fewer miles in the legs and cramps.  Still a healthy contingent stuck it out and finished the race.  At the head of affairs current men’s champion and Copa Ciclismo winner Miguel Duarte continued his domination of the season by pushing the pace at the front to breaking point and dropping all the riders in his group and lapping a few out on the field.  Behind him there was a long duel between Kinha and Patrick, with the former managed a bike-length on the last sprint.  We had a few notable entries… myself.  This was noticeable because I had the flu, and haven’t touched the bike since the last race, the Nationals (where I came in last, but not least!) three weeks ago!  We also had our FMC president Danilo Correia make the start line with seconds to spare.  Many other long-time faces turned up for the race, so it was a real coming together of the cycling community.

The race start was delayed as usual by a healthy 50 minutes, which had the Anglo-Saxon and Boer riders in a conniption, but most riders took the delayed start in their stride.  We are after all in Mozambique and there hasn’t been a single race that we’ve started on time, and that includes the African Games which were organised with UCI assistance and involvement!   So I guess it’s inevitable..  The weather was overcast and cool but no rain, so perfect conditions for racing.  We had a neutral lap which then turned into a flying start, and this caught out a few riders at the back of the pack that were expecting to re-assemble at the start line after the reconnoitre lap.  Not to worry, this wouldn’t have changed race results too much as the domination of our almost pro-rider Miguel was apparent right from the start.  Vicente bravely clung on for many a lap but in the end the viaduto climbs proved stronger.

The finish line vibe was quite positive and race support was excellent with traffic cones blocking off the roads properly, strong transit police presence and motorbikes patrolling the race route, with the FMC racing model serving as template for this race.  Riders were kept watered and there was food and cold drinks for the finishers.  A lastminute change to the race route was rendered necessary by the rain the previous night which had covered the uphill viaduto section in sand, so organisers opted to have the up and down on the same section of road.  This meant a tighter course and in theory more room for error, but once the peloton stretched out this became a non-issue. One minor blemish was the Ambulance which interfered with the race route on the now tighter descent section, but once race organisers were informed they pulled the vehicle from the climb and kept it on the wider flat road.  The ambulance issue continues to crop up and this will need to be addressed at future races, as the logic of having a roving ambulance on such a small circuit does not seem very tenable, and has certainly caused a bit of consternation for riders on corners and fast descents.

Various sponsors pitched in, which is nice to see as cycling has traditionally been strapped for cash.  It is always easy to point fingers and offer criticism of other’s efforts, but I have to say that Abub did an admirable job in getting support for the race and together with FMC assistance staged an altogether successful event.  What this race showed is that a dedicated group of organisers is needed to ensure a good event.  The race organisers tried to balance race interest, especially in view of the one-sided dominance of some riders, and announced some new winners’s categories, such as the last rider and oldest rider, although the latter caused a bit of confusion as Theron was given Ian’s prize!  Together with races starting late, there continues to be an issue with winners at Moz races, but most riders took the errors in a light-hearted manner and no harm done.  The organiser’s managed to organise another prize for Ian, so in the end it worked out.  That a triathlete rider won last place is no surprise, and we hope that Rodrigo starts a more serious training regimen for his athletes.  On a sidenote, it would be great if Copa Ciclismo events could garner this level of support in the future. Up until now they’ve been staged on a shoe-string budget, not even a few thousand meticais.  But that’s a discussion for another time. Let’s focus on Rui’s race.

One thing I haven’t discussed is Rui.  Rui Ferreira was a longstanding member of the Clube de Ciclismo de Moçambique and took part in many of its races and training rides.  Together with Imran Akuji, who also passed away last year, they represent an important history of the club.  An outspoken critic and commentator of cycling, Rui’s acerbic wit would colour any discussion of cycling, tactics, bike style and results.  His earlier years saw him reach the podium a few times and he was a fierce competitor amongst his age-group and even younger riders, where his keen sense of tactics made up for his body’s natural decline.  But time was taking its toll and he would ride fewer and fewer competitive events as his back would cause him troubles.  In his last year with us his back problems, flu and other ailments kept him off his bike more and more, but he still managed to sneak in a few training rides here and there.  I saw him a few weeks before he was due to go back to Portugal, happy to ride his bike, although the discomfort coloured his language somewhat.  I don’t claim to have been a great friend of his, but he was a character of the club, and one not to shy away from a controversial comment.  He’d have made a field day out of the Armstrong Usada scandal most certainly!  Sadly he left us.  Soon after his arrival in Portugal he was in hospital and they weren’t able to treat him in time for what appeared to have been a misdiagnosis of his medical issues while in Mozambique.  I do not claim to know the details, but his death was a surprise and shocked us all.  In one year we lost two long-standing members of our club.  His daughter Irina came to Mozambique after his death bringing some of his ashes, which were then sprinkled into the sea a short distance from where we’d regularly meet for our morning riding sessions.  Believers in the afterlife reckon that Rui and Imran are right now having a heated discussion about Lance.  And hopefully looking on in satisfaction as cycling starts to grow in Mozambique. 

How to combat doping in cycling?

The Festina, Puerto and Armstrong scandals have become an almost metronome eruption of doping scandal within cycling.  This to me shows some sort of periodic sine wave activity.  We are in the upper edge of the sine wave, with doping exposed for all to see.  And I believe the amplitude is also increasing.  Does this mean that something is changing or we are in some sort of pattern of cycle, fraud, uncover, repress, cycle, fraud, uncover, repress…  It would seem so.  Then how can this time be different?  Einstein defines insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result.  So it would seem that cycling has been dabbling in insanity.  Right now we are vilifying and personifying doping in one individual, Lance Armstrong.  It’s all HIS fault.  Give him the punishment, exile him from the sport. Take his money and fame away.  Destroy his image.

All good and well, but what good does it do to the sport?  Well, of course he’s not the only one.  All the riders who testified against him got “reduced bans”, in effect a slap on the wrist for having doped.  However some of them have been unkindly treated by their current employers, such as Levi Leiphimer and recently retired Michael Barry.  Nick White of Cycling Austraila also got the boot because his name was revealed.  Cycling Australia vice-president stepped down due to his admission of doping in his Festina years (it took people THAT long to suspect he might have..???).  RaboBank pulls out of sponsoring a mildly successful men’s team and a hugely successful women’s team (an excuse to cut costs maybe?)

I think all this is pointing in the wrong direction.  This is the classic post Festina and post Puerto scenario, where riders who were fingered were shunned, made to take the blame, while the rest of the peloton, or most of the peloton, kept up with their doping ways. So, insanity, what is it again?  Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome?   Obviously I’m not implying that the whole peloton is now doping and hypocritically turning their backs on the dopers who were caught.  I believe the peloton IS cleaner than it was in the Armstrong era.  Attitudes have changed, and this is the big change in people’s minds that DIDN’T happen with Festina and Puerto. 

So how about doing things differently this time? How about setting up the so-called Truth and Reconciliation commission, as touted (but then retracted) by UCI president Pat McQuaid.  Finally a good idea, but then you change your mind?? This might actually work, because it’s doing something different in trying to solve the problem.  Won’t be easy, of course.  You’ll need to get the French and Italians on board, and I mean this in a legal sense, as any riders who hail from those countries where doping is a criminal offence, will think twice about speaking out, lest they find a police escort when they get home, to accompany them to jail.  So need to get some sort of legal amnesty for it to work properly.  However this mustn’t take time.  It needs to be quick, like the UCI reading 1000 pages in 2 weeks and coming up with the (inevitable) sanction.  Don’t dawdle on this one Pat and Co.  You need to be proactive if you want to keep your leadership spot in the UCI.  And you need to build bridges.  The UCI statement was full of small barbs to WADA and other agencies, about their own testing programs, when you should have been extending a hand to rekindle the friendship that should bind all anti-doping actors.

Second, engage with the dopers that have come forward, bring them on board and make them part of the solution.  You can’t ostracise a bunch of guys who’ve gone through the hell of having to admit to doping, to go through the ban, and who are now trying to race clean.  If that doesn’t happen, then it leaves no option for the riders who are still doping, and need to come clean.  What incentive for them if it’s all doom and gloom, no pay check and everyone hates you afterwards?  Not all can write a book like Tyler did, make money from his misfortune and get his side of the story out.  Certainly Sky’s move with their “non-doping” declaration that they want all their riders to sign sounds more like a manoeuvre designed to protect their Sponsor rather than stamping out any potential doping on their team.  Can they not see how all they do is reinforce denials?  Instead of leaving some space for riders who haven’t up until now come clean to do so, they are pushing down the road of denial.  Let them come clean with some sort of promise to re-hire them at the end of their eventual suspension.  Or some such manoeuvre.  Get it out in the open, don’t hide it behind an ineffectual declaration! 

Better more prominent policing.

The biological passport is here to stay, it would seem.  There are rumblings that the program isn’t enforced as much as it should.  People like Ashenden, the outspoken Australian scientist who left the UCI due to a gag order he couldn’t stomach (pun intended), are saying the UCI is dropping the ball. Well, take the program and promote it, publicise it.  Show people how and why it works.  The doping doctors already know how to cheat the system, so it’s not like you’re protecting industrial secrets by telling people how it works. It may be a greater deterrent for casual dopers and do-it-yourself operations (like the “cobra”?).  Give it real teeth.  Give it the funding it needs.  As cycling fans understand the program, it’s easier to correlate positives and how it’s related to cyclist’s performances.  Many smelled a rat in Armstrong’s early dominance, his “extra-terrestrial” performances.  Fan’s BS detectors should be on constant alert with cycling performances, and not shut down ‘because he’s a cancer victim’ or some such nonsense..  A good doping program can help that.  However we need constant vigilance, and strong outspoken people at the helm of such an effort.  Pat, you can’t be all faces of the UCI.  Leave some space for other competent people to give their energy to this fight.

There needs to be a line drawn in the sand after the truth and reconciliation program, and after that sanctions need to get tougher.  If there is a financial incentive to dope, there must be a financial disincentive if you are caught. Bans need to be longer, especially for professional riders. Adopt a sliding scale depending on what type of team you’re on (pro-conti, world tour, amateur etc..). Ok, we’ll have to think about that one.  But progressively the bans need to get tougher.  If money talks, then the serious possibility of lost income must factor into the doper’s choice.  Two years can be easily overcome (look at Contador!). Four years is a bit tougher.

Obviously there need to be broader changes in cycling as well for all this to work.  Cyclists themselves need to be given a greater voice in how these changes are made.  The UCI needs to give their representative board membership, although past dopers need not apply, so Jonathan, for all the good you’ve done for clean cycling, just stay where you are with Slipstream.  UCI points need to be split between riders and teams, giving some continuity to race-winning outfits even when all their star riders defect, making getting UCI points less of a mad scramble and less of an incentive to dope.  Consider counting points for the first 10 riders on the roster, thus giving space to new riders and making the points difference between top teams less marked.  Finally be open with the points system so it’s a clear and level playing field. And make it obvious how many points you subtract if you keep ex-doping riders on the team.  This goes against my first point of not making ex-dopers pariahs, but we mustn’t just welcome them back completely.. As I say,  after the T&R commission, doping gets SERIOUS.  As much as we want dopers to become ex-dopers, we must also balance their need for catharsis and a second chance with the first chance for unknown riders who’ve never doped, but don’t have space on a pro team. So for the interim, second chance, but after that give the chance to the new boys.

Test more at the amateur level as well.  Doping has permeated all the way down to junior’s level.  Armstrong probably didn’t start doping when he rode the tour de France.  Attack doping at the top and bottom of the sport.  Yes, money is tight, so make a standard model that different countries can adopt easily. Make it transparent.  Make it independent. Have independent oversight, for where there are tests there are cheaters and there are those who are willing to sell results as well.  Give respect and power back to the testers, who for so long have had an uphill battle in presenting results, especially when associated with high-profile names.

The truth is that doping will look at uncharted waters and the testing program will always be a little behind. How far behind depends on how the UCI, WADA, USADA treat the current crop of dopers – as just a few bad apples or as a potential aid in the solution.  Testing needs to ensure the “arm’s race” isn’t always in favour of the dopers – testing needs to link with the manufacturers of doping products to find tests sooner.

Above all we need to make cyclists remember it’s wrong to dope, to celebrate clean riders, to ensure that the financial rewards are taken away from dopers.  We owe it to ourselves, to a clean competitive spirit in sport and the ideal of a level playing field, where cycling becomes a test of legs, brain and lady luck.

NB - All these opinions are my personal musings about cycling and doping.  There is no one correct solution, but a plethora of measures that need to be taken.  Mine are suggestions from the comfort of my internet armchair.