Posts
While visiting a bike discussion group somewhere, I ran across a thread dealing with the Huret Alvit derailer (to use Sheldon Brown's spelling), in which it was universally agreed that it's a piece of junk and of course it should be replaced. One poster went so far as to say that the Huret Alvit shifted so badly that it caused him to give up biking for ten years. Gosh.
The discussion was of interest to me because my Trek 620 has an Alvit rear derailer. Guess what? It works fine, friction shifting and all. It never occurred to me that one derailer was so much better than another that anyone would bother to notice. I've used Simplexes, I've used Shimanos, I've used the Alvit. They work fine. I mean, if the chain moves from gear to gear, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing in between working and not working. So maybe I need to tweak the shifters a little more. So maybe the chain takes a little longer to get from one gear to another. Big deal.
When I'm riding in the Tour de France, I'm sure I'll care, as I'm powering up les Pyrénées, that I can't shift as quickly from my 3-tooth cog to my 4-tooth cog; but for powering up les Hills de Michigan, I don't care.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Guest Blog by Jon
Well, this is the aforementioned Jon, debuting on Bruce's blog. I started riding with Bruce in high school, did the West Coast with him, and many long crazy rides across southern Michigan. You'll find me less of a bike theorist than Bruce, less into innovation and bike experimentation, and, perhaps, less hardy.
Where I'm at bikewise: I've been riding steadily all these years, mostly the 5.5 miles to work and back, even occasionally into the winter, but when the roads get bad, my gumption generally declines and I settle into a winter torpor that has me driving to work and just trying to get by. I had a bad bout of sciatica about two years a year ago, spent a month on the floor, saw many a doctor, and finally got some relief with physical therapy. The woman I worked with said I should get a bike with shocks and a more upright profile than my old Trek roadbike. I resisted this, my image of myself as a biker defined by a sleek, z-shaped riding posture, even if I never would be Lance Armstrong. I tried the old bike, raised the handlebars, even added an extra stem segment, but felt a suspicious little crick in the back that I didn't like. So finally I went and found a Trek hybrid, I think it's a 7300, in a big, 25 inch frame (I'm 6-2, longlegged), that I could live with, and I've been riding it and enjoying ever since.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FAST, this is the thing I tell myself.
So I bought the bike on March 23 last year, put almost 3,200 miles on it since then, aiming for 4,000 by the 1-year anniversary. But we've had 80 inches of snow, temperatures steady in the single digits, and a couple of miserable rides home -- my chain froze a couple times, I felt nearly nauseous with cold a few times, and of course I fell hard more than once -- made it clear to me that 4,000 is out of reach.
Still, I had some transcendent rides in December and January. I work 4 to midnight, and there's nothing like coming home through the Menomonee River Valley on Canal Street, nobody out but me, fog pooling in the river cut, the world utterly different, a planet like Venus. One night wrapped in thoughts I came upon a place I didn't recognize -- big iron beams curving out of a gray soupy sky like 8-story mantis legs. I was frightened and had to stop and think. It was the stadium, its roof looming high, the lower portion barely visible. I rode through the parking lot and a different route home, grateful for such a moment.
For the time being, I'm content riding an exerbike, with my real bike in the basement, where I happily fuss with the lights and attachments. Every sunny day, every inch of snowmelt brings me closer, though, calling me back to the streets.
Where I'm at bikewise: I've been riding steadily all these years, mostly the 5.5 miles to work and back, even occasionally into the winter, but when the roads get bad, my gumption generally declines and I settle into a winter torpor that has me driving to work and just trying to get by. I had a bad bout of sciatica about two years a year ago, spent a month on the floor, saw many a doctor, and finally got some relief with physical therapy. The woman I worked with said I should get a bike with shocks and a more upright profile than my old Trek roadbike. I resisted this, my image of myself as a biker defined by a sleek, z-shaped riding posture, even if I never would be Lance Armstrong. I tried the old bike, raised the handlebars, even added an extra stem segment, but felt a suspicious little crick in the back that I didn't like. So finally I went and found a Trek hybrid, I think it's a 7300, in a big, 25 inch frame (I'm 6-2, longlegged), that I could live with, and I've been riding it and enjoying ever since.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FAST, this is the thing I tell myself.
So I bought the bike on March 23 last year, put almost 3,200 miles on it since then, aiming for 4,000 by the 1-year anniversary. But we've had 80 inches of snow, temperatures steady in the single digits, and a couple of miserable rides home -- my chain froze a couple times, I felt nearly nauseous with cold a few times, and of course I fell hard more than once -- made it clear to me that 4,000 is out of reach.
Still, I had some transcendent rides in December and January. I work 4 to midnight, and there's nothing like coming home through the Menomonee River Valley on Canal Street, nobody out but me, fog pooling in the river cut, the world utterly different, a planet like Venus. One night wrapped in thoughts I came upon a place I didn't recognize -- big iron beams curving out of a gray soupy sky like 8-story mantis legs. I was frightened and had to stop and think. It was the stadium, its roof looming high, the lower portion barely visible. I rode through the parking lot and a different route home, grateful for such a moment.
For the time being, I'm content riding an exerbike, with my real bike in the basement, where I happily fuss with the lights and attachments. Every sunny day, every inch of snowmelt brings me closer, though, calling me back to the streets.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Today's Ride, February 26
Pretty nice snowy ride today on the slush mobile. Two or three inches of snow had fallen (and continued to fall), but the sidewalks (on which I mostly ride) hadn't been crudded up with plow excrement, and there weren't even too many footprints. Not at all unpleasant.
Even when the car went through the pothole and drenched me with muddy, salty, black water, well, it was just part of the winter biking experience. Not my first choice of things to have happen, but it didn't kill me or even make me particularly uncomfortable.
The goggles make riding in the cold and snow possible. (So, for example, the waterfall covered my goggles but not my eyes.) Get some.
And I maintain, I strongly maintain, that it's worth tinkering with a commuting bike, even an old beater of a slush mobile, to make it more fun to ride, because fun is what it's all about. Commuting by car may be comfortable, but it's not fun. Commuting by bike may be uncomfortable, but it's fun. I prefer that.
The Technomic stem is just too long (forward sticking). My back has started to hurt from all the leaning over. Time to get a shorter stem, I guess.
Even when the car went through the pothole and drenched me with muddy, salty, black water, well, it was just part of the winter biking experience. Not my first choice of things to have happen, but it didn't kill me or even make me particularly uncomfortable.
The goggles make riding in the cold and snow possible. (So, for example, the waterfall covered my goggles but not my eyes.) Get some.
And I maintain, I strongly maintain, that it's worth tinkering with a commuting bike, even an old beater of a slush mobile, to make it more fun to ride, because fun is what it's all about. Commuting by car may be comfortable, but it's not fun. Commuting by bike may be uncomfortable, but it's fun. I prefer that.
The Technomic stem is just too long (forward sticking). My back has started to hurt from all the leaning over. Time to get a shorter stem, I guess.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Loaded Touring: An Experiment
This doesn't exactly count as tilting at windmills, but it certainly defies conventional wisdom. I am thinking of carrying everything in front and rear baskets on our little tour this summer. Actually, front panniers, front basket on a rack, and rear basket on a rack. No rear panniers, and way more of the weight on the front than on the back.
Here's my thinking:
Traditional rear panniers are a catastrophe. They are MUCH too far back, putting almost all the extra weight at or behind the rear axle. The tubing is thinner back there, and all the weight that far back shifts the horizontal center of gravity over the rear wheel. As a result, the bike becomes whippy and unstable, and the rear tire and wheel wear out much faster than the front. (And let's not even talk about broken spokes. What a sickening sound: ping ping ping!) Panniers can't be pulled farther forward because they would interfere with pedaling.
So my solution for the back is that I'll pile things in my big basket as close to me, the rider, as I can, making the pile as high and forward as possible. This keeps the horizontal center of gravity near the center of the bike. But what about the vertical center of gravity? As long is the load is close to me, (and as long as I'm not wearing it in a backpack), it shouldn't matter. After all, people who weigh 50 pounds more than me bike successfully. Their center of gravity must be about what my piled up pack and I would have. Of course, there is the small problem of getting on the bike. I'll just climb over the piled up gear. Or get lowered by a crane.
But the more radical thought, which I get from CETMAracks.com (makers of burly front racks on which they say you can carry medium-size appliances), is that almost all the load should be carried by the front wheel. It's a stronger wheel because of the symmetrical spoke tension and rim that's centered on the axle, the tubing on the fork is stronger than that of the chainstay and seatstay, and the horizontal center of gravity is closer to the center of the bike.
The conventional wisdom is that you don't want to overload the front because it will interfere with steering, but really, how much steering do you do with a fully loaded touring bike? Basically, you go straight. Steering is done as much by shifting weight as by turning the front wheel. And as long as the load is not wobbly, why does it have to hang down nearly to the road, as with the most extreme front panniers? Again, as long as the load is close to the rider and reasonably low (I wouldn't want to carry it in a raised front-end loader shovel, for example), keeping the horizontal center of gravity close to the center of the bike, I don't think the vertical center of gravity matters that much. (Grant Peterson rants about that point.)
Front panniers are nice, but they're not very big. So I'm going to try mounting a nice big Wald basket on my front rack and piling it high with gear. I love the idea of just throwing stuff into a basket, rather than cramming it into unknown nooks and crannies of panniers.
On previous tours, I have used rear panniers and front handlebar bag. The panniers were LOADED. (In addition to our--too much--gear, we used to carry large glass jars of peanut butter, large loaves of bread, large bags of cookies, and anything else we picked up at the grocery store.) It was whippy and a bit odd, sometimes (and Jon's rear wheel tacoed on him at one point, proving my point about panniers), but we managed for thousands of miles. (And that on a couple of Gitane Interclubs, hardly touring bikes.) So it's not like there's one and only one way of doing this.
It will be an interesting experiment. I'll load it up and take it on some proof-of-concept rides this spring and report back.
Here's my thinking:
Traditional rear panniers are a catastrophe. They are MUCH too far back, putting almost all the extra weight at or behind the rear axle. The tubing is thinner back there, and all the weight that far back shifts the horizontal center of gravity over the rear wheel. As a result, the bike becomes whippy and unstable, and the rear tire and wheel wear out much faster than the front. (And let's not even talk about broken spokes. What a sickening sound: ping ping ping!) Panniers can't be pulled farther forward because they would interfere with pedaling.
So my solution for the back is that I'll pile things in my big basket as close to me, the rider, as I can, making the pile as high and forward as possible. This keeps the horizontal center of gravity near the center of the bike. But what about the vertical center of gravity? As long is the load is close to me, (and as long as I'm not wearing it in a backpack), it shouldn't matter. After all, people who weigh 50 pounds more than me bike successfully. Their center of gravity must be about what my piled up pack and I would have. Of course, there is the small problem of getting on the bike. I'll just climb over the piled up gear. Or get lowered by a crane.
But the more radical thought, which I get from CETMAracks.com (makers of burly front racks on which they say you can carry medium-size appliances), is that almost all the load should be carried by the front wheel. It's a stronger wheel because of the symmetrical spoke tension and rim that's centered on the axle, the tubing on the fork is stronger than that of the chainstay and seatstay, and the horizontal center of gravity is closer to the center of the bike.
The conventional wisdom is that you don't want to overload the front because it will interfere with steering, but really, how much steering do you do with a fully loaded touring bike? Basically, you go straight. Steering is done as much by shifting weight as by turning the front wheel. And as long as the load is not wobbly, why does it have to hang down nearly to the road, as with the most extreme front panniers? Again, as long as the load is close to the rider and reasonably low (I wouldn't want to carry it in a raised front-end loader shovel, for example), keeping the horizontal center of gravity close to the center of the bike, I don't think the vertical center of gravity matters that much. (Grant Peterson rants about that point.)
Front panniers are nice, but they're not very big. So I'm going to try mounting a nice big Wald basket on my front rack and piling it high with gear. I love the idea of just throwing stuff into a basket, rather than cramming it into unknown nooks and crannies of panniers.
On previous tours, I have used rear panniers and front handlebar bag. The panniers were LOADED. (In addition to our--too much--gear, we used to carry large glass jars of peanut butter, large loaves of bread, large bags of cookies, and anything else we picked up at the grocery store.) It was whippy and a bit odd, sometimes (and Jon's rear wheel tacoed on him at one point, proving my point about panniers), but we managed for thousands of miles. (And that on a couple of Gitane Interclubs, hardly touring bikes.) So it's not like there's one and only one way of doing this.
It will be an interesting experiment. I'll load it up and take it on some proof-of-concept rides this spring and report back.
Sheldon Brown Memorial Service
From the Harris Cyclery site:
"For those pedaling to the memorial service, there will be a designated bicycle parking area. A police detail will be on hand, but please bring your lock."
I like the idea of thousands of bikers descending on Sheldon Brown's memorial service. I hope it happens.
"For those pedaling to the memorial service, there will be a designated bicycle parking area. A police detail will be on hand, but please bring your lock."
I like the idea of thousands of bikers descending on Sheldon Brown's memorial service. I hope it happens.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Slush Mobile Update
I don't like straight-across mountain bikey handlebars. They make my elbows hurt, and my hands get bored in that single position.
Since I had a set of moustache bars lying around (and lots of spare cables and housing), I just needed to get a new set of shifters and then I could put the m-bars on the slush mobile. How about this for a deal: Thumb shifters for $.99 at Nashbar. Falcons. Not Campy, but they work.
Now, with the stem raiser, the Nitto Technomic stem, and the m-bars, the bike is a lot more interesting. I need a shorter (that is, less stick-forwardy) stem to bring the bars closer to me, then they'll be perfect. But since I really don't want to put much money into this bike, I may hold off on the new stem.
The ride today was almost spring-like. Only residual ice patches on the roads and sidewalks, and it was warm enough that I didn't need most of my winter warm gear.
Luckily, in case I have been lulled into thinking spring is here, there's a winter storm watch for the next several days. That's more like it.
Since I'm now riding the slush mobile in winter conditions, I felt free to put the new 700c wheels (made by Rich at Rivendell) on the Trek 620. I was able to make the canti brakes (which had been set for 27" wheels) hit the rims, so I didn't need to swap in the old Mafac Racer brakes I have lying around (although I kind of wanted to). I haven't taken it for its maiden voyage yet.
Since I had a set of moustache bars lying around (and lots of spare cables and housing), I just needed to get a new set of shifters and then I could put the m-bars on the slush mobile. How about this for a deal: Thumb shifters for $.99 at Nashbar. Falcons. Not Campy, but they work.
Now, with the stem raiser, the Nitto Technomic stem, and the m-bars, the bike is a lot more interesting. I need a shorter (that is, less stick-forwardy) stem to bring the bars closer to me, then they'll be perfect. But since I really don't want to put much money into this bike, I may hold off on the new stem.
The ride today was almost spring-like. Only residual ice patches on the roads and sidewalks, and it was warm enough that I didn't need most of my winter warm gear.
Luckily, in case I have been lulled into thinking spring is here, there's a winter storm watch for the next several days. That's more like it.
Since I'm now riding the slush mobile in winter conditions, I felt free to put the new 700c wheels (made by Rich at Rivendell) on the Trek 620. I was able to make the canti brakes (which had been set for 27" wheels) hit the rims, so I didn't need to swap in the old Mafac Racer brakes I have lying around (although I kind of wanted to). I haven't taken it for its maiden voyage yet.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
One Last Windmill
OK. I'll be done with conventional wisdom soon. But this one has been bugging me for 25 years. I know I'm not going to convince many (any) people, but I know I'm right. Here goes:
Two bike riders on a road with no shoulder should always ride two-abreast.
How about that for a crazy idea? Here's why:
A car and a bike do not fit safely in a single, shoulderless lane. (This is assuming that the bike stays far enough from the edge of the road and the car stays far enough from the bike.) In order to pass a bike safely on such a road, a car MUST cross over the center line into the oncoming lane.
That's where problems arise. Cars often (always?) think they can squeeze by when there's oncoming traffic. Although technically true, they do it either by (a) scaring the bike rider to death, or (b) forcing the bike off the road.
The one serious fall I had while biking came as a result of my effort to hug the edge of the road to allow a car to pass. I slipped off the road, my wheels caught on the raised pavement, and I fell back into the road. The car stopped in my helmet (see below).
With two bikes riding in a line, the problem is even worse because the car has a longer distance to cover before returning safely to its lane.
I suspect that everyone would agree that cars should give bikes plenty of room when passing, and bikes should ride far enough from the edge of the pavement to avoid falling off. I think they would concede that this means that passing cars must cross the center line.
For me, then, the logical next step is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for a car to try to squeeze by. This means that the single rider should ride near the middle of the lane, and two riders should ride side by side.
Go ahead. Give it a try. Let me know how badly you were beaten up by the irate driver.
Two bike riders on a road with no shoulder should always ride two-abreast.
How about that for a crazy idea? Here's why:
A car and a bike do not fit safely in a single, shoulderless lane. (This is assuming that the bike stays far enough from the edge of the road and the car stays far enough from the bike.) In order to pass a bike safely on such a road, a car MUST cross over the center line into the oncoming lane.
That's where problems arise. Cars often (always?) think they can squeeze by when there's oncoming traffic. Although technically true, they do it either by (a) scaring the bike rider to death, or (b) forcing the bike off the road.
The one serious fall I had while biking came as a result of my effort to hug the edge of the road to allow a car to pass. I slipped off the road, my wheels caught on the raised pavement, and I fell back into the road. The car stopped in my helmet (see below).
With two bikes riding in a line, the problem is even worse because the car has a longer distance to cover before returning safely to its lane.
I suspect that everyone would agree that cars should give bikes plenty of room when passing, and bikes should ride far enough from the edge of the pavement to avoid falling off. I think they would concede that this means that passing cars must cross the center line.
For me, then, the logical next step is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for a car to try to squeeze by. This means that the single rider should ride near the middle of the lane, and two riders should ride side by side.
Go ahead. Give it a try. Let me know how badly you were beaten up by the irate driver.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
More on Conventional Wisdom
Two stories having to do with gear and conventional wisdom. (See the previous post.)
I went to buy toe straps (to lash a basket to a rear rack) in my local bike shop (where they are really nice and helpful, so I don't mean this as a criticism). Just as an idle observation, the guy selling me the toe straps said, "You ought to try step-in pedals."
And once while riding my Trek with its 32mm tires, I was turning onto (gasp!) a dirt road, when a young fellow out riding with his lady said, in horror, "You're not taking that bike on THAT road, are you?"
People just accept the conventional wisdom. Everyone knows that click-in pedals are better, and everyone knows that you need a MOUNTAIN BIKE for dirt roads. But, really, I like my pedals, I've ridden thousands of miles on them (wearing tennies). And my "road bike" was just great on that dirt road (and many others).
I went to buy toe straps (to lash a basket to a rear rack) in my local bike shop (where they are really nice and helpful, so I don't mean this as a criticism). Just as an idle observation, the guy selling me the toe straps said, "You ought to try step-in pedals."
And once while riding my Trek with its 32mm tires, I was turning onto (gasp!) a dirt road, when a young fellow out riding with his lady said, in horror, "You're not taking that bike on THAT road, are you?"
People just accept the conventional wisdom. Everyone knows that click-in pedals are better, and everyone knows that you need a MOUNTAIN BIKE for dirt roads. But, really, I like my pedals, I've ridden thousands of miles on them (wearing tennies). And my "road bike" was just great on that dirt road (and many others).
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I, Fool
At the risk of coming across as a born-again Rivendellite, let me confess my bike sins both ancient and relatively recent.
When I was a lad lusting after a real bike, I tried to save weight on my J.C. Penny bike by taking off the wheel and pedal reflectors. I have been known to take off wheel reflectors since then, too. Now what's the sense of that? It's because I thought that the few ounces they weighed might "make a difference." To what? My Tour de France time? And did I think those reflectors weren't useful for, say, being seen by cars? Apparently not. I knew I couldn't be killed.
This, then, is my first bike sin: thinking that weight (at least on the ounce level) makes a difference.
My next sin? When I rode down the west coast at age 17, I carried my helmet on top of my panniers. The one time I fell, the car that was following me came to a stop with one wheel in the helmet that was tied to the panniers. Enough said. I'm mostly over that sin.
On that same trip I convinced my buddies that skinny tires (back then that meant 27 x 1 1/8) were just the ticket to make us go FAST FAST FAST. Those tires wore out in (and I kid not) five days. Right down to the casings. We must have had 20 flat tires a day before we replaced them with big beefy Hutchisons.
So forgive me the sin of thinking skinny tires are good. I now ride 50mm tires on the slush mobile, 35mm Pacelas on the touring Trek, and 28mm Pacelas on my Rambouillet. (A bit thinner than I should have, but I want my bikes to feel different.)
Most of my biking life I have fastened my feet to the pedals, mostly with toe clips and straps. I was sure it made a difference. I finally gave in about five years ago and got click-in shoes and pedals. Now I would win the Tour de France for sure! Except I fell several times (scraping myself up quite badly) when I couldn't get out, and my knee started hurting (and not just from lacerations). So I took the plunge and followed Grant Peterson's advice and disconnected myself. I got nice wide pedals, no straps, no clips, no nothing. Not cool, perhaps, but nice. My knees don't hurt, I'm no longer in danger of hurting/killing myself by falling while inextricably fastened to my bike, I don't notice myself exerting myself any harder, my pinky toes no longer fall asleep, and I can wear any shoes. Nice!
My next sin involves bicycle shorts. I wore them for many years. Again, I was sure it made a difference. EVERYONE wears biking shorts. They must be right. Right? Who needs pockets? Who needs underwear? Who doesn't want to look like they're in the Tour de France? They're so AERODYNAMIC!
But last summer I rode about two thirds of the time with thin-seam athletic shorts (or Rivendell baggies). I experimented with different kinds of underwear. I can't say that I prefer one thing over another (except I like having pockets and not looking like a freak). But I know that biking shorts aren't the be-all and end-all of bike fashion and comfort.
I have never succumbed to the temptation to wear bike jerseys. T shirts have always worked pretty well. Last summer I wore a super-light Melanzana long sleeve shirt to protect my arms from the sun. It was quite nice. I wish it had pockets.
Now, I suppose I can be forgiven these sins, since everyone commits them. (Well, nearly everyone, or at least nearly every "serious" biker.) And it's conventional wisdom, not to be questioned: Of course you fasten yourself to your pedals (even though studies show that NO ONE pulls up on the pedal, except in very short hill climbs); of course you get the titanium frame seat because those 4 oz. will make a difference, even if you're not in the Tour de France; of course you take those dorky reflectors out of your wheels--they're dorky!
I'm not sure why all bikers, even cool ones, wear helmets these days. But of course everyone has a helmet that has a swoopy back end that makes you more aerodynamic for your Tour de France time trials, even though it makes no sense to have a helmet that has a bunch of points sticking out the back which can hook on things and pull your helmet off. Why aren't helmets (other than the Bell Citi and Metro) ROUND in back? Wouldn't it be safer?
But I digress from my sins. It is not for me to expiate the sins of the biking world. I can only atone for my own. (I didn't even mention the sin of having a "bike computer" which causes me to strive for ever-higher average speeds on my rides.)
I'm slowly coming to my senses, conquering my fear of non-conformity. I'm a little embarrassed to ride up to a group of bikers in their Starship Enterprise jerseys and their Robo-Cop-worthy high-tech equipment, but why should I be? I'm just having a little bike ride. I'm not racing. I'm not in a bike pageant. (Well, my Rambouillet is one of the most beautiful bikes on the road, so I'd probably win a bike pageant.) I don't care what all the gear-heads in the world think!
Sigh.
When I was a lad lusting after a real bike, I tried to save weight on my J.C. Penny bike by taking off the wheel and pedal reflectors. I have been known to take off wheel reflectors since then, too. Now what's the sense of that? It's because I thought that the few ounces they weighed might "make a difference." To what? My Tour de France time? And did I think those reflectors weren't useful for, say, being seen by cars? Apparently not. I knew I couldn't be killed.
This, then, is my first bike sin: thinking that weight (at least on the ounce level) makes a difference.
My next sin? When I rode down the west coast at age 17, I carried my helmet on top of my panniers. The one time I fell, the car that was following me came to a stop with one wheel in the helmet that was tied to the panniers. Enough said. I'm mostly over that sin.
On that same trip I convinced my buddies that skinny tires (back then that meant 27 x 1 1/8) were just the ticket to make us go FAST FAST FAST. Those tires wore out in (and I kid not) five days. Right down to the casings. We must have had 20 flat tires a day before we replaced them with big beefy Hutchisons.
So forgive me the sin of thinking skinny tires are good. I now ride 50mm tires on the slush mobile, 35mm Pacelas on the touring Trek, and 28mm Pacelas on my Rambouillet. (A bit thinner than I should have, but I want my bikes to feel different.)
Most of my biking life I have fastened my feet to the pedals, mostly with toe clips and straps. I was sure it made a difference. I finally gave in about five years ago and got click-in shoes and pedals. Now I would win the Tour de France for sure! Except I fell several times (scraping myself up quite badly) when I couldn't get out, and my knee started hurting (and not just from lacerations). So I took the plunge and followed Grant Peterson's advice and disconnected myself. I got nice wide pedals, no straps, no clips, no nothing. Not cool, perhaps, but nice. My knees don't hurt, I'm no longer in danger of hurting/killing myself by falling while inextricably fastened to my bike, I don't notice myself exerting myself any harder, my pinky toes no longer fall asleep, and I can wear any shoes. Nice!
My next sin involves bicycle shorts. I wore them for many years. Again, I was sure it made a difference. EVERYONE wears biking shorts. They must be right. Right? Who needs pockets? Who needs underwear? Who doesn't want to look like they're in the Tour de France? They're so AERODYNAMIC!
But last summer I rode about two thirds of the time with thin-seam athletic shorts (or Rivendell baggies). I experimented with different kinds of underwear. I can't say that I prefer one thing over another (except I like having pockets and not looking like a freak). But I know that biking shorts aren't the be-all and end-all of bike fashion and comfort.
I have never succumbed to the temptation to wear bike jerseys. T shirts have always worked pretty well. Last summer I wore a super-light Melanzana long sleeve shirt to protect my arms from the sun. It was quite nice. I wish it had pockets.
Now, I suppose I can be forgiven these sins, since everyone commits them. (Well, nearly everyone, or at least nearly every "serious" biker.) And it's conventional wisdom, not to be questioned: Of course you fasten yourself to your pedals (even though studies show that NO ONE pulls up on the pedal, except in very short hill climbs); of course you get the titanium frame seat because those 4 oz. will make a difference, even if you're not in the Tour de France; of course you take those dorky reflectors out of your wheels--they're dorky!
I'm not sure why all bikers, even cool ones, wear helmets these days. But of course everyone has a helmet that has a swoopy back end that makes you more aerodynamic for your Tour de France time trials, even though it makes no sense to have a helmet that has a bunch of points sticking out the back which can hook on things and pull your helmet off. Why aren't helmets (other than the Bell Citi and Metro) ROUND in back? Wouldn't it be safer?
But I digress from my sins. It is not for me to expiate the sins of the biking world. I can only atone for my own. (I didn't even mention the sin of having a "bike computer" which causes me to strive for ever-higher average speeds on my rides.)
I'm slowly coming to my senses, conquering my fear of non-conformity. I'm a little embarrassed to ride up to a group of bikers in their Starship Enterprise jerseys and their Robo-Cop-worthy high-tech equipment, but why should I be? I'm just having a little bike ride. I'm not racing. I'm not in a bike pageant. (Well, my Rambouillet is one of the most beautiful bikes on the road, so I'd probably win a bike pageant.) I don't care what all the gear-heads in the world think!
Sigh.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
My Slush-Mobile
I finally got too worried about wrecking the steel frame of my Trek 620 by riding in snow, slush, and salt all winter. Plus, its 32mm tires are a little skinny for the icy, crusty, rutty conditions.
Being a good collector of bikes, both useful and useless, I happened to have in the garage an old Trek 830 "mountain bike" that I picked up at the university surplus store. Big fat steel frame (not lugged, of course), 26" wheels with wide rims, straight across handlebars, knobby 50mm tires. The frame is seriously too small for me, so I had the seat post jacked way up (but the handle bars still way down).
The low handle bars, super knobby tires, and lack of fenders and rack made this a less than ideal commuting bike. But those were all problems that could be solved relatively easily and inexpensively. I bought some Wald steel fenders (fat, black, shiny, and only $29) and some semi-slick tires with knobs on the outside, and I raised the handlebars with my stem extension (replacing some of the cable housing that was now too short). I also added a rack that I had lying around, strapped a basket onto the rack, and voila! Slush mobile winter commuter bike.
The bike's maiden voyage was yesterday. The sidewalks were completely covered with ice ridges and many of the roads were covered with ice slicks. The fat tires (inflated to 38 lbs) handled the ridges and ruts nicely, and they gripped pretty well even on the ice slicks. Most important, it was fun to ride. I wouldn't want to ride it in Paris-Brest-Paris, but for the daily 5-mile commute it's pretty fun.
This morning, I rode a sidewalk that was covered with ice chunks thrown up by the snow plows (in addition to the usual icy ruts). It was work but fun. It felt like off-road riding.
Being a good collector of bikes, both useful and useless, I happened to have in the garage an old Trek 830 "mountain bike" that I picked up at the university surplus store. Big fat steel frame (not lugged, of course), 26" wheels with wide rims, straight across handlebars, knobby 50mm tires. The frame is seriously too small for me, so I had the seat post jacked way up (but the handle bars still way down).
The low handle bars, super knobby tires, and lack of fenders and rack made this a less than ideal commuting bike. But those were all problems that could be solved relatively easily and inexpensively. I bought some Wald steel fenders (fat, black, shiny, and only $29) and some semi-slick tires with knobs on the outside, and I raised the handlebars with my stem extension (replacing some of the cable housing that was now too short). I also added a rack that I had lying around, strapped a basket onto the rack, and voila! Slush mobile winter commuter bike.
The bike's maiden voyage was yesterday. The sidewalks were completely covered with ice ridges and many of the roads were covered with ice slicks. The fat tires (inflated to 38 lbs) handled the ridges and ruts nicely, and they gripped pretty well even on the ice slicks. Most important, it was fun to ride. I wouldn't want to ride it in Paris-Brest-Paris, but for the daily 5-mile commute it's pretty fun.
This morning, I rode a sidewalk that was covered with ice chunks thrown up by the snow plows (in addition to the usual icy ruts). It was work but fun. It felt like off-road riding.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Winter Biking and Sheldon Brown
I rode to work today in the worst snowstorm of the winter. On my way in (pushing the bike part of the way because the crusty, chopped up snow kept tripping me up), I wondered why I was doing it. Surely, not riding while 8" of snow is falling would have been justifiable.
But when I finally got home (and glad I was to arrive), I learned that Sheldon Brown had died. That made my snowy commute seem more like a tribute to Sheldon and less like total looniness. Or maybe it was both. Sheldon's love for biking (and obvious love for life) has been my inspiration for a while. The pictures of Sheldon's bikes propped up in a snow drift suggest that he would have understood the need to try the ride today, just to see if it could be done. And even when I was wrestling to keep the bike upright and moving forward, it was a little fun. Tiring, but fun. I was dripping wet from snow and sweat when I arrived home, but very very satisfied.
So long, Sheldon. Thanks for helping to make biking fun.
But when I finally got home (and glad I was to arrive), I learned that Sheldon Brown had died. That made my snowy commute seem more like a tribute to Sheldon and less like total looniness. Or maybe it was both. Sheldon's love for biking (and obvious love for life) has been my inspiration for a while. The pictures of Sheldon's bikes propped up in a snow drift suggest that he would have understood the need to try the ride today, just to see if it could be done. And even when I was wrestling to keep the bike upright and moving forward, it was a little fun. Tiring, but fun. I was dripping wet from snow and sweat when I arrived home, but very very satisfied.
So long, Sheldon. Thanks for helping to make biking fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
