Greg LeMond has been on a whole motodoping tour online recently to stay relevant. He clearly does not understand modern cycling and he has a ton of people he wants to put down for the sake of his own reputation.
There is not reason to believe him more than a crazy uncle.
It’s too bad LeMond sold his bike company to Trek. I have a small collection of American-made bikes. Every single one of the brands was acquired by Trek and then shut down a few years later…
The LeMond is probably my favorite. Great geometry, great road feel, and a fantastic paint job. I put some new wheels on it this spring and it gives it such a rad look. Totally modern and retro at the same time. Such a bike would sell really well right now.
I had the Schwinn equivalent - a 2001 Peloton with 853 steel - basically the last good Schwinn ever made. That bike was so much fun and it loved climbing.
Just sold it this summer. The geometry is just too tight for me now and couldn't support tires wider than a 28.
I worked in a shop that sold LeMond bikes back in the 90s. Iirc they were generally a chromolly lugged frame. At the time a lot of the high end bikes were the same. Are these not common nowadays?
No idea about date ranges, but they were using Reynolds 853 and TT OX Platinum. Very high quality steel, and not something you’d get on anything mass market
That Reynolds 853... drool. When I raced mountain bikes a couple decades ago, that was what my hardtail was made of. Just 20.5 lbs for a steel frame bike was nuts at the time, and that bike was a rocket ship.
Still have it. My son wanted to try it one day, his response was "that bike wants to go fast"
Edit: I also had aluminum (too stiff) and titanium frames (too flexible, or floppy as I called it). The 853 was excellent
I've been on the bench for about a year, but I spent the last 15 years as a pretty intense recreational cyclist. I was in the tier that you might describe as "the craziest you get without having a racing license."
There were very few steel bikes on those rides -- say, less than 10-15%. Carbon is by far the most common material, followed by Ti for the more well-heeled folks. Most of the steel is "modern", but there are some vintage frames, too.
I rode a boutique steel frame from Ritte for a long time, but went to a lovely carbon Giant about 2 years ago after the steel frame failed, which astonished me and everyone I knew. It's honestly better in every way -- quicker, lighter, more comfortable, etc.
The vintage steel frames these groups are generally pretty high end holdovers. You leave some stuff behind by staying on a frame from the 80s or 90s, and some of those things really WILL make you slower vs. a modern hot-rod frame, but if you're strong enough you can make the trade. Weight's one, but so is gearing. Current normal for a road bike is 11 or 12 cogs in the rear, which means you have a VERY smooth progression as you accelerate. And older frame might not accommodate electronic shifting, either, which I'd be loathe to give up now.
In non-flat places it might matter that the older frames won't allow for disc brake systems, but where I lived (Houston) that didn't matter.
Sure, a modern drivetrain and brakes would be a necessity on a “LeMond reboot”.
My new wheels have rim brakes - I would have added disc if I could. And the rear wheel/hub has room for an extra cog on the cassette. But I feel that once I wear everything out, I’m going to have to bite the bullet and get a new bike rather than fight against the lack of new equipment that fits old bikes :(
You forgot aerodynamics. They windtest and wind-design even road bikes: shaped tubes, removing cables/electronic shifting, wheel - frame airflow shapers, etc.
The only things an older frame won’t accommodate is electronic shifting and disk brakes. You can run 12 speed its the same cassette width as its always been since probably 7 speed. Stuff like external cables actually are better for you as someone who isn’t a pro cyclist since shifting is smoother without under handle wraps, cables last longer with less tension in the brifter. Easier to service yourself than running the cables in the stem or frame. 8 speed better too because the chain and cassettes will last forever vs thinner higher speed stuff. Gear range is probably the same just with more increments so you get away with fewer shifts on 8 speed and just use your legs to find the gear and cadence balance. People did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades until they came out with disk and made it seem like an issue.
i don't know if braking performance is the main reason for disk brakes.
I suspect the biggest benefit is bike makers get to sell new bikes to people who don't need new bikes.
For professional riders who don't buy their own bikes, it's probably more about areo, and maybe weight, as the rims don't need a braking surface. They have more creativity with the shape and material. They only brake for emergencies and going into a corner on a downhill. A tiny fraction of a stage. The areo benefit is for the full length of the stage.
I don't know much about physics but even if the weight of the disks is more than rims brakes, the weight being closer to the centre of the wheel might be a benefit. I suspect in terms of performance, aero is the biggest benefit, though.
even the 12 speed cassettes, from what I've read, accelerating smoothly isn't the main point. for a professional rider, they spend a lot more time at the same speed than they do accelerating. so being able to dial in the perfect gear for the speed, wind and gradient is more important than being able to accelerate smoothly.
Aero matters a lot, even for enthusiastic amateurs. You're spot on about wheel shape being more flexible with disc brakes vs. rim. Materials matter here, too -- early carbon wheels were crap at stopping vs alloy because the rim brake tracks were iffy on the carbon, and if you let them get too hot on a descent you'd ruin the wheel. But carbon wheels are an ENORMOUS upgrade over alloy in terms of weight, and in terms of aerodynamics, so the desire for carbon helped fuel the shift to disc braking.
Discs are also absolutely better at stopping the bike, especially if it's hilly and SUPER especially if it's wet (or muddy, which is why off road bikes took to disc first).
Even in a flat place like Houston where we never would've gone to disc in the absence of market forces, we all realized quickly how much nicer they were. It's a definite upgrade.
You're also right about the cassette. More cogs mean we can have a wider range AND preserve the small steps between them, which is great for finding the right cadence in a paceline just as it is for accelerating.
You gain different rim designs sure. But you also lose out on fork innovation as the disk side of the fork is now particularly strengthened. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some pro rider who would still ride rims if their sponsors allowed for it.
>Stuff like external cables actually are better for you as someone who isn’t a pro cyclist since shifting is smoother without under handle wraps, cables last longer with less tension in the brifter.
My bike doesn't have cables at all, since SRAM's electronic groups are wireless, and the brakes are hydraulic.
Actual gear range on a modern 11- or 12-speed bike can be FAR wider than you'd get with 7- or 8-. On gravel bikes where close ratios aren't important you can dwarf an 80s bike's range with a 1x setup. On road bikes, you can keep tight ratios that are great for faster paceline rides while still having a wider gear range.
I mean, then as now faster riders love a straight block cassette, right? In 1989 that might've meant 13-25 or so, with 7 or 8 cogs. My Giant is 10-28 with TWELVE cogs, but 10-30 and 10-33 are available, all of which preserve 1-tooth transitions at the low end of the block.
>People did big descents just fine on rim brakes for decades until they came out with disk and made it seem like an issue.
People had big families just fine for hundreds of years until they came out with vaccines and made it seem like an issue.
I mean, I kid, but in hilly or wet places disc brakes are a giant boon.
Well someone who isn’t a pro cyclist doesn’t care about pacetime rides. I commute. 11-28 is fine on 8 speed. If I am out of gear I shift or pedal faster or slower. Not a huge ask. My chains are also like $10 and don’t stretch for years.
Electronic shifting I see as a con. Di2 at least is not serviceable and reaches an end of life. I am not as familiar with sram but I assume its the same. Either way just yet another old thing (index shifting) served to you in a new way that needs yet another battery to charge and eventually replace. Shifting is plenty fast on a mechanical brifter.
I have no interest in hydraulics and bleeding brakes. Brake cables stay in spec basically forever if they are stainless steel for the most part. By the time you’ve fouled up a mechanical system you are talking years of neglect exposure to the elements type wear that would do a number to any other bike system all the same.
Wet no issue the rim calipers squeegie off the water in the first rotation. The real limit of the reaction here isn’t the braking system. It is the tires. Even cheap ancient rim brakes are sufficiently overpowered to lock up a bike wheel even on new tires in dry conditions. Let alone wet.
Imo a lot of this tech is marketing vs true innovations. I mean brifter designs that shear off the end of the shift cable just because of rider ocd wanting it under the wraps, come on. Just that one marketing driven change has lead to diminished shifting experience and more difficult servicing for the end user. And basically all newish paradigms over the last 10-15 years of road bikes fall into this where its a dual edged sword that really only benefits the people racing professionally who have a justification to demand each and every legal free watt from a system, while hurting you the consumer with more expensive bikes, components, more expensive and complicated service, more forced obsolescence and eliminating old oem patterns of spare parts. We really did peak at 10spd side exit mechanical imo. Although 8 speed is more reliable and stronger components with wider tolerance to derailleur adjustment.
Most of the steel bikes you see sold are gaspipe. Lugged chromoly today you might have to dip into the remaining italian frame builders and they charge modern carbon prices for their steel.
Lemond got a suspicious injection once in the 1989 Giro d'Italia...so his team may have been doping him without his knowledge if one wants to hold him on a pedestal.
Lemond was beating a lot of superstars in the 1980s that were blood doping (Hinault was probably blood doping - that's where you freeze your blood in the offseason or between races and then superinfuse yourself for "big days" - it went to the wayside because EPO was so much more effective and convenient) which is suspicious as well.
Lemond was also not exactly the best trainer compared to people like Lance Armstrong. He was teased by magazines for starting some TdFs overweight with a slight potbelly.
Doping in cycling, heck doping in all sports has been around a long long time, well before Lemond. Stimulants and a wide array of other drugs have been used in top sports for a long time. So it gets very suspicious whenever someone is beating the top end performers at any point in the last 50 years.
That said, I think he was pretty clean, or at least cleaner than the EPO guys that knocked him from the peloton.
A surprising number of the "classic steel" bikes I see on the enthusiast rides I go on were LeMonds. They're beloved, even in a world of advanced carbon, electronic-shifting marvels.
I expect PART of that is the fact that where I lived until recently was pancake flat, so there was no real disadvantage to staying with rim braking, but still.
He had first hand
direct information about that stuff. Not true about motors. I believed him 100% about EPO but the motor stuff is silly. they check for motors for over a decade now.
Sometimes those folks just tell the truth. Now if you are OK with cheating and this just annoys you that's another story but lets be honest here - professional cycling became pathetic deplorable 'sport' full of jokes of sportsmen that should not be respected or admired in any way, in contrary. Half of Olympics is heading that way but for some reason cycling was and still is ahead of the curve for quite some time.
I'll never pour a single cent worth of money into that activity, nor a nanosecond of my attention to avoid anyhow supporting it even by accident, voting with my wallet and all that. It almost seems like if there is enough money in the sport it becomes cut throat business and stops being what it was intended to be, in fact exactly the opposite.
That's how I raise my kids, there are tons of sports on the bike and off it to enjoy and even watch and admire if one is in passive mode. But as always doing sports > watching them and I really don't have enough time to do both.
So what about baseball, basketball, football, hockey, soccer, swimming, wrestling, boxing, mma, golf, etc?
Cycling got "exposed" by french media because they wanted to go after soccer, but it was a world cup year being held by france, so they went after cycling.
You need to understand something about pro sports: everyone is on stuff. If you can make a million or more a year, most if not certainly all of the athletes are on something:
steroids - vastly increase strength by 10-30% or more (and endurance even)
stimulants - sustain attention and increase endurance and power
EPO - increase endurance and sustained power output by 20% or more. Think that's only cycling? If you breath hard doing something, EPO can help, because it will keep you in Zone 2 and more mentally clear.
Attention drugs - Think that lots of athletes don't want more ability to concentrate? Hello ADD drugs!
Relaxation drugs - Want to keep an even keel for that big tee-off, or for shooting targets? Beta blockers aren't just for heart disease!
Testosterone - Increases strength, but also can critically help in recovery from hard workouts or performances, Floyd Landis got busted for this.
Human Growth Hormone - heal quicker? get taller? recover faster?
Pro sports is a fantasy pageant. These people are supposed to be superhuman, and the pro sports all WANT their athletes on this stuff. Especially the stars, once a star gets big, they get a lot more hall passes.
They just don't want it to be TOO much, and don't want it getting too much press.
Psychologically, there is a bottomless pit of athletes willing to dope.
In a self-reported anonymous poll at a European Ironman (so not even top-end athletes, a range of "good" endurance athletes) more than half admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs.
An article I once read said in Cat 1 amateur cycling races there was tons of doping. Dude, that is so far below the pro ranks it is laughable. No one in Cat 1 amateur cycling will SNIFF european protour.
Cycling is peanuts in terms of money. Tadej makes 8 million euros. He is a legendary superstar of the sport. Now look at what the top quarterbacks, basketball players, soccer players, baseball players make. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. You think there isn't worse doping in those sports than cycling?
I mean maybe Michael Jordan, the most ruthlessly competitive person in NBA history, doubled his muscle (while going bald) right after joining the NBA naturally. Maybe Lebron james (also went bald) is 280 lbs naturally. Maybe Tom Brady got a stronger arm and kept healthy as he aged with yoga. Maybe Katie Ledecky just "tries really hard in practice". Maybe Tiger Woods with his popping muscles in mid career was just hitting the bench press.
Lance Armstrong and Barry Bonds aren't anomalies or outliers or rogues. Really, they didn't treat the media well and were too big of a-holes to hide, so the media busted them, but other athletes play the game and don't get busted. Is cycling really that bad, or is it sufficiently a "small player" that the dirt-mucking sports reporters are allowed to expose it. Do you think the NFL would let something like that happen? MLB already found out. FIFA sure as hell won't, neither will the NBA.
We are well past the point where the best of the best of previous generations that were shown to be doping have been passed comprehensively by modern athletes and are told that it's just better coaching, science, training and effort.
Enjoy the show.
"How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system"
Sports + capitalism is bad already, then add mass media and you've got a corruption pipeline of massive porportions. Sports are best left to individuals and small groups. Massive leagues and pro sports? Not at all sports, but pure entertainment capitalism.
I love a good bashing, but are you aware doping runs rampant in amateur levels of any sport or even physical activity? Why do you presume that competitions would be different?
That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or school district is large enough to impel doping, the entire premise of sport is undermined. Why even bother, the entire enterprise becomes nothing about the sport and everything about "getting noticed, using this platform to stairstep to going pro!!!" It is just exploitative capitalism driving people insane.
That’s completely wrong and you are just making things up to fit your anticapitalist world view. I know people that take dope to break 3h in marathon, trust me, no one thinks that you will get any financial benefit from breaking 3h.
I assume a not insignificant portion of people, especially men, are taking steroids/testosterone/human growth hormone or whatever else to augment their fitness.
Yes, a large proportion of older age-group endurance athletes are taking some sort of (legal) hormone therapy and then racing without having the required TUE in place. There is virtually zero blood testing in local amateur races so they just cheat and never get caught.
> That's why I include "massive leagues". If a city or school district is large enough to impel doping, the entire premise of sport is undermined.
I don't think you understand. Some amateur athletes purposely resort to doping even if they are not particpating in major competitions. Hell, check out steroid abuse in bodybuilding circles. Is taking ADHD drugs also a kind of doping?
I'm not sure you get the "performance enhancing" part of performance enhancing drugs. The pull is not from the competition, but the way they enhance performance. Capitalism has zero to do with this.
Oh I get, too well. I was into the scene decades ago, and exited when I realized how toxic it is, and how heavily marketed it is... and now that level is insane. Cultural toxic masculinity manufacturing is what it is, it's a physical endurance and power fantasy.
Hey, that's a lot of mental gymanstics for saying "I dislike cyclists going slow on the road so I'll take it out on their sport".
If you had the opposite idea of "doping is okay in sports" and applied the categorical imperative to it, we'd have a bunch of roided superman doing insane sports and it would be awesome. Daniel Tosh of all people proposed this jokingly in some standup years ago but why not just admit that everyone is doping and accept it?
Its interesting as I have a similar philosophy to the OC but the exact opposite takeaway. To declare my bias: I hate cyclists on the road AT ALL. Cars are fundamental and essential transportation in America and cyclists who want all the privileges of a pedestrian and follow none of the rules while operating at a fraction of the speed is a frustrating impediment to traffic.
Rant aside - The sport of cycling is quite cool. I feel bad for those athletes because they have to dope. It's simple game theory, if enough of a critical mass of people are doing it, you have to as well to be competitive. It really shouldn't have been as big of a scandal as it was. At least, making Lance Armstrong the face of the scandal wasn't really fair since, IIRC, almost all the front runners did that. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think the way they do it now is reasonable. They test and ban so that people likely severely limit cheating. If they simply made it allowed, or had very limited protocols, it would be a total arms race similar to the Armstrong era where riders would have to run tons of gear and chemicals to even attempt to compete and it would have tons of knock on health effects.
The list of Olympic gold medals per capita is typically led by small Caribbean nations like the Bahamas and Jamaica. Middle income eastern block countries like Hungary are a close follow.
Its not like that. If anything cycling has less doping than most sports. Cycling has been very serious about doping for much longer, than most other sports. Infractions are punished very hard; a guy like Hessmann had his career paused for a year plus, while also losing his contract, even though he hadn't doped. While a tennis star get three months for a clear doping infraction. Cycling also bans more substances than the international doping authorities does. As an example did cycling banned tramadol and other strong painkillers, while other sports don't care.
You have heard much more because from cycling over other sports, because the other sports don't want their dirty secrets aired out, and you heard about the huge scandals in cycling in the 00s.
Motordoping does not exist. There has not been a single case at top professional level even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade. But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write. Also old men like Greg LeMond uses it to stay relevant even though he knows nothing about motors nor modern cycling.
Aside from allegations about Cancellara (basically that his seated attack was too strong, plus he 'moved his hand suspiciously' just before) I always struggled to find an alternate explanantion for this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ideiS-6gBAc
> There has not been a single case at top professional level even though they have looked for the motors for over a decade.
Or, no-one has been caught as they stopped before the checks were brought in, as it's impossible to hide without a much broader conspiracy?
> But journalists, bloggers, and youtubers love to bring it up as a exciting story they don't need to do any work to write.
Agreed. WaPo is about a decade too late on this one.
(While I'm not arguing that motor doping was widespread) I don't think that's how it would be used.
Firstly, in 2025 (let alone a decade ago) LiPo batteries are pretty heavy for a meaningful amount of power. Even if you could hide them in a frame, there would be a disadvantage to pulling a lot of weight around for hours. (Try riding a ebike with the engine turned off.) It's therefore most likely that their power capacity would be relatively small - a lot less than today's consumer ebikes.
Secondly, a top pro rider can output an average of ~350-380 watts for 4-6 hours. [0] The limited capacity of a small battery is likely dwarfed in comparison. It's therefore most likely that (per the Cancellara example) they'd keep the battery power for a limited number of short attacks at a crucial moment which might help them drop an opponent and then allow them to ride clear for a win.
If this logic is correct, then the impact on overall times would be negligible as they're not using it for a significant proportion of a race, but the impact on a rider's liklihood to win might make it worthwhile.
For classics maybe, but for TdF, a “crucial attack” isn't going to do much if you aren't able to ride faster than your opponents in average on the whole climb, and doing that is going to have an impact of the timings (each “col” has its own record table).
Drafting’s a factor on many climbs at the crazy speeds they achieve, and it can be enough of a benefit for a slightly slower rider to keep up with a slightly faster one. That’s why it’s rare that people ride away from others on a climb without an attack to break the draft.
A few hundred extra watts for a few seconds could be the difference between a failed attack and a stellar attack, then allowing the attacking rider to ride away.
(Of course, the weight of the batteries and motor would have to be considered as it would slightly impair the climbing performance.)
You're forgetting all the unsuccessful attacks where the attacker is simply swallowed back by a faster pace of the racers left behind by the attack.
I can see situation advantage for a very strong, title contending, competitor, but honestly that sounds too niche to be really useful.
Also:
> That’s why it’s rare that people ride away from others on a climb without an attack to break the draft.
Did you watch Tour de France the past few years? Even without attacking, Pogacar was simply too fast to follow in the mountains for everyone but Vingegaard, so there's only one guy who could have gained something and it's two times champion Vingegaard. Talk about a niche.
This is the thing that's always brought up. That female junior cyclocross racer (its a different sport bub) and one attack that fans didn't like.
People like you keep going with these two, even though they mean nothing. And then the conspiracy shit. The motodoping topic is closer related to pizzagate than it is road racing.
Sure. People move their hands on bikes all the time, to get more comfortable to address a balance issue or to keep the positions moving.
Seated attacks are becoming more and more popular. Pogi uses them almost exclusively these days. "A little too strong" is nonsense.
Plus, bikes are xrayed.
I makes no sense to carry around the weight of a motor in the off chance you might use it for a single attack. These people care about grams. They're not going to waste it on a motor that may or may not be used to give them a tiny boost.
Not only that but any motor linked to the drive train is going to add resistance and cost the more net watts over the ride than a tiny motor with a tiny battery that may or may not get used, could ever provide. It just makes no sense tradeoff wise.
There's way more reasonable explanations than a conspiracy theory.
This all reeks of nonsense like that cis gendered athlete that got hounded by the nutters about being trans
I think the interesting part of the video is that it looks like the wheel keeps spinning with force while the bike is on the ground, or did I misunderstand why it was highlighted?
I was always thinking this was a really underserved market. Ebikes have been really in demand for a long while, but most of the offer was based on very heavy city bikes. I was always thinking that a much sportier, more efficient race ebikes would be a huge hit. I saw some prototypes on kickstarter but nothing that sticked.
I wonder why. If I had the energy and resources I think I would try going into that product space. Seems like ripe for disruption.
I ride ebikes a lot, and I used to ride race bikes a lot as well, years ago. For a long time I thought that a heavy city ebike is similar to a very efficient race bike that in terms of effort required. After I started to ride them simultaneously (more or less), maybe an ebike is in fact more helpful over longer periods, but a light race bike isn't far away. So a product that captures best of both worlds would do great IMO.
LE. Apparently I'm late by around 5 years. When I last had this thought there was literally just a kickstarter project. Now I see most big brands have electric road bike offerings. Still, at 4-5k EUR price points, there's still a lot of value to capture.
Specialized has their SL lines that sound like what you're looking for. But what you're asking for is beyond the current technology. Motors to produce both enough wattage and torque are heavy, and so are the batteries that supply them, and they're big. Modern road bikes are lighter and thinner than ever before
Cyclocross is a marginally different sport, bub. You not noticed that there are a couple of crossers doing good things on the roads?
And if a (comparatively) little-known mid-level U23 crosser (therefore with comparatively little money behind her) was doing it, you really think it's limited to just her?
I would be surprised at a professional using a motor. It just invalidates the entire sport and the lifetime of work that they would have put into it to get to this level. One does not get there without a love for what they are doing. Some may point to doping but I think that is different. Its still very wrong in a professional context but its still a human body at peak performance doing the work. Using a motor is something else entirely. I could of course be wrong but I would be shocked, it would be an abandoning of the entire personality that drove one to reach that level.
Besides what other have answered you already have a lot of wireless connections on a race bike. To the sensors measuring speed, cadence, watts, and possibly stuff like rear traffic radar, gear selection etc..
It all integrates with an unwired bike computer, so wireless shifters makes fine sense in the system.
Well speed is something a large portion of cyclists have always wanted. Adding a cycle computer or even a mechanical speedometer in earlier times was always popular. Now GPS units and smartphone mounts, or just logging your ride in an app using your phone or smartwatch are popular.
Cadence and pedal force are very useful for training and competition (organised or the self-improvement kind), so pretty much for the same cyclists that would also want wireless shifting.
We can do that. (I barely “measure” in the sense that I’m lazy and just pedal slowly, haha).
But there’s a well established community of really hardcore bicycle hobbyists. The folks paying a couple thousand dollars for shifters want fancy stuff. Some want graphs and numbers. shrug
Rich coming from HP. They have trailed blazed how blatant planned obsolescence can be done in printers, and though its not hard data I have seen plenty HP laptops just burn themselves out after some years of use. They can definitely build better products without user data, just stop working so hard on making them crap.
This must be consumer vs. enterprise. For consumers, they're going to buy the item that is $1 less at the time of purchase, even if it costs them hundreds of dollars over the lifetime of the printer. For enterprises, they have accountants tracking the total cost of ownership, so they aren't going to optimize like this. HP is in both businesses; cheap inkjets for people that want to print stuff at home, cheap laptops for corporations that need to give their employees a Windows laptop with 25 minutes of battery life. I am sure the TCO on the cheap laptops actually saves customers money, at least when Windows is required.
(I have been issued an HP laptop before. They certainly don't spend money on the screen, keyboard, battery life, cooling, or industrial design. You can add your own memory though!)
I work in the refurb division of an e-waste recycling company. HP laptops constitute about 90% of the BIOS passworded/locked systems we get. We can't do anything with a laptop that we can't adjust the boot order or disable secure boot on, and the value of completely disassembling, de-soldering, and flashing the BIOS chip of an EliteBook that could go for $200 or less is dubious. (We've tried everything short of that.) Maybe I can try to build a lot from them and sell to a large repair shop.
There is not reason to believe him more than a crazy uncle.
reply