Falun velodrome visit

My bike club took a road trip up to Falun, in central Sweden to ride the new indoor velodrome built in a former factory space. As the volume of the space prevented construction of a proper 250m regulation 'drome, the group behind the project settled for a smaller 190m oval with relatively long straights and steeply banked (50 degrees) sharp corners. And by filling the space, (which was punctuated by columns) the site has no provision for any type of bleachers or public seating.

All these drawbacks made me somewhat skeptical of the project. But after participating in the weekend-long course, led by club member and local resident Alf, I have to say I am an enthusiastic supporter of the effort, and would love to see a similar development in Göteborg. Riding in ovals is far from boring when you have a fine indoor facility such as this, and it requires a good deal of concentration to avoid spills.

I did take a tumble, or rather ran over a fellow who took a tumble directly in front of me, so have experienced plywood-burns. The experience was nothing to get terribly worried about, and will absolutely not prevent future endeavors on the track.

The visit did cause me to evaluate the total costs associated with having an indoor velodrome, which can be broken down into three broad categories: 1) the space, 2) the velodrome itself and associated costs (showers, bicycle maintenance and storage), 3) maintenance of the facility.

Of course, in the long run, 3 is going to be the biggest cost. The energy required to heat this immense volume is frightening to think about. As for initial costs, 1 vastly outstrips 2, especially if one is considering a vast span (no columns to disrupt views) and seats for a public. There is great architectural potential in an arena project, but the velodrome would most likely have to double up as a handball or basketball court, or ice rink, comprimising the interests of cyclists.

By reusing an existing facility, as they have in Falun, costs for 1 have been eliminated, allowing the much easier financing of 2. As for 3, hopefully the development will be such a great success that those operating costs will be covered by the site itself in a couple years. Time will tell.

One could skip 3 by proposing an outdoor velodrome, or a velodrome in an unheated shed, or simply under a roof, but that may not be such a popular solution. And in our post-industrial society, we are not lacking in vast empty factory buildings...

The interesting work of John Ioannidis

Interesting article from the Atlantic on the work of meta-researcher John Ioannidis. It's of course not so surprising that medical research should fare so poorly in his studies. It would be interesting to see how other fields fared, though it is hard to see how other fields would be exempt from the influences affecting medicine and physiology. What's disturbing though is the trust we as a society put in medical research, not only emotionally but also economically.

(Graph courtesy of AAAS.) This is a frightening graph in many ways. We are on the cusp of a full-fledged energy crisis, yet the amount invested in energy research is a pittance compared to the money we're throwing away at medicine. As Ioannidis points out, the more money we throw at the field, the more phony results are likely to turn up. Still, it would make me a lot more comfortable to know that the field is given resources proportionate to its importance.

The other interesting element this article presents is whether the general trust the public has in science should be allowed to tarnish due to public exposure to Ioannidis's work. Doctors are held in special esteem by the general public, and for large swaths of the practice to be exposed as little more than fraud doesn't do much for the public acceptance of science (not to mention how it might poison the health-care debate in the US). Truly important issues of climate change, energy policy, stem-cell research, high-energy particle physics experiments, and science education can all be questioned by a science-questioning public (just look at the comments section of this NYT opinion column on climate change), but the public needs to maintain an open and tolerant mind, subject to change. I have no doubt that there is lots of lousy climate science out there, but the bulk and breadth of the total research combines to constitute fairly robust knowledge.

But the original article is of particular interest when one considers that the pharmaceuticals we're being fed unnecessarily end up right in the ecosystem. If we can trust her research, of course.