Quantcast
Channel: The Retrogrouch
Viewing all 689 articles
Browse latest View live

Carbon Fiber Counterfeits

0
0
I know I've written about this before (Fakes and Forgeries), but I've been seeing more news in the last couple of months about "fake" or "counterfeit" frames on the market. The latest news I've seen involves carbon frames from Look, though no high-end brands seem to be immune to the problem. A quick look at internet sites such as Alibaba.com, or DHgate.com can find frames from Look, Cervélo, Colnago, Pinarello, and many others, with prices ranging from $400 - $1000. It's not hard to find them on eBay, either. In many cases the real things sell for at least $4000, so they are a classic case of "if it seems too good to be true. . ." Lots of fake components are being sold, too, like carbon fiber handlebars and stems, seat posts, cranks, and more.

Needless to say, if someone were to buy one of these fakes and then have a problem, there'd be nowhere to turn, as the manufacturers' warranties certainly won't cover fakes, and the makers or sellers of these frames are likely to be impossible to track down. That doesn't seem to stop a lot of people from buying them, though.

Sifting through some of the bike forums, I'm absolutely amazed at some of the comments out there about counterfeit frames. It seems that people rarely buy these things unwittingly, but rather, buy them with the full knowledge that they're getting a fake. And they don't care.

There are all kinds of arguments against buying something like this. One is ethical. A company builds up a reputation for quality -- someone else cashes in on that reputation with a product that may not live up to the quality standards of the real thing, thereby profiting at the real company's expense, while simultaneously hurting the real company's reputation. When people see pictures of a broken carbon frame on the internet, they see the name on the downtube -- whether it's "real" or not gets lost or forgotten.

I saw this comment on one of the forums, from a person who was buying a fake: "I wouldn't be buying this instead of a genuine Cervélo, I'd be buying it instead of an unbranded version of the same sort of thing." And another: "Buying this frame isn't depriving Cervélo of a sale. . . it's not meant to trick anyone into parting with money." My response to that sort of thinking is that it isn't simply a question of depriving Brand X of a sale -- but rather, that one is supporting a market that basically amounts to piracy.

Spotted on DHgate.com for $700.
The other argument is a question of safety, since there is no way to know if the product under the decals is built to the same standards as the real one. And the counterfeiters, who are unlikely to be held accountable if their frames fail, have little to lose. I'll probably always have my doubts about the longevity of carbon frames anyhow, but I can be absolutely adamant that I wouldn't trust my life with a fake when there's nobody to stand behind its quality.

The usual argument from people who buy and sell the fakes is that the frames are made in the same factories that makes the real versions, they just don't have the same huge markup in price. Another comment from one of the online bike forums: "The real bike is made in China, there's no reason to believe that something like this won't be made with exactly the same level of expertise." Thing is, there's no way to know that for sure. In fact, in the recent case with the Look brand frames, the originals are not made in Asia at all, so the argument that it's the "same factory" doesn't hold up. And even if they are from the same factory, there's no way to know the frames are built to the same standards when they're being cranked out after hours by a crew that's looking for easy profits. With carbon fiber, especially, so much depends on what's going on deep below the surface, between the layers of carbon and plastic, and its impossible to know just from looking at it. There have been examples of these counterfeit frames that were made almost entirely of plastic, with virtually no carbon fiber at all, save for a thin cosmetic layer on the surface. Yikes.

The issue of fakes doesn't just affect the makers, buyers, and sellers of high-end carbon fiber frames. When buying bikes on the vintage market, the possibility of getting a fake is very real, especially if it is a collectible or valuable brand. But in most cases, there are ways to tell if the bike is an impostor if you know what you're looking for. But also, if one does unfortunately buy a fake Hetchins, or a fake Mercian, or some other vintage brand, it's more likely to be a financial issue than a safety one. Typically, a "fake" collectible vintage frame is a cheaper lugged steel frame, painted and decalled to look like a more desireable one - but under the surface, it's still a decent steel frame, and it's unlikely to break apart unexpectedly. There aren't factories in Asia cranking out lugged steel frames and passing them off as vintage Colnagos. The cost and the labor of making lugged steel frames, compared to the demand, is such that there'd be no way to make much of a profit. It's much easier to make a mold and pop out fake carbon fiber Pinarellos (or "Chinarellos" as I've seen them dubbed).

Last time I wrote about the issue of fakes, particularly in regards to counterfeit carbon fiber frames, I said that I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the manufacturers. Not that it nullifies the ethical arguments (it doesn't), but to some extent the manufacturers have brought this problem onto themselves. I wrote, "So many companies have moved their manufacturing to Asia to cut manufacturing costs to the bone, while selling the goods in the U.S. and around the world at premium prices. Knowing how much the goods can sell for, and how cheaply they can be produced, it shouldn't come as a surprise that some of the factories go the the 'dark side'." Even in the cases of carbon frames that are not being built in Asia, the fact that they can be so easily reproduced (at least visually) -- probably by just making molds from existing frames -- says something about the difference between modern carbon vs. classic steel.

Just another reason to be a retrogrouch - even when it's "fake," steel is still real.

Bike Safety 101: How To Protect Your Bike

0
0
In the Bike Safety 101 series, I've looked at a lot of old educational films about bike safety and following the "rules of the road," but this next film is one of the few I've seen to tackle the problem of bike theft, and it comes from the "King of Calamity" Sid Davis. Taking a little break from scolding "wise-guy" kids for bad behavior, or scaring them into compliance, Davis produced the goofy little film How To Protect Your Bike in 1974 to show kids how to prevent their bikes from being stolen. It was one of the last films Davis produced.

"Five fingers can remind you how
to protect your bike."
The film tries to recall some of the style of an old silent-era comedy, mimicking the fast-and-choppy motion look of the old 16-frames-per-second used by those early films. It mostly succeeds in just making the movie seem more ridiculous. The advice in the film is structured around five simple points, like the 5 fingers on your hand, to remember how to protect your bike from theft. It then proceeds to contrast the smart kids from the fools, by showing the right and wrong ways to lock your bike. On the whole, most of the advice isn't bad, but the presentation is generally oversimplified, often unrealistic, and full of dumb stereotypes.


This is Dave, who just got a "brand new bike" (that actually looks pretty well used, if you ask me). "It's the first really important thing he's ever owned." Dave stops by the grocery store, and is just about to leave his bike unlocked. . .
"Hey Dave - Hold it!" the narrator calls out. "Aren't you forgetting something?" 
So Dave backs up and tries it again -- this time locking up the bike with his heavy-duty chain. "That's it, Dave!"
And it's a good thing he did, because little does he know, but "the worst bike thief in 50 states" just happens to be loitering on the same street corner. Meet "Creepo" the bike thief. Imaginative name, isn't it? Funny thing, but that description "worst bike thief" could easily be taken two completely different ways. Of course he's portrayed as a long-haired counter-culture "hippy," and a complete loser.
Creepo tries to walk away with Dave's bike, despite the obvious boat-anchor chain. Needless to say, but Dave's bike is safe, for now.
Then there's "Goofer" (another imaginative name) who's "too busy" to lock up his bike. He's also too lazy to bother with the kickstand. Too bad he doesn't see Creepo loitering nearby. "It looks like his bike is just asking to be taken."
Creepo rides off "inconspicuously" on Goofer's low-riding banana-seat bike.
The discovery, and the aftermath. "Surprise Goofer. Looks like your bike is gone!" Should'a locked it up, fool. The scene is sped up with an Alvin-and-the-Chipmunks-like voice as Goofer rants about his stolen bike. "Point one - always lock your bike."
Next comes Cathy - and besides needing some shorts that actually cover her ass, she needs a good place to park her bicycle. 
Considering Sid Davis's career of making films about child molesters, including The Dangerous Stranger, The Strange Ones, Name Unknown, and Girls Beware, is it just me who finds these shots of young Cathy to be more than a little bit creepy?
After rejecting the quiet alley (good choice for several reasons), Cathy parks right in front of the entrance of a shop, though she doesn't actually lock the bike to anything. The film hasn't gotten to that lesson yet. But this way, not only can she keep an eye on it from inside the store, but "there are people going by who would see anyone fooling around with a locked bike." Yeah? And what are those people going to do? In reality, nothing! Creepo thinks about walking off with it, but is scared off by an observant cop.
"This is Dilly - she doesn't Dally" - but she does park her bike in the same quiet alley that Cathy rejected. Sure, she locks the bike (not to anything), but little does she know that Creeper is on his way, and "he just loves quiet places like alleys."
"It's easy to just pick up Dilly's bike -- lock, chain, and all. . ."
". . . and put it into his handy little van." I'm sure it's no coincidence that Creepo is not only a "hippie" but that he drives around in a VW Microbus. All he's missing are some big "flower power" stickers on his van. 
"Surprise, Dilly!" Again, with the sped-up sequence and the chipmunk-like audio as Dilly cries over her stolen bike. "Point two - lock your bike in as safe a place as you can find."

Here's Dave again, illustrating the next lesson. Use a good chain and lock. "There's a right chain and a wrong chain for any job." Dave's dad "told him not to try to save a few dollars on a chain and lock, and wind up losing his bike."
"Through a clever hole in his newspaper, Creepo has observed the whole scene." Oh yes - the ol'"hole in the newspaper" ruse. That's clever? Maybe for the villain in a Keystone Cops movie.

Creepo attacks Dave's lock with a pair of bolt cutters, but to no avail. In reality, they would have snapped the chain in no time -- I mean, it's a good chain, but c'mon. But Creepo doesn't give up so easily. . .

. . . as he then pulls a massive pair of bolt cutters out of his pants. The arms must be 4 feet long! That had to be uncomfortable. There is no bike chain that would stand up to these. . .

. . . until now. That's right, Dave's amazing chain is too much for these 4-foot long cutters. Do the people at Kryptonite know about this chain? "Creepo will just have to wait for some sucker to come along."

And here comes the sucker. Didn't Creepo already steal this bike? But Goofer must have gotten it back somehow, because here he is again, this time with a lock and chain. Too bad it's the same wimpy chain he uses to tie up his dog.
Creepo's regular bolt cutters make fast work of the dog chain. But as he rides away on the much-too-small bike, he leaves his bolt cutters behind. Maybe so that Goofer has the tools he needs to get himself another bike. If Goofer's been paying attention to this film, he'll be learning all kinds of tricks and tips to rival Creepo someday.
Cathy's back to illustrate the next lesson -- lock your bike to something good and solid. She also runs the chain through both wheels and the frame. Good job, Cathy!
Dilly is "Dizzy and in a Tizzy." She locks only the front wheel to a post. "Creepo just happens to be in the neighborhood" and he has "special tools" -- like this "handy wrench." Yeah - that's special. As Creepo removes the front wheel and makes off with the rest of the bike, the narrator tells us that all he has to do is find another front wheel somewhere else. This is not only good advice for the kids who want to keep their bikes, but also for any future "Creepos" who might be watching.
"Creepo is really smart" says the narrator -- though most of the film goes out of its way to portray him as a complete moron. But just in case he should succeed in stealing your bike, there's one more thing to do -- always register your bike with the local police department.
NOOOO!!!!! Don't do it kids! Do NOT engrave your frame! It makes me hurt to just think about it. (Imagine someone trying to do this on a carbon fiber frame). But the film tells kids to do it anyhow. And the components, too. The film also recommends getting a bike license. All these things are supposed to help police reunite you with your stolen bike, but anyone who's seen PeeWee's Big Adventure knows that police don't look for stolen bikes.
When Creepo gets spotted by some kids whose bikes were stolen, they call the police to come inspect his "handy little van." Even though Creepo filed off the frame serial numbers, one of the boys was able to point to his special "secret mark" he'd engraved on the stem.
"Creepo just remembered he has something to do -- somewhere else." Next comes a goofy high-speed chase . . .
. . . ending in the county lockup. The narrator tells us "Creepo lost the game." C'mon - that's the best they can come up with? How about I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids. 
To wrap it up, the narrator suggests hopefully, "Maybe some new invention will be out soon that will take care of any bike thief. Like some kind of secret alarm."

Why is it that by the 1970s, all Sid Davis's "bad guys" are long-haired hippies?
When the next "Creepo" lays his hands on the unlocked bike, a ridiculous chain of events flashes on the screen in a rapid-fire succession of quick-cut editing. Sirens. Bells. Whistles. Flashing lights. Firemen (?) WWI-era aircraft (??). And suddenly every cop in Los Angeles County converges on the potential bike thief.
I know this looks like a shot from one of Sid Davis's drug films (seriously, is this guy blowing a police whistle, or some Wednesday weed? And look at those eyes!) but it's actually just one shot in the goofy sequence that's supposed to represent the near future of bike theft protection.

An entire police task force dedicated to preventing bike theft. Yeah. That'll happen.
How To Protect Your Bike has a totally different style than Sid Davis's other films, including the other bicycle safety ones. Nobody gets killed or maimed. And it isn't nearly as harsh or judgemental of its victims as some of his other films. But through stereotypes it still reflects some of the conformist notions of it's producer. Most of the basic advice in the film -- always lock your bike, with a sturdy lock and chain, through the frame and wheels, and locked to something solid - is generally good. But on the whole, it's just unrealistic and silly enough to be easily ridiculed.

How To Protect Your Bike can be seen and downloaded at the Prelinger Archive, or on YouTube, or right here:


Enjoy!

7 is the New 11

0
0
With bicycle gearing going to 10 and then 11 speed cassettes in the last few years, I never thought I'd see the gearing trend go back the other way. But suddenly, 7 is the new 11.

SRAM's X01 has a single-ring crank, and a 7-speed cluster at the
 back,along with a fairly wide built-in spacer and spoke protector
 to fit on current-width cassette bodies.
Now, this sudden trend seems to be going through the downhill mountain biking crowd (something I don't see myself ever getting into) and no-one should get the idea that it's going to spread to road bikes any time soon. Hell, I'm still certain that somebody's going to widen the rear triangle of road bikes even more than it already is and try to squeeze in 12 or even 13 cogs at some point. But when I read the claims about the benefits of a 7-speed drivetrain, I just have to grin.

According to proponents and the manufacturers, like SRAM which kicked off this thing with their X01 system, the "theory" behind the 7-sp. cluster is that a lot the gears go unused on a downhill racer, and the 7-sp. cassette provides better jumps between gears. SRAM touts fewer shifts from low to high gears. OneUp Components, which makes a cassette adapter to convert a 10 or 11-sp. cassette into 7-sp. says more or less the same thing: "Get faster, more responsive shifting; no more multiple shifts to find the right gear." Funny thing, but I imagine that the same thing could be said of a lot of bikes that never leave the pavement, too.

The OneUp DH Block cassette adapter takes the place of the inner-cogs
 of a typical 10 or 11-sp. cassette, without investing in a whole new
drivetrain -- think of it as 7-speeds on a budget. Seems ironic to a retrogrouch.
Here's another claimed benefit -- that with a narrower spread between high and low gears, derailleurs with shorter cages and shorter chains can be used. That should mean better shifting under abuse. Again, is that only true of downhill racers? I don't think so.

Not that I care one whit about a few grams here or there, but SRAM also talks about the weight -- pointing out that their 7-sp. cassette is the "Lightest cassette. Ever." Well, yeah -- it's got fewer cogs. Duh.

The thing is, I do have a bike with a relatively modern 10-speed cassette system. Sure, it's nice. But most of my bikes have 5, 6, or 7 speed freewheels, and I've never found them to be any less fun or satisfying to ride despite their fewer gears. They seem less finicky, and more forgiving. I never find myself hunting (or wishing) for a gear that isn't there. I shift less. The slogan for the OneUp DH Block says "Shift Less, Whip More." I don't actually know what that means. But if "Whip More" has something to do with riding, or enjoying the ride, then yeah - I can get behind that.

Riders of classic or vintage bikes, or those seeking a more no-nonsense approach to cycling, have long been questioning the need for more and more gears -- probably since the first 7 and 8-speed cassette systems hit the market in the 80s. It's just funny hearing these "less-is-more" arguments coming from anybody other than us retrogrouches.

Sharing The Road Electronically

0
0
Bicycles are best when they're simple. All the electronic gadgetry and other car-like technologies being applied to bicycles only serves to make them more expensive and more complicated, but not really any better. I really believe that.

A variety of sensory alerts -- from audible alarms, to buzzes
and vibrations, and even physical "taps" would let drivers know
of bicyclists around their vehicle. (from Jaguar Land Rover)
Cars, on the other hand, being inherently more complicated to begin with, as well as considerably larger, heavier, faster, and capable of inflicting far more damage to fellow road-users, have a lot more potential to be improved by the addition of more technology. And now a couple of car companies are applying some of that new technology to actually making cars a little safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

Currently, Jaguar Land Rover is working on a system called "Bike Sense" that will use a number of sensors to detect bicyclists around the vehicle, as well as a variety of sounds and sensations to alert drivers to the presence and location of cyclists.

According to the company, "Rather than using a generic warning icon or sound, which takes time for the driver's brain to process, Bike sense uses lights and sounds that the driver will instinctively associate with the potential danger." For example, an audible sound, such as a bicycle bell, would come through the audio system on the side of the vehicle from which the cyclist is approaching. Other sensory tricks would include a "tap" on the shoulder when a cyclist is approaching from behind, and the driver's door handle would buzz or vibrate to alert them not to open the door in the path of a cyclist.
Volvo's Cyclist Detection System uses sensors and even
radar to detect cyclists, and can even apply the brakes if
necessary. (from Volvo)

Always at the forefront in motor vehicle safety, Volvo is another company that is looking at the safety of bicyclists sharing the road with drivers. Their Cyclist Detection System, introduced in 2013, is supposed to detect bicyclists and/or pedestrians in the vicinity of the car, and even apply the brakes if needed.

In a more recent development, the company is even working with the helmet company POC, and with the telecom company Ericsson, to enhance their alert system and even extend the alerts to the cyclists in something like a "mutual awareness system" -- as long as those cyclists happen to be wearing the appropriate POC helmet.

These are definitely some interesting developments -- though they are not completely immune from criticism. Certainly, nobody should think for a minute that these new technologies could or should take the place of badly needed driver and cyclist education. But also, there is the potential that drivers might come to rely on the technology instead of actually using their own senses -- you know, actually looking where they're going. With the Volvo/POC/Ericsson approach particularly, the system only works if everybody is using compatible devices or equipment. I wonder if drivers would get so used to being alerted by the car's technology that they stop looking, only to end up crushing some rider who doesn't happen to be wearing the right helmet (or no helmet for that matter).

There are valid concerns and criticisms -- though I'm going to remain hopeful that the technology is still in early stages, and that it will become better, more inclusive, and even find its way onto more affordable makes and models. In the meantime, I'll try to remain encouraged that car companies are turning some of their attention to us cyclists. It's a start, and it will be interesting to see where it leads.

Hardshell Helmets: A History Through Advertising

0
0
In my list of Top 10 Bicycling Inventions posted back in January, I listed at number 10 the introduction of effective bicycle helmets. Like a lot of people, I credited the Bell Biker as the first really effective bike-specific helmet, though looking back through old Bicycling and Bike World magazines from the 1970s, I found that may not be quite true. Still, looking through the old advertisements got me thinking that others might be interested in what I found. So here's a little history, told through the advertisements of the day which should give a decent idea of what was available, and when.

This ad for the "new" MSR helmet
 appeared in the Summer of 1974.
Up until the 1970s, the only headgear worn by cyclists, if any, was either a cycling cap, or maybe a leather strap helmet or "hairnet" as some called them. Sometimes it was the leather helmet over the cycling cap. The leather helmets were light, and cool (as in well-ventilated, though I suppose they looked pretty cool, too) but they really didn't offer much protection from anything more than the lightest impact. People looking for more serious head protection sometimes turned to things like hockey helmets, or kayaking helmets, either of which may have been an improvement over the leather hairnet, but really not ideal for the job.

An MSR helmet ad from 1978 promises
a free replacement for a busted helmet
in exchange for the user's story.
As mentioned, I had been thinking of the Bell as the first bicycling-specific helmet, but looking through the old magazines, I found ads for the MSR (Mountain Safety Research) bicycle helmet at least as early as the summer of 1974, which makes it earlier by at least several months than the Bell. Based on their mountaineering helmets, the bicycle helmet had what they billed as a "penetration-resistant" Lexan hard shell, with a 5/8-in. thick "headband" of expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). The crown of the helmet had a web of "suspension straps" inside, not unlike those found in construction hard hats. It had a row of holes, maybe 3/4-in. diameter across the front to provide some ventilation. I'm assuming that the ventilation holes were probably the main difference between the cycling helmet and the mountain helmet -- or perhaps it was the EPS headband?

When it comes to reducing the force of a head impact, it's been shown that stiff, crushable EPS is really the best material there is, and it is the basis of almost all modern helmets. The band of EPS in the MSR helmet probably provided decent protection from blows to the front, back, or sides of the helmet, though the suspension straps across the crown would not have been as good at reducing the force of impact on the top. I saw the results from a helmet test in the later '70s confirming that assessment. But the MSR helmet was sold right through the end of the decade and even into the early 80s with only minor changes. Through the 1970s their ads proclaimed "MSR helmets have saved over 60 heads. Let yours be the next one!" Over the years, the number of saved heads would grow, so by 1980, they were proclaiming 120 saved. Where did they get the numbers? The company had a policy, listed in their advertising, that they would replace a busted helmet, free of charge, in exchange for the broken helmet and the user's story. Clever, and effective.

This is one of the earliest ads I could find for the original Bell
bicycle helmet, in late 1974. Notice how they want to build
up anticipation with the line "Not For Sale . . . Yet!" 
The first mention I could find of the Bell bicycle helmet was in the fall of '74 in Bike World. "Not For Sale . . . Yet!" the ad read -- as a teaser to generate interest. A few months later, the ads would declare that the anticipated helmets were available for purchase, direct from Bell (with a little order form to be clipped out of the magazine) so I'm guessing the first Bell Bikers were probably hitting the streets at the beginning of 1975.

The Bell Biker may have been beaten to the market by the MSR, but it was a better helmet. Fully lined throughout with thicker EPS foam, and with more and larger vents, Bell really set the standard for head protection for the next 10 years. And while the MSR may have been marketed as a bicycle-specific helmet, it probably wasn't all that different from their mountaineering helmets, while the Bell was designed from scratch for cyclists. By the mid 1980s, most good bicycle helmets would follow at least the structure if not the look of the Bell. The Biker would evolve a little over the years, a Biker II was produced, and a more deluxe, updated version called the Tourlite (with a built-in tinted visor) would come out in the early 80s.

From Bicycling magazine, early 1975 - now declaring that the
Bell helmet was available for purchase.

This ad for the Skid Lid II appeared in Bike World
in late 1975. Being dubbed "Skid Lid II," I'd assume
 there was a "Skid Lid I" but I couldn't find one earlier than this.
Later in 1975, ads started appearing for the Skid Lid II. Was there a Skid Lid I? If there was, I couldn't find it advertised anywhere. The Skid Lid was billed as a quality bicycle-specific helmet, but other than having a partial-coverage shell, it was really no better than the leather hairnets. It had a polycarbonate "hard" shell (that was still fairly flexible) which was open at the top. There was no EPS, but rather a "low rebound foam" -- more like foam rubber padding that was not nearly as good at absorbing serious blows. With its open top design, the makers touted its ventilation, light weight, and comfort, despite the fact that it would leave a rider completely unprotected in a serious header. The Skid Lids performed miserably in most (maybe all) independent helmet performance tests, so when groups like Snell and ANSI started creating their helmet standards in that decade, it was pretty clear early on that the Skid Lid wouldn't get their certification, but they were still being advertised and sold in the early 80s.

As helmet buyers became more aware of the helmet lab tests, and magazines started publishing the results of those tests, the ads for Skid Lids got downright defensive:

Skid Lid ads from Bicycling, 4/83 and 9/83. Notice the text on the left: "How much is known about head injury? Not Enough. Modern science has yet to solve all the mysteries of this menace. Until it does so, the perfect helmet cannot be built." It goes on to talk about Skid Lid's dedication to head protection then concludes with "We will leave the use of invalid tests in defense of traditional designs to others." In other words, we don't care about independent scientific tests, and neither should you. The one on the right says "Cycling puts special demands on a helmet that laboratory test methods cannot duplicate." Skid Lids faded away within the next year or two.
From Bicycling, 3/79


In 1979, Pro-tec entered the bicycle market with a helmet that seemed to have a lot in common with football helmets, minus the face mask. It was a full-coverage design that had a thick liner of a rebounding type of foam that would make it suitable for sustaining multiple minor impacts -- probably making it better suited to activities like skateboarding than cycling. Not surprisingly, a lot of skateboard helmets still have a design that is somewhat reminiscent of the Pro-tec, but made with stiffer EPS.

Available in limited numbers as early as '77, the Bailen
Bike Bucket first starts appearing in the national
bike magazines in 1979. This ad was from Bike World.

Ads for the Bailen Bike Bucket also started appearing '79. But the helmet was apparently available in limited quantities as early as 1977. I found mention of it (but no pictures) in the August '77 issue of Bike World. Created by Dr. Hal Bailen, a sports medicine specialist from Sausalito, California, the Bailen helmet was the result of his studies on bicycle head injuries in the earlier part of the decade. The Bike Bucket had a layer of EPS foam, and a unique suspension system that made it a one-size-fits-all proposition. Notably, it had absolutely no holes or vents, as Bailen felt that ventilation would come from air moving between the scalp and the suspended helmet liner -- that, and he believed the holes would weaken the helmet. The helmet was made and sold at least through the first half of the 1980s. I could find ads for a slightly updated version with a built-in visor as late as 1986.

From Bicycling, Sept/Oct. 1983.
The first "real" bicycle helmet I ever bought was the Bell V-1 Pro. It was supposed to look something like a leather hairnet, and was billed as one of the lightest hardshell helmets available at the time. The earliest ad I could find for it was in the fall of 1983, though it may have got its start a few years earlier. In a 1980 ad for Bell helmets, featuring a Bell Biker that had been cut in half to reveal its nearly 1-in. thick layer of EPS foam, there was a small inset photo of a helmet they called the "Prime."

The Prime - circa 1980.
The Prime basically looked like the V-1, except that the space between the "ribs" was closed, not open. Funny thing about that helmet, though, is that other than this one advertisement, I've never actually seen one. Searching through sales ads of the time, from retailers like Bike Warehouse (which would become Nashbar) and Bikecology, I can find listings and prices for the Biker, but no mention of the Prime. Regardless, the V-1 Pro became very popular and spawned several imitators or copies, including one from Avenir that looked almost identical.
From Inside Cycling
July 1987.

This full-page ad for the Giro was from the
Dec. '87 issue of Bicycling
The next big thing to hit bicycle helmets would have to be the introduction of "shell-less" helmets, beginning with the Giro Prolight. Working on the theory that the critical component of the helmet was the EPS foam, the Giro dispensed with the hard shell and just used more foam, wrapped in a cosmetic covering of lycra -- otherwise the helmet didn't look much different from a styrofoam beer cooler. Helmets suddenly got a lot lighter, and everybody soon followed with their own versions of the beer cooler helmets. Wikipedia lists the introduction date for the Giro as 1985. So does the Gear Junkie blog. But researching it myself, the earliest mention I can find of the original Giro didn't come until the October 1986 issue of Bicycling. No picture. No ad. Just a mention of the helmet in a paragraph near the back of the magazine, alerting readers to watch for it in upcoming issues. Pictures and previews followed later, and the Dec. '86 issue of Bicycling had a rider wearing the Prolight pictured on the cover - but again, no advertisements for it within. The first advertisements that I can find for the Giro don't appear until 1987. That lines up with my own memory of them as well, as I bought one myself, probably in the summer of '87. And as I recall, I had to drive quite a ways to find a shop that had them, as no shops in my area were carrying them yet. But by the end of 1987, pictures of riders wearing the Giro helmets were appearing in all the bicycle magazines. Many copies and imitators were released within a year or two.

I don't think this is the first ad for the Pro-tec
Mirage - but it's a favorite of mine. 
With the quick spread of the new designs, reports started coming out that the lycra-covered foam helmets might be protecting riders against impact effectively enough, but that the foam might not "slide" well in a skidding situation -- it could perhaps "snag" and cause neck injuries. The other issue raised was that, without the hard shell to keep it together, the foam helmets could break up on impact. The Pro-tec Mirage of 1988 dealt with the latter issue by embedding a plastic mesh-like reinforcement inside the EPS foam -- not unlike the rebar or steel mesh inside reinforced concrete. Apart from the internal reinforcement, the helmet had a lycra cover and looked a lot like the Giro. Other makers soon adopted something similar.

The solution to the other problem, that of the sliding resistance, came at the end of the decade in the form of an extra thin plastic shell. Not so much a "hard shell" as a "micro-shell." The first example I can find is the Bell Ovation. I found them listed in the Performance Bike catalogs from 1988. The first micro-shells were typically glued or taped to the EPS foam, but by 1990 or so, some helmet makers were molding the EPS directly into the micro-shell, making them stronger. Most modern helmets today are made in similar fashion.

With the craze for aerodynamics, which may be credited to Greg LeMond's 1989 Tour de France win wearing a teardrop-shaped Giro, helmets have gone more and more to wind-tunnel designs, with elongated shapes and wing-like fins. The result is that road riding helmets, especially, are supposed to look like they're going fast even when they're standing still. Granted, I love that a good helmet now weighs in the neighborhood of 9 ounces, or about half a pound -- but the look of most new helmets really leaves me cold. Not only that, but some sources show that helmets with ridges, points, and projections are not as effective as a smooth, rounded shape at protecting against neck injuries. It gets back to that "sliding resistance" issue. There's some info about that at the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute website.

I've heard from people who still ride wearing Bell Bikers from the 70s or early 80s. I don't actually recommend using helmets that old, because I believe that the claims of EPS foam degrading over time are more than just planned-obsolescence marketing cooked up to make us all buy new helmets. But looking back at them, I have a renewed appreciation for the simple shape of the old Biker. If the folks over at Bell (which is now owned by BRG Sports, the same company that also owns Giro) are reading this - how about recreating the Biker - in modern materials and methods, maybe with slightly larger vents? Traditional looks, but a lot lighter. It would probably be a hit -- at least with us retrogrouches.

Vintage Helmet Ads

0
0
When I was going through all those old issues of Bike World, Bicycling, and Bicycle Guide from the '70s and '80s to find helmet advertising, one can imagine that I found and scanned lots more than I could use in the article on helmet history.

Here was one I almost used, then decided it was unnecessary for the content of that article - but I thought it was a pretty good ad:


The "Protection vs. Tradition" ad ran in both Bike World and Bicycling a few times in 1978 and '79.

One thing I think is pretty good is the expression on the two riders' faces -- it's subtle, but the expression of the guy on the left has an edge of confidence, while the guy on the right has just a touch of uncertainty, maybe fear.

By the way, the leather hairnet worn by the "tradition" guy looks like one of the later models that I remember -- it's a bit bulkier, thicker -- probably in an effort to make them a little more effective, given the appearance of more hardshell choices on the market. That one looks like those that were sold by Kucharik in the later 70s and early 80s.

You might assume that a retrogrouch would always side with "tradition," but as much as I have a bit of nostalgia for the old leather helmets (I still have a couple of them, but keep them for nothing more than display) this is one area where I think newer really is better.

A Break in the Cold: March 8th Ride

0
0
Could it be? Is winter finally starting to release its icy grip?

I got out today for (I'm almost embarrassed to admit) my first ride of 2015.

I have a self-imposed limit of 25 degrees (American) for bike rides. I know people who ride when its even colder than that, but below 25, even with double gloves and neoprene overboots and my thickest wool socks, I just can't keep my fingers and toes from getting numb. I try not to feel too bad about it, though I do sometimes feel like a bit of a wuss when I see the abominable snowmen riding in the single digits with snotcicles dangling from their noses, and frosty beards of ice.

That's the Rivendell parked in front of our house. I know it doesn't
look like much, but we call it home. And yes, despite the warming
temps, our driveway is still a solid sheet of ice.
I don't think we've had a day above 25 here in Northeast Ohio since December -- at least not one that wasn't also accompanied by heavy snow, or sleet and freezing rain. If the temperatures this week go as predicted, I may get to ride to work a few times this week (fingers crossed). I haven't been able to do that since the week before Christmas.

Out on the roads today, I was able to see (and feel) up close and personal all the damage wrought on our roads by this brutal winter. Last winter was rough as well, but I don't remember any winter having a bigger impact on the roads than this one. Huge sections of pavement are affected by heaves, while others were heaved up, and apparently sunk back down to create big dips. Sometimes it's heaves in-between dips for a stomach-churning whoop-de-doo effect. Deep, uneven cracks crisscross the asphalt. The ones that run longitudinally, parallel to the direction of travel, can be particularly hazardous. And the potholes are everywhere -- deep, wide, and sharp-edged, and strung together like strings of diabolical beads. They are so numerous and cover so much of the roadways that in some parts they are basically unavoidable. The areas around the worst of the potholes are littered with the broken remains of hubcaps and other wheel coverings from unlucky motorists. If I'm out there in the early morning darkness commuting to work, I'll have to use extreme caution, as all these new hazards will be harder to see. Some of them are wheel-busters.

I did see a few other cyclists out today, though not as many as I'd expected. With so much water from melting snow on the roads, I was surprised at how few of them had fenders on their bikes. Most of the people I encountered had tell-tale sooty black wet stripes up their backs from the roads which still carry the grime from a terrible winter's worth of salt and cinders. I got up behind one rider, who was wearing a bunch of team kit, only to catch a face full of that filth coming off their back wheel. They were going too fast for me to pass, and they didn't seem like they were looking for a ride companion, so I eased up and let them go. That pace was a bit hard for me to sustain, anyhow. Too soon.

I didn't go very far today, just far enough to realize that it's been too long since I've been out on my bike. I'm sure we'll have some more nasty cold and more snow and ice before spring arrives for real. But for now, it feels like a long-awaited reprieve.

More Press-Fit Bottom Bracket Madness

0
0
Back in 2013, I wrote about press-fit bottom brackets, and all the various "standards" that have been introduced in recent years. I summarized it by saying essentially that the only thing "standard" about bottom brackets today is the creaking. Not surprisingly the creaking continues. What IS surprising to me is that the industry has gone almost two years without introducing yet another new bottom bracket "standard."

Several companies think they have the solution to creaking press-fit bottom brackets, and they want you to spend a lot of money attending to something that should never have been an issue on a $4000+ carbon fiber wünderbike to begin with.

One of these solutions is the BBInfinite. Funded on Kickstarter last summer, the BBInfinite is supposed to eliminate the variables in tolerances between the bottom bracket shell of the frame and the bearing mechanism by putting both the left and right side bearings into one complete shell, and the whole shebang is pressed into place as one single unit.

The BBInfinite sells for $165, and it does come with tool adapters for Park headset presses. Removal takes more special tools, including an air hammer (!) and those tools are sold separately. Some users will probably want to buy the tools anyhow, though I wouldn't recommend doing the job at home.


Remember when these were all the tools you needed to install, remove, or service a bottom bracket and crank? And keep in mind that two of those spanners also service headsets. The one on the top also installs/removes pedals.

The installation video for the BBInfinite shows all of these tools to install the unit -- though I think the main one needed would be the Park headset press and the special adapters or inserts for the press. Given the very specific nature of some of the tools (made solely for the BBInfinite) and the immense possibility of destroying a very expensive carbon fiber frame should something go wrong, I think few home mechanics will be doing the job themselves.

No grease or oil. Everything must be clean and wiped down and decontaminated with alcohol. Only in the final stage of the press-fit process does one apply a bit of loctite -- because loctite is like the "take two aspirin and call me in the morning" solution for press-fit bottom brackets. 

They say it goes in fairly easy with a headset press and some special adapters, but it hurts just to watch it. I think the potential for destroying a carbon fiber frame would be great, so I wouldn't recommend trying this at home, kids.

To remove the BBInfinite, you need an air hammer and their own special bearing dies. The video also notes "Make sure removal of the module is necessary before commencing" Why? I'm guessing the BBInfinite is not meant to be installed or removed more than one or two times in its lifespan.

An instructional video on YouTube shows how to remove the BBInfinite with the air hammer -- good thing they remove the sound from the video. "Eye and hearing protection are recommended." Luckily this isn't something that needs to be done often. I guess the makers are pretty confident that once installed, it shouldn't need to come out again. Should the bearings need to be serviced (well, not serviced, exactly - I should more correctly say "replaced") it is possible to do it without removing the entire BBInfinite unit - but that job requires yet another special set of tools (not shown).
Now, the whole point in creating something like the BBInfinite is to try to eliminate some of the fit issues that come from inconsistent tolerances between the frames and the components. It seems like a good system in that the left and right bearing units will always remain in parallel with one another -- which may not be true of units that are pressed in separately from each side of the frame. But it seems to me that if the tolerances of the frame are off enough from those of the bottom bracket unit (even this one) it could still have problems with creaking. And on the company website, there are two posts headed up with something like "It still creaks." For example, "I installed a BBInfinite module and my bike is still creaking. What do I do now?" Various culprits are then named, from cranks to wheels, to cracks in the frame. Great.


Another new entry into the Stop-My-BB-From-Creaking foray comes from Enduro. Called the TorqTite, it uses an innovative new method to eliminate persistent creaking. It threads together. That's right --- the solution to press-fit bottom bracket fit issues is to install a threaded bottom bracket. When the two sides are threaded together and tightened down, the frame is then essentially "clamped" tightly between the cup flanges to eliminate any movement that would then lead to creaking. It's like the next logical step in the evolution of press-fit bottom brackets. My prediction is that the next step is that someone will suggest cutting threads into the frame's bottom bracket shell to match up with the threading in the BB unit -- thereby giving a uniquely sure-fit, fool-proof solution.

Proponents of press-fit bottom brackets like to point out that headset cups have been press-fit into frames practically forever with no issues. To that I point out the obvious, that being that headsets are subjected to totally different kinds of forces than bottom brackets. Others will remind us that old-style American one-piece cranks, like those found on old cruisers, department store bikes, and on BMX bikes, have always used press-fit bearing cups without problems. Yes, that's also true -- so then what does that say about the state of the industry today that their manufacturing tolerances aren't even as good as those used on bottom-level bikes from the past? Proponents also love to talk about the increased stiffness in today's bottom brackets. To that I reply, just how stiff do bottom brackets need to be? Once things moved from the old square-taper bottom bracket spindles (typically about 17 mm in diameter), to the external-threaded cups with their 24 mm spindles, it seems to me that bottom brackets got as stiff as they'll ever need to be. Nobody can feel the difference, despite what the manufacturers proclaim in their ads.

Nope - I've said it before, but I'll say it again. The only real reason for going to these press-fit bottom brackets is to save time and money for manufacturers. No metal sleeves to be bonded into their popped-out-of-a-mold-somewhere-in-asia frames. No machining to precise tolerances. No threads to be cut. And it's apparently left up to various frame makers and component makers to come up with their own tolerance specs.

If somebody has a modern carbon fiber wünderbike with bottom bracket creaking issues, one of these two new products might offer viable solutions. But wouldn't it just be better if the industry picked itself a standard, and eliminated some of the tolerance variables? I think high-end bicycle buyers need to start demanding better.

On BikeRadar, I saw this recent rant from AngryAsian where he points out that "frame warranties almost always include a clause that covers 'manufacturing defects'." Therefore, if a person's frame is not made to the proper specifications for the intended bottom bracket system, then they should demand replacement. "You're sitting on a lemon - and no amount of sugar is going to make it taste good. . . Demand a correctly made version of what you bought. If the shell dimensions really aren't what they should be, your bike is defective and you're entitled to one that isn't." Maybe he's right. If people kept coming back to the manufacturers demanding replacement, instead of trying one "sure-fire" fix after another to solve the problems, something might actually done about it.

In the meantime, I'm quite happy riding along in silence on my steel framed bikes and their traditional threaded bottom brackets.

Axles of Evil

0
0
Decisions, decisions. Don't ask the bike industry to make them. And agreeing on standards? Forget that too. Bottom brackets and headsets are both in such a state of flux that there's a good chance that a lot of new bikes sitting in showrooms right now will be as obsolete in a couple of years as a Betamax video player (or an HD-DVD player, for you kids who might be reading this).

Joining those components in a race towards confusion and forced obsolescence are hubs and axles.

Seemingly forever, bicycle wheel axles have been 10 mm for back wheels, and 9mm for the front. The width of back wheels went from 120mm in the days of 5 speed freewheels, grew to 126 for 6 and 7 speeds, and generally up to about 130mm for 8, 9, and 10 speed cassettes (for road bikes that is -- mountain bikes were often more like 135mm). Front axle widths have been consistent at 100mm for pretty much everything other than children's bikes. In addition, the simple quick release system we're all familiar with has been a feature on higher-quality bikes going back to before most people reading this can remember.

So, what is driving the current change and confusion? Simple answer: Disc brakes, and thru-axles.

Mountain bikers, who were the early adopters of newer disc brake systems, started having problems with braking forces overwhelming the traditional quick release, and pulling the front wheel out. This was particularly a problem with the downhill bikes which have evolved to be more like engine-less motorcycles than bicycles. I'm guessing that most "regular" mountain bikers, especially those who know how to properly use a quick release, didn't have serious problems (please forgive me if I'm wrong about that). Anyhow, the chosen solution to the problem was to ditch the traditional quick release in favor of a thru-axle design. Not only that, but the size of those front axles continued to swell so that eventually some downhill bikes started using massive 20mm thick axles (think about it - that's double the thickness of the traditional rear axle!). I can only suppose that the rationale was not only about the braking forces, but also the forces directed on the front axle from big hits suffered in their downhill runs. The way I understand it is that many of the mountain bikes out there now have settled on 15 x 100mm thru-axles for front wheels, and 12 x 142mm thru-axles for the rear.

Disc brakes and thru-axles on road bikes. But which
"standard" to use? (photo from Trekbikes.com)

Now with frame and component makers pushing disc brakes for the road, the question of hub standards is suddenly becoming another puzzle. And the solution to that puzzle keeps changing. Can the industry agree upon a standard? Are you kidding?

The component makers seem to be waiting for the bike companies to make a choice, while the bike companies are waiting for component makers to come up with the answer. Smaller bike companies are waiting to see what the big boys are doing. In the meantime, there is a hodgepodge of options floating around out there. Some companies are sticking with traditional quick release. Some are moving to thru-axles, but the exact dimensions are up in the air. Some, like Trek, are betting on 15mm front axles to keep things consistent with mountain bikes. Others, like Specialized, think 12mm axles will work fine for the road. On the back, the current choices seem to be the mountain bike "standard" (there's that meaningless word again) of 12 x 142mm -- which seems really freakin' wide for a road bike! Others are looking into 12 x 135mm. Some companies are hedging bets by offering different versions -- some of this, some of that -- as if hoping the consumers will make the choice for them.

Personally, if I were in the market for one these new bikes (and I definitely am not), I'd be hesitant to plunk down a lot of money on the "latest thing," only to find out in a couple of years that I'd made the wrong choice when I can't find components to fit my frame.

A recent article on the subject on BikeRadar had a quote from an "industry veteran" who says such a worry is exaggerated. "The bicycle industry has done a good job of continuing support of older standards." I don't know that I'd totally agree with that. Quick release has been around for a long time, and will probably continue to be supported for a long time to come. But what about some other so-called "standards" (perhaps "fads" would be a better term) that don't stick around long enough to become really established before being superseded by something else? The industry veteran in that BikeRadar article went on to say "at a point, you can trade up. By then other systems will have advanced as well, making it, if you're so inclined, time for a new bike."

Basically, when this year's bike becomes obsolete, you'll just buy a new bike -- because the new stuff will be so much better anyhow. If that doesn't sum it all up, I don't know what else would.

Eric Clapton - Bicycles and Rock & Roll

0
0
I was listening to Disraeli Gears by Cream the other day and it got me thinking about bicycles.

Bicycles? Really?

Yep.

Granted, lots of things get me thinking about bicycles, but it's probably already well known among us old bicycle enthusiasts (or maybe not) that Eric Clapton has been a huge fan of bicycles -- especially classic Cinellis -- going back to his youth. So was the band's drummer, Ginger Baker, for that matter. Their mutual love for racing bicycles, and a roadie's malapropism, led to the title of that iconic 1967 album.

The story goes that Baker and Clapton were talking about bikes one time in the back of a car, and according to Baker, "Mick Turner was one of the roadies who'd been with me a long time, and he was driving along and Eric was talking about getting a racing bicycle." Apparently, Turner commented about the bike having "disraeli gears," as opposed to derailleur gears. (The actual Disraeli was a British Prime Minister during the Victorian era). "We all just fell over," said Baker. "We said that's got to be the album title." (disraeligears.co.uk)

I first heard about Clapton's passion for bicycles when I saw this picture in one of the bike mags back in the 80s"
That's Eric Clapton taking delivery of a new Cinelli Supercorsa from Antonio Colombo in 1987. Colombo is the owner of Columbus tubing, and has been the owner of Cinelli since 1978.
Clapton's love for classic Cinelli bikes has been well documented over the years, and he has apparently owned more than a few, from different vintages. In fact, here's another picture from the 80s, which one can find on the Cinelli website.


I've heard and read from numerous sources, including former British framebuilder Dave Moulton, that Clapton used to race a bit in his teens, probably time-trials mostly (like most British racers in those days), and that bikes and guitars were the competing interests in his life. Guitars and music of course took the lead, but he never really let go of the bike bug.

Clapton used to have a blog (it appears to be defunct at this time) where he would occasionally post some thoughts, and sometimes pictures, of his passions. Sometimes, his bikes would make the blog, like this vintage track bike:
Photo from Eric Clapton's now-defunct blog. Great old components
would sometimes make the blog, too.
In 2010, Clapton was pictured on the cover of a Japanese fashion magazine (with an English-language title -- Free & Easy. Gotta love it!) posing with what looks to be a '60s-vintage Cinelli.


Clapton mentioned bikes a few times in his 2007 autobiography, too. In one passage, he talks about getting one of his first bicycles. In another he describes a visit to Japan, and meeting with designer Hiroshi Fujiwara. He writes, "Hiroshi came over to the hotel with his new Cinelli track bike. He is still a leading pioneer in street culture, hence the Cinelli. . . I have caught the obsession of course. He is very infectious, and I have begun buying vintage road bikes, not to ride but because I have always loved the equipment of cycling, especially bikes and accessories from the sixties."

Legendary drummer, Ginger Baker,
looking ironic in the 60s
(from gingerbaker.com)
As mentioned previously, drummer Ginger Baker, who collaborated with Clapton both with Cream and with Blind Faith, was also once an avid cyclist and aspiring racer. In Baker's own website, under the history archives, there is a quote from a 1967 press article: "Ginger Baker was doing very well as a professional bicycle racer when he was fifteen. He had already discovered and enjoyed listening to the music of jazzman Dizzy Gillespie. One day he sat down at a drum set and found he could play . . . He's been a drummer ever since."

Something tells me that the description of the 15-yr old Baker as a "professional bicycle racer" is a slight exaggeration, but numerous sources mention his early ambitions to race bicycles. In a 2009 Rolling Stone interview, it was said that an accident on the bike with a taxi left him with a busted bicycle, ending the dream. Another source says that the accident broke his leg, and it was during that time while he was recuperating that he started playing the drums. In any case, the drums quickly changed the direction of his life.

It's fun to imagine these two legends of rock -- one of the greatest guitarists, and one of the greatest drummers -- chatting between gigs, or out on tour, swapping stories of riding, racing, and the bikes they loved.

NAHBS: Objectification Is Not Dead

0
0
A bicycle built by Allan Abbott and displayed at the recent North American Handmade Bicycle Show (NAHBS) has been the center of a fair amount of controversy around the net. Built in the form of a naked woman, the Signorina (as Abbott has dubbed it) has led to a lot of criticism of its creator, but some of the criticism has even been directed at NAHBS officials for allowing the bike to be shown.

Where to begin? Hmmm. . .

What it isn't:

It isn't cool. Or sexy. It isn't clever. It isn't art. It isn't funny. It isn't even that well-made.

What it is:

Grotesque.

I don't really even want to put up a picture of the thing, but I'd probably be doing a disservice to readers if I didn't show at least one. Some of the blogs out there are railing against the bike, and Abbott, and even NAHBS for promoting indecency -- then splashing huge pictures of the bike from every possible angle. If anyone really wants to see more, it shouldn't be hard to find. But on this blog, you'll have to settle for this:

Basically, what you have here is an oddly proportioned naked "woman" on her hands and knees -- not to mention, headless. It really just kind of grosses me out.

I'm not sure what it says about its creator that it even occurred to him to make this thing -- but it's even more shocking that he wanted to share it with an international audience.

What makes it worse (if that's possible) is that on his website, Abbott had a poll to get opinions on the bike:


"If you owned Signorina, would you. . . 

- Treat her like art in your home
- Allow only a few friends to see her
- Rider her hard and often
- Keep her locked to your bed
- Other"

However, if you go to Abbott's website now to look for the poll, you will find that not only has the poll been removed, but the entire contents of the website have been taken down. Clearly, the negative outcry against him and his creation has been too much to take.

What can I say -- people have freedom of expression -- but they don't have freedom from consequences.

Here is a sampling of what others have had to say about Abbott's Signorina:

Red Kite Prayer: "Cycling has enough problems with being insufficiently hospitable to women without the addition of throwback attitudes that treat women as sex objects and objectifies their form. It only serves to make many of the women we do have in the sport feel unwelcome, which is totally unacceptable. The more rich and diverse a community is, the stronger it is."

Bicycle Times Magazine: "The Signorina from Abbott Cycles takes the objectification of women to a new level. Definitely sucks that this is how women are represented here. Especially since this object was one of about 10 women I saw at the whole show."

BikeSnobNYC: "It seems Allan Abbott forgot to include 'registered sex offender' in his bio. Though he did manage to squeeze in a rape joke, which is pretty much the same thing." (reference to the poll from Abbott's website)

The Daily Bike @ Adventure-Journal: "Because men have dominated and subjugated and objectified women for so many thousands of years, and because the bicycle culture is one of the last, worst refuges of sexist jerks, somehow it's okay that this appallingly misguided and frankly ugly frame was given space to be shown to others. . . And by allowing it, the organizers of the NAHBS are just as complicit in the offense as Allan Abbott."

By the way -- lots of photos on that last one.

It's sad to think that there are still people out there who think there's an audience for something like this. And if there is an appreciative audience, they probably aren't people I want to ride with. There's probably more I could say, but I'll just leave it at that.

Cars, Bikes, and Distorted Risk Assessment

0
0
If you spend much time riding the roads, you'll hear it a lot -- from friends, family, co-workers, and often from complete strangers.

"You ride on the road? Aren't you afraid of the cars?"

"I'd ride my bike more, but it's just too dangerous out there."

"I knew this guy once whose sister's boyfriend's cousin got killed on a bike. So you'll never see me riding one."

We've all been there.
My personal favorite was when I was flying down a long steep hill, going about 40 mph (speed limit was 35) when a guy in an SUV approached from a side street on the left. He had a stop sign, but he looked up the hill, saw me coming (no mistaking it), and instead of stopping, he hit the gas and pulled out directly in front of me. I hit the brakes hard and just barely kept myself from slamming into the back of him. I was close behind him all the way to the bottom of the hill where we both had to stop and wait for a red light. The guy rolled down his window, stuck his head out and said to me, "You really should be more careful. You're going to get hurt riding your bike like that." Yeah, buddy. And if I do, it's going to be at the hands of some impatient boneheaded pr*&k like you.

The thing is, people talk a lot about the dangers of being on a bike. Maybe they think they're being helpful, or showing concern. Little do they realize (or care?) that one of the most dangerous things they do, day after day, is to get behind the wheel of a car. Dangerous to themselves, and dangerous to those around them. 

Think about those comments mentioned earlier, particularly comments like "Somebody knew somebody who got killed on a bike." Notice that it's rarely anybody they knew closely, but even if it was, it doesn't make much difference. That one story, regardless of how personally close or distant, convinces them that cycling is dangerous. They'll be committed to telling the story to every cyclist they meet. Yet these same people probably know a lot more people who were killed or permanently disabled in car accidents, but they don't give that a second thought. It certainly doesn't give them pause before getting into a car.

I'll talk personally here for a moment, because I don't think my own experience on this is likely very different from most peoples'.

We've all read about fatal cycling accidents. It's actually still rare enough that it usually makes the papers. And I can name several people who were killed while cycling. I wrote here in this blog back in December about Tom Palermo, the framebuilder from Baltimore. Tom's death was tragic, and even became national news (though that probably had as much to do with the identity and position of the driver as it did with the circumstances of his death). I know of one or two other cyclists through the Classic Rendezvous group. It's worth noting, however, that I didn't know any of them personally -- I knew of Tom because of his work, but we'd never actually met. Same goes for those I knew through the CR group.

Now, how many people have I known who've been killed or disabled in car crashes? It's difficult for me to give an accurate number. Every time I try to count, more names come back to me. And I'm not talking about casual acquaintances, or "friends of friends." I mean family and close friends, and especially students. Some are dead. Others will never be the same. Teaching for over twenty years, I've probably lost at least a dozen students to car crashes, which are one of the leading causes of death for teens.

Like I said -- most people out there probably have similar experiences. We probably all know far more people killed in cars than on bikes, but the assessment of the risk is completely disproportional. People think of cars as "safe." Bicycles are "dangerous."

Somewhere around 700 cyclists are killed each year in the U.S. The number of people killed each year in car crashes is around 34,000, although that number is falling from year to year as cars become safer for their occupants. Yes, there are many more people who travel by car regularly than by bike, but keep in mind that a large percentage of those killed on bikes are also going about things wrong. They are riding the wrong way on the road, riding in the dark without lights, riding on sidewalks -- the list goes on and on. Knowledge, experience, and defensive riding go a long way towards protecting cyclists.

On the other hand, well over 4000 pedestrians are killed each year by cars, and those numbers are actually increasing. So as airbags and crumple zones are making people feel safer inside their cars, they seem to be wreaking more havoc on the people around them. And again, many drivers seem blissfully unaware of the danger they pose. (all those figures, though rounded, come from NHTSA).

By the way, as long as I'm on statistics, I should mention that household accidents kill nearly 20,000 people annually -- with falls, poisoning, fires, suffocation, and drowning being the top causes -- but nobody I know is afraid of taking a bath.

People seem to have the uncanny ability to diminish the significance of something they're very familiar with, while overemphasizing that which they are not. Most people either drive or travel by car on a daily basis. Most do not cycle. As a result, they identify with other drivers, but not the cyclists. That leads to a lot of distorted perceptions.

For example, drivers see cars blow through traffic lights every day (and sometimes do it themselves), but they remain blind to it. They see a cyclist run through a stop sign, and suddenly all cyclists are scofflaws. They see or hear about a fatal car crash, and it's as though it never happened. They hear about a cyclist killed, and it reinforces their distorted perception. Thousands of pedestrians are killed by cars, compared to a handful killed by cyclists (it's pretty hard to find accurate numbers for that), but you can guess which one people get more shrill about.

That distorted perception is also part of what leads many non-cyclists to push for helmet laws. I usually wear a helmet when I ride. I know few experienced cyclists who don't. But I also recognize the flaws in helmet testing and design enough that I would never over-estimate a helmet's effectiveness. But to non-cyclists, wearing a helmet is everything. And any time a cyclist gets killed, the press are sure to remark whether or not the rider was wearing one. (I'm still expecting to see this one at some point: "The rider's head was found in the bushes, but he was not wearing a helmet.")

It's easy to get overly caught up in frightening statistics, but it's important to remember that statistics never tell the whole story. When people tell you that you're crazy for riding, it's good to put things into perspective. 

Must Have Item: CeramicSpeed Hollow Titanium Pulleys

0
0
Just think how much of your pedaling effort gets wasted by derailleur pulleys on a typical bike ride. All that weight. All that friction. Sapping your energy, and as a result, your speed. I know I think about it all the time, and I find myself wishing someone could come up with a solution -- at any cost.

Well, that solution is finally here.

CeramicSpeed, a Danish company which is known for their high-quality ceramic bearings for bicycles has just introduced the latest must-have weapon for racers and triathletes -- hollow titanium ceramic bearing derailleur pulleys. Made in cooperation with the Danish Technological Institute, these 3D printed pulley wheels are the result of 4 years worth of R&D, and are said to last 3x longer than their standard aluminium pulleys, while weighing 10% less! And with their cutting-edge ceramic bearings, just think about how much speed a person could gain by switching to these. I get excited just thinking about it.

"Big dreams belong to the ones who dare," says the company's press release, "and the team of professionals at CeramicSpeed dared to shatter the way expert gear for high-end bicycles are made." I know these are like a dream come true for me. I'll never look at derailleur pulleys the same way again.

According to CeramicSpeed, the 3D printing process, also known as "additive manufacturing" builds up thin sequences of titanium dust, heated by laser light and "imprinted in layers of perfection." But that is only the beginning, as the pulleys then go through a series of "after-treatment processes to highlight a design and finish studied into detail by the most creative minds."

But a secret weapon like these pulleys isn't for everyone. Nope - the company says its first production run of these exclusive speed enhancers is limited to only 10 marked sets, individually numbered, and each one delivered in an exclusive case. And the price of admission is only $1000.

Some people might scoff at $1000 derailleur pulleys, but they just don't get it. Speed doesn't come free, and the kind of performance gains these things would just have to deliver is worth every penny.

Gokiso: Ultimate Wheels. Ultimate Price.

0
0
So, once you've bought your $1000 titanium derailleur pulleys and you still haven't captured all the KOMs on Strava, where else can you turn to blow ungodly amounts of money seeking those elusive and increasingly minuscule performance gains? A couple of readers have alerted me to an answer.

How about a pair of $8000 wheels with jet engine bearing technology?

If that sounds like a good deal to you, you'll need to check out the Gokiso full-carbon wheels. Made in Japan by the Kondo Machine Corporation, which reportedly makes bearings for Rolls-Royce jet engines, the Gokiso hubs and wheels features some pretty over-the-top engineering at a price that anybody in the 1% club should be able to easily afford.

If one doesn't want the full wheelset, individual hubsets are available from the company starting around $1800, or over $5000 for a full-titanium version. The hubs are designed to eliminate friction that you didn't even know hubs experienced, and have numerous little tricks engineered into them to keep the bearings always perfectly aligned and running freely regardless of the kinds of forces they might be subjected to.

One of the features that people are touting about the Gokiso hubs and wheels is that it takes virtually no force to get them spinning -- and once they're spinning, they just keep going and going. Not only that, but they are capable of easily handling the kind of speeds that no cyclist is actually capable of reaching, with almost no friction losses. In tests by the company, they've had the hubs running at over 100 km/hr for 100,000 km without failure. In other tests they've spun the hubs up to 300 km/hr with virtually no heat generated, and no bearing failure. So if you spring for the Gokiso wheels, you can rest assured that when you're pedaling along at 300 km/hr, your hubs won't fail you. Check.

An independent test of the hubs conducted by CyclingTips.com in Australia checked how long it would take the Gokiso-hub wheels to spin down from 30 km/hr, compared to a typical high-end wheel. The tests were conducted with wheels mounted into a frame on a bike stand (not "on the road") and it's very clear from the following chart that the Gokiso hubs kept spinning longer:

(from CyclingTips)
As you can see, with the chain engaged on the sprockets (you know, the way people actually ride their bikes), the Gokiso hubs might spin as many as 10 - 15 seconds longer! But to experience the full advantage, it's clearly best to leave the chain off -- then, boy, look at the difference!

By the way, if someone buys the hubs, it's worth noting that this kind of technical wizardry is not user-serviceable. The company insists that all work on the hubs be done by a factory-certified mechanic, and for most people that means sending them away for service. Not only that, but they say that users should plan to have this service done annually (or more often with all-weather use). On the plus side, provided one follows these service requirements, the warranty on the top-level "Super Climber" hubs is 29 years (why 29 -- why not just make it a nice round 30?) or 10 years for the base model.

The folks at Gizmag are pretty pumped up about them too. You can tell they really "get" bikes there by this opening paragraph: "If you've ever watched the Tour de France and winced as all those skinny-wheeled racing bikes bounced over the cobblestone roads . . . well, you were right to do so." Oh yes - those "skinny-wheeled" racing bikes, just like they use in the Toor Dee Fraance. I know just what they mean.

Even Bloomberg Business News has written about the Gokiso wheels, but their assessment is surprisingly more down-to-earth. First, they compare the high-tech hubs to other over-the-top technological products, like Sharp's $1300 refrigerator that makes crystal clear ice cubes, or Panasonic's $1800 washing machine with smartphone connectivity. They then point out that the company has only sold about 30 pairs of the hyper-expensive wheels so far, before concluding with "The bottom line: Two inventors found it easier to build $7,900 bike wheels than to sell them -- a classic case of Japanese overengineering."

If all this sounds like a bit too much, just remember that you can get a pair of Phil Wood hubs, which are about as good as anyone can possibly need, for $600 - 700 (or less, depending on the model). Then again, I'm still using a pair of fully rebuildable Campagnolo Record hubs from the '70s -- still spinning like new.

Whatever Happened To Rebecca Twigg?

0
0
I don't know if there is any male cyclist of my generation who didn't have a full-out crush on Rebecca Twigg at some point in their life. Twigg was one of the most dominant American bicycle racers of the 80s and early 90s -- male or female. She was fast, super intelligent, and beautiful. How could anyone resist?

Twigg in the '80s with the 7-Eleven
Women's Team.

Rebecca Twigg held numerous National Championship titles on the track, mostly in pursuit, and on the road for both the individual time trial and road race. She was the silver-medalist in the 1984 Olympic road race, and the bronze-medalist in pursuit at the '92 Olympics. She was also a 6-time World Champion in pursuit. In addition to those titles, Rebecca won the Coors Classic stage race in '83, as well as the first three editions of the Ore-Ida Women's Challenge, from '84 - '86, which was one of the top women's road races in the North America at the time. Her incredible list of palmares puts her into very elite company. And then after 1997, she pretty much disappeared from the public eye.

According to a 1996 Sports Illustrated interview, Twigg was born in Hawaii, but was raised in the Seattle area. As a child, she was so precociously intelligent, that at the age of 14, instead of starting high school, she started college at the University of Washington where she got a degree in Biology. Perhaps ironically, her mother apparently wanted to spare the painfully shy teenager the difficulty of trying to fit in at high school. Not surprisingly, Rebecca felt completely cut-off as a young kid in a college environment. But during that time, she turned her attention to bicycle racing, where she applied her talent and passion for perfection. Within a short time, she was shredding the competition in junior girls road and track competitions. She won her first of 16 National Championship titles (in the individual time trial) at the age of 18. National titles in the road race, and her favored event, the pursuit, soon followed, as well as her first World Championship in pursuit that same year.

One of the earliest pictures I could find of Rebecca in
Bicycling magazine, from 1978. She must have been about 15
years old at the time, competing in one of the youth divisions
at the National Championships. She wasn't identified by name,
but there's no mistaking that that's her on the left.

After only a couple of years or racing, she had attracted the attention of the U.S. National Team coach, Eddie Borysewicz, or "Eddie B" who eventually encouraged her to move to Colorado Springs with an eye towards the '84 Olympics. In the women's road race, she was nipped at the line by Connie Carpenter, another American racing legend, but the 1-2 American finish was a high-point for this country's burgeoning bicycle racing scene.

In 1985, she married another national-team bicycle racer, Mark Whitehead, though that marriage lasted only a couple of years. (Whitehead died in 2011, at the age of 50).

Then at the age of only 26, with an impressive run of National and World titles, Twigg retired from racing and returned to college to get another degree, this time in computer science. She then spent the next couple of years as a computer programmer.

In 1991 she returned to racing when she learned that the pursuit event, which had previously not been offered as a women's Olympic event, was being added for the '92 games in Barcelona. She took the bronze in those games, and went on to win two more World Championships in that event in the next two years.

This was from an article in Vanity Fair, 5/96, 
with the photo taken by Annie Liebowitz.
You can really get a sense of the power Twigg
must have had in those legs from this picture.


There was some controversy surrounding Rebecca Twigg about the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. According to articles from the time, like this one from the Washington Post, there were tensions between Twigg and then-national team director Chris Carmichael, resulting in Twigg leaving the Olympics before the games concluded. Much of the tension revolved around criticism from Carmichael about her training, but especially had to do with disagreements regarding the so-called "SuperBike" developed specially for the Atlanta games. Developed at great expense, the SuperBike was supposed to be the secret weapon that would give the Americans the competitive advantage they needed to repeat the kind of success they had in '84. The performance of the Americans, despite the technological advantage promised by the new bikes, was disappointing (you can almost hear the collective groan rise up from all retrogrouches). Twigg was discouraged by her performance on the wünderbike in her first round in the pursuit, and refused to use it in her second heat. The bikes were supposed to be the "best on the planet," but Twigg didn't like the fit, and blamed the surrounding disagreements and tensions for breaking her focus.

A Pearl Izumi ad from about 1984.
It wasn't too long after that, in 1997, that she left the sport of bicycle racing for good. It's hard to find out what she's been doing since. I've heard through one of the bicycle forums that she might be doing something in the medical field with her biology degree, though I have no idea how reliable that is. It's just as possible that she's still in the computer field, or perhaps doing something completely different. There's no doubt she was smart enough and driven enough to excel at anything she set her mind to.

In 2002, she was inducted into the U.S. Bicycling Hall of Fame, though according to the USBHF website she did not go to the induction ceremony, and instead her award was accepted for her by a third party. The most recent thing I could find about her was from 2004 when she participated in Greg LeMond's Fantasy Cycling Camp which was held to raise money for Eddie B, whose California home was destroyed by brushfires earlier that year. There wasn't much information given, other than the fact that she was there.

Rebecca's impressive racing credentials, as well as her pretty face, meant that one could see her in numerous advertisements and magazine covers. You can see a couple examples here. I still have a couple old issues of Bicycle Guide on which her picture graces the covers. And searching through the pages, it isn't too hard to find her picture in some of the ads -- though my favorite is probably the Pro-tec ad shown below. A quick Google search would turn up a less modest version that was available as a poster, though I don't seem to have a copy of that one in my possession.

From the cover of Bicycle Guide, 1985
Another Bicycle Guide cover, from 1988
A 1988 ad for Pro-tec helmets. There is another
version out there that's far less modest, and a 
bit more playful. I've always liked this one, though.

There's a good reason that I'm posting this little homage to Rebecca Twigg today. Rebecca was born on March 26, 1963, which means that she's turning 52 years old today. Happy Birthday, Rebecca!

Maybe somebody out there knows where she is or what she's doing -- and maybe pass this along to her. She might like to know that she still has a lot of fans out there. Among American bicycle racers, male or female, Rebecca Twigg remains one of the all-time best.

Bike Safety 101: Drive Your Bike

0
0
It's hard to imagine a more car-centric bicycle safety film than Drive Your Bike from 1954. It's also one of the most incredibly dull and stilted films of the genre, and believe me, that's a crowded field.

This 10-minute film was made by the Sullivan Company, which according to the Prelinger Archives was a family-owned film production company from Southern California. I've heard that the film is like a time capsule of Burbank Calif. in the '50s. If that's true, I deeply hope that refers only to the sights and scenes, and not the people. I'd like to think that actual people back then weren't this dreadfully stiff in real life. But also, one would think that being as close as Burbank is to Hollywood, they could have found people who were even just marginally better actors.

The film opens with this scene of three young boys driving a Studebaker (which appears for all the world to have NO windshield!):

"Now, what do you suppose these boys are doing driving this car?" says the narrator. "They aren't old enough to drive." Uh-oh. It seems like the setup for one of those films on juvenile delinquency.

But then - jokes on you! They're only pretending to drive while the car is safely parked in the driveway. Next thing we know, here comes Dad, who needs to get to work:
"And where do you boys think you're going?"
"Oh, hi Dad - we were just practicing our driving."
Dad then humors the boy by asking what he knows about driving. As it turns out, quite a lot. . .

"You're not trying to tell me you know how to drive a car, are you?"
"Sure, Dad. Just watch this. First you put this lever in neutral, then you turn on the key, then you step on the starter to get the engine going. Then you put in the clutch, put in in gear, and step on the gas. How's that?"  Cars were a little more complicated back then. And tell me I'm wrong about the windshield.
Dad always manages to come across as a condescending pr$%k.
"That's pretty good as far as it goes, but that's just the mechanical part of it. There's many other things you have to know before you can drive a car. Important things like traffic rules and regulations."
The kids then tell Dad about how the "Coach" has been teaching them all about traffic rules every week at school. "We call it learning to 'drive our bike'."

"If we learn about all the regulations by driving our bikes, we'll be ready to drive a car when we're old enough."
Yessir - then you'll never have to ride that bike again. That's what it's all about. It's the American Dream.
Again and again, we see back-to-back shots of the boys on their bikes, then behind the wheel of a car as the film encourages kids to think like a driver -- not a bike rider. (I hope the cars are being towed during the filming, and not actually driven by the kids.) "Coach says we should always drive our bike like we would drive a car. So you see, if we think about driving our bike and always doing the safe thing, we're not as likely to get into trouble."
Suddenly, Dad decides he's not in any hurry to get to work, as he gets back out of the car to grill the kids on what they've learned about "driving your bike."
Dad practically oozes with condescending smugness.

He's like Ward Cleaver's @$$hole brother.

Dad proceeds to give the kids the 3rd degree about their lessons, peppering them with question after question, and the kids give him excruciatingly scripted answers. The film stresses that bikes follow the same rules and regulations as cars -- great -- but it apparently doesn't mean they deserve the same respect.
No "taking the lane" here -- the film practically tells kids to ride in the "door zone" and be prepared to stop -- a lot.
As Dad and the boys talk about the dangers of riding double on a bike, they imagine how "silly'" it would be to ride around on the hood of a car. Just "silly"? -- not dangerous or potentially deadly? And I find it ironic that the filmmakers actually have a kid riding on the hood of a moving car in filming the scene. The kid looks like he's having fun, though -- the way a dog loves hanging its head out the window.
Always slow down before crossing intersections, obey signs, give pedestrians the right-of-way. Yadda yadda yadda. Pretty typical bike safety film fare.

"It's just as important to keep our bikes in good condition as it is to keep up a car."
You can practically smell the chain oil and Brylcreme.
"You boys seem to know quite a bit about riding. . . that is. . . driving your bikes. . . You know, I've been wondering about something. Is all this just a lot of 'fancy talk' or do you really driveyour bike?"

The boys then go on to tell Dad about times they've avoided trouble on the roads by thinking like drivers instead of like kids on bikes. For example, this boy had a good head of steam going on a long downhill stretch, but decided to stop for some little girls in the crosswalk, even though the loss of momentum was going to mean a "tough pump" to get to the top of the next hill.

WWDD. What would a driver do? Hmmm. I'm going to say fly through the intersection without looking. But the kid is actually more attentive . . .

 "When a car also stopped, it made me feel pretty good knowing that I set a good example for that driver."
Dad: "Wasn't that good feeling you got from being courteous and considerate worth the extra effort it took to get to the top?"
Kid: "Yeah - I'll say it was."
Gosh - that's swell.
Then one of the boys tells us about Tom Kelly, who "almost did a foolish thing" by riding down the wrong side of the street. . .

"Then he thought how dangerous it would be to drive a car down the wrong side of a busy street, and how easy it would be to cause an accident. He decided that wasn't a very good way to drive his bike, then turned around and went back to the corner, where he crossed in the crosswalk, then rode down on the right side of the street. So you see, he probably avoided an accident by remembering to drive his bike."Damn, that dialogue is stiff -- and delivered almost robotically.
Eventually, Dad decides he's grilled the kids long enough, and it's time to get to work.

"I'd like to hear more about this later. It certainly seems to me you boys are doing a good job of driving your bikes. You're learning a lot of valuable and important things that will be very useful to you when you start to drive a car. In fact, you already know more about safe driving than many adult drivers. Well, so long." 
As the film concludes, we get a glimpse of the Coach's bike safety course at school, where the Coach summarizes what we need to know so we can all become productive, well-adjusted, "normal," red-white-and-blue flag-waving, car-driving consumers.

"Now we have learned it's very important to know all the rules and regulations of traffic. And that it's even more important to know why we have the rules, and why we must obey them. But the most important thing of all is to know how to drive your bike safely without having to stop and think of rules to cover every situation. You might not have time to think of a rule. . .
"Always use your head, and think about safety. . . By starting now and learning to drive your bikes, you'll be able to drive an automobile when you're old enough. And you'll be able to do a good safe job of it. Remember to Drive Your Bike."
One of the things that amazes me again and again in these old films is that, if the films are in any way a reflection of real life at the time, then one must assume that bicycle safety classes were a pretty common thing in schools in the '50s and '60s. I'm assuming that must have been the case, otherwise, under what context would these films have been shown? The films are almost always "aw shucks" goofy, or overly simplistic, often full of unintended irony, and have all the hallmarks of ultra low-budget production. But just the fact that there was even some kind of attempt at all to teach kids about riding (even if it was just meant as a stepping stone to future car ownership, as was the case with so many of them) would indicate that people were on to something back then that we've lost sight of somewhere over the years.

It's almost impossible to imagine, in this day of relentless standardized testing -- when arts, music, and even physical education programs are being slashed or eliminated altogether -- that schools would start devoting time to bicycle safety. Hell -- in a lot of communities nowadays, any parent who would even allow their child to ride a bike to school would probably be brought up on charges of child endangerment.

Films like Drive Your Bike might be dumb -- but focused education on bicycle riding, rules, and rights, is anything but.

Insomniacs can download Drive Your Bike at the Prelinger Archives, or it's also available for viewing through YouTube, or right here:


Enjoy!

My New Bike: Specialized Tarmac Di2 Disc

0
0
I recently took delivery of my latest and greatest bike: a Specialized Tarmac Di2 Disc. The bike retails for just under $10,000 -- and that is a serious bargain -- especially when you consider that it delivers a lot of the performance of the exclusive McLaren S-Works Tarmac, for half the price. What do I think of it? Allow me to quote Ferris Bueller. "It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up." Seriously. This bike makes all other bikes obsolete. In fact, after just one ride I've decided I might just sell off all my other bikes as useless scrap.

You have to go with the black-on-black "murdered out"
colorway. I recommend all black riding clothes and
helmet too. You can never be too stealthy on a bike.
For one thing, at just over 15 lbs. in my size, picking this bike up and holding it high for those post-ride "victory" photos is easier than ever. No bike ride, no matter how mundane, should end without a "victory" photo. In fact, it's the after-ride photo that makes the ride epic.

With Shimano's Dura-Ace Di2, shifting gears has never been easier. The front derailleur trims automatically with shifts at the rear, it never misses a shift, and you haven't lived until you've experienced the joy of shifting gears at the front and rear simultaneously -- all while standing up on the pedals. What's that? You don't find yourself doing that very often (or ever)? Don't worry -- once you discover that you can, you'll want to do it all the time. Just don't forget to keep the battery charged up.

Though Specialized makes versions of the Tarmac with rim brakes, there is no point in going with anything other than discs. And the Shimano R785 hydraulic disc brakes are the best there are this week. Until I rode this bike and experienced disc brakes, I just took it for granted that rim brakes were nothing more than "speed scrubbers," but not for serious stopping. Now I know that just being able to lock up the brakes isn't a measure of true braking power -- you have to be able to do it with just one finger on the brake levers. One downside I've discovered is that the electronic/hydraulic brake levers rattle a bit when you don't have your hands on them, but I've read that there's a do-it-yourself fix out there for that. Not to worry: those DIY fixes for rattles and squeaks are par for the course in this tax bracket price range.
Shimano's R785 disc brakes are so good, you'll wonder how
you ever stopped with rim brakes. Of course, the 135 mm wide
rear wheel is incompatible with any other road wheels, but
it's a small price to pay.

A potential complication comes in the form of questions about hub and axle "standards." Though thru-axles seem to be spreading through the industry, the Tarmac still uses traditional quick release. Another quirky (or cutting-edge -- depending on your point of view) equipment choice is the Roval wheelset. They have a 135 mm wide rear hub -- which can normally create chain line issues with the ultra short chain stays of a road racing bike. Specialized's solution moves the cassette inboard a few millimeters to keep it in the same position as on a 130 mm hub, thereby making a super-stiff, ultra-wide rear triangle, while keeping within Shimano's chainline requirements. However, other 135 mm hubs will not work without losing a couple of gears, or throwing off the shifting, so there's no compatibility with other wheelsets. Will it be obsolete next year? Cutting-edge thinkers don't ask those questions, and neither should you.

That's the rundown on the equipment. So, what's it like to ride? Specialized says that pedaling stiffness is increased by 12% over the previous version -- and you can tell. But despite that extra stiffness, the engineers have managed to make it even more compliant for riding comfort. Its handling will make anyone ride like a Tour de France pro. Stand up on the pedals, and it leaps forward. This thing just eats hills like it's got a motor assist (I looked in the bottom bracket twice, but there's nothing there). It dives into corners aggressively. It descends with awe-inspiring confidence. In fact, I've been so inspired by the bike that I'm even planning to set up a Strava account. KOM, here I come.

Retrogrouch No More:

The Tarmac Di2 Disc might just be the hottest performance training tool available today. Stiffer. More compliant. More aerodynamic, too. This bike is so hot, in fact, that I just might have to change the name of this blog. How does "The Blog Formerly Known as the Retrogrouch" sound?

Mandatory Helmet Use - Coming Soon To A State Near You

0
0
Many of you probably wear a helmet when you ride, at least most of the time. Great. Good for you. A helmet may protect your head in the event of certain types of falls or impacts.

But should helmet use be required by law?

If you're thinking, "Why not - I already wear a helmet" then you're not seeing the bigger picture. Helmet laws are just the first step in policies aimed at redirecting all blame and responsibility away from drivers, and onto cyclists by adding more and more restrictions and regulations -- supposedly in the name of safety "for their own good" -- until the time comes when cyclists are no longer permitted to ride on the road at all.

Think I'm being paranoid? The proposed laws are already reaching further than just helmets. Don't kid yourself that it won't continue.

From StreetsBlog LA
One law under consideration in California, SB192, proposed by Sen. Carol Liu, would make helmets mandatory for all cyclists in that state, regardless of age. But it would also require high-visibility reflective clothing to be worn after dark. It's worth noting that if the CA law is successfully implemented, other states will likely use it as a model for similar legislation.

Another law proposed in Wyoming, HB 0206, would also require cyclists to wear "not less than 200 sq. inches of high visibility fluorescent orange, green, or pink clothing visible from the front and rear of the bicycle," along with flashing lights at the rear of the bike, and would also require cyclists to carry government issued photo identification.

Just wait -- mandatory bike license and registration will be next. You know, because cyclists supposedly don't pay for the roads (which is actually a car-centric myth that gets thrown around as unchallenged fact). As it is right now, bicyclists use the road by right - motorists use the road by license. If someone drives badly, accumulating too many violations, they can lose their license to drive. But they cannot be prevented from riding a bike. Not yet.
From Outside Online.

But I'm digressing -- because it all starts with helmet laws.

The way I see it, mandatory helmet laws are anti-cyclist laws -- as in, laws designed to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads. And as European cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam (where nobody wears a helmet) can demonstrate, cyclists are safer on the roads when there are more cyclists.

Many states currently have laws mandating helmet use for children, and those states have seen a reduction in fatalities among children on bikes. However, it is also documented in research that those states have also seen a significant reduction in children riding bikes at all. So it's difficult to know whether those fatality reductions are because of the helmets, or because there are fewer kids riding bikes.

Much of the evidence about helmets saving lives is anecdotal. "I wouldn't be alive if I wasn't wearing my helmet." Maybe. Maybe not -- there's really no way to prove it. There are statistics about helmet use and fatalities, but those statistics are often flawed or incomplete.

People who actually study helmet safety -- the standards and the testing methods -- know that a helmet may protect a cyclist in certain types of accidents, like a basic fall (the kinds of accidents that children and other inexperienced riders are most likely to have). But if that rider's head goes through the windshield of a speeding car, with or without a helmet, he or she is likely going to be DOA. Bicycle helmets simply are not designed to protect in that kind of impact. Cyclists know (or should know) that. Motorists probably don't.

Mandatory helmet laws side-step the real dangers faced by cyclists in favor of the distorted perception of danger by people who do not ride. I mentioned in an earlier post about how for people who don't ride, helmet use is everything. People who drive and never ride ignore the fact that the most dangerous thing they do day after day is get behind the wheel of a car. It is dangerous to themselves, and to the people around them. But in their minds, cars are safe. Bicycles are dangerous. And helmets are the difference. To these car-centric thinkers and legislators, as long as we can get every cyclist to wear a helmet, then we won't have to do anything about the real dangers cyclists face -- from distracted drivers, speeders, and even from bad road design/infrastructure.

Think about it. Where are the distracted driving laws? Texting-and-driving laws? The previous governor of Texas, Rick Perry, was absolutely adamant that he would not sign any anti-texting laws in his state because he didn't want to "micromanage adult behavior." In my state, Ohio, we have what our governor called the toughest texting-and-driving law in the country, yet it is only a secondary offense, which means that it's almost impossible to be pulled over for texting while driving. In other words, it's only illegal if you get caught doing something else. The law has done nothing to curtail the practice.

Recommended Reading - BSNYC
And speeding? And red light running? Look how automotive clubs and advocates have taken to trying to dismantle any attempts at enforcing speed limits and red lights. Look at how those same people have been fighting against 3-ft. passing laws. My state, like many others, is still debating such a law -- and opposition from automotive interests is strong. Some states have passed 3-ft. passing laws, and now the automotive interests want mandatory helmet laws as some kind of tit-for-tat give-back.

In an editorial in the Contra Costa Times, the editors chastise cyclists who oppose California's SB192. "A vocal contingent objects for reasons that are sometimes mind-boggling. Interestingly, even many of them wear helmets . . . They just don't want a law requiring it. We wonder if they felt the same way about the three-foot passing rule, that it's a good idea but motorists shouldn't be required to follow it. Probably not."

See what they did there? It's all equal. You're going to make us pass a law that says we have to use some common-sense caution when we drive our 2-ton weapon of mass destruction, so now you've got to give us something in return. You get your 3-ft. passing law -- but now you've gotta wear your helmets. Like it's all the same thing.

I'm also shocked at some of the cyclists arguing in favor of helmet laws. The cycling blog Red Kite Prayer (which I usually enjoy) had this to say on the subject. "I agree that making someone put on a helmet for a trip to the neighborhood store is kind of ridiculous. Here's my problem with opposing a helmet law: we already have a PR problem with motorists, and opposing mandatory helmets only makes it worse."

So, what is our PR problem? RKP continues, "They see people who run stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, ride in packs, take up a lane, and so on. It's not a pretty picture. Sure, most of us are wearing helmets as we bend rules and traffic laws, but that's not what the pissed off drivers see. So when they hear cyclists are opposed to a helmet law, it only furthers their belief that we are selfish, unpredictable, and dangerous."

The way I see it, this argument is self-contradictory. "Sure, most of us are wearing helmets as we bend rules and traffic laws, but that's not what the pissed off drivers see." Exactly. Drivers see the bad behavior -- and the helmet doesn't make it OK. Want to do something about the PR problem? Stop "bending" the rules. Stop for lights and signs (and that goes for group/club rides, too). Don't weave in and out of traffic. Ride like traffic -- or better.

Keep in mind through all of this that I'm not saying don't wear a helmet. It's a good idea, but don't ever over-estimate what a helmet will do for you. I insist that my children wear them. I wear one most of the time -- though I don't feel the need when I'm riding along in my neighborhood to pick up some take-out, or running to the store. I'm capable of making that choice, and I'd like to keep it that way.

If your state is considering a compulsory helmet law, I'd encourage you to make as much noise in opposition as possible. Don't think for a minute that it's okay to appease them and hope that the legislators will be satisfied with their helmet law and then leave the issue alone. I'm not just talking about "slippery slope" and being paranoid. The other requirements and restrictions -- like clothing, flashing beacons, and licenses and registrations -- are all out there already and being considered. If we allow helmet laws to happen, the rest is only a matter of time.

Home - or Stay Home. Hollywood Hates Bicycles

0
0
I took my kids to see a movie today -- Home, from DreamWorks Animation. The film is about an invasion of Earth by colorful, vaguely cuddly-looking aliens called the Boov -- one of which, named Oh, is something of a misfit among his kind. Being pursued by his fellow Boov because of his ineptitude, Oh befriends a human girl named Tip, who is searching for her mother, who was taken away with most of the other humans by the Boov early in the invasion. As a movie for kids under 10, it was fine -- my girls enjoyed it, though unlike your average Pixar film, which can work on multiple levels for all kinds of viewers, there wasn't a lot there to keep adults entertained. Nevermind that, though. This isn't really a movie review.
In Home, cars are apparently okay - but bicycles are "useless."

No - this is just another example of how Hollywood hates bicycles.

What's the deal?

When the film opens, we learn that the Boov are fleeing another alien race called the Gorg, who have been pursuing the Boov across the galaxy for reasons I won't reveal here (though it involves a plot twist that my 9-yr. old daughter saw through in the first 5 minutes). The Boov have chosen Earth as their next safe haven, so they invade the planet -- first by sucking up all the humans and relocating them to a colony in Australia -- then by moving into the newly vacated cities. After the humans are relocated, the Boov set about making "improvements" to the cities by getting rid of all the "useless" junk.

And what is the first "useless" thing we see the Boov disposing of? Bicycles, of course. The film shows the aliens sucking up all the bicycles off the streets, including whole racks of them, rack and all.

Now, to be fair, other "useless" items we later see the aliens disposing of are things like sculptures, garbage cans (the Boov must not generate much trash) and human toilets. I'm sure the filmmakers would defend their choice by arguing that the Boov can't use bicycles due to their peculiar anatomy, much the way that their unique biology makes human toilets unnecessary to them. But they also don't need cars, since we see them by the thousands traveling around in little flying "bubble" vehicles (which I suppose are like cars of a different sort). They don't get rid of the cars, though. It's the bicycles that are "useless." In fact, Oh and Tip spend most of the movie traveling in Tip's mother's car, which has been "improved" by Oh so it can fly (fueled by frozen slushie drinks, apparently).

Think about the message kids get from that early scene. Bicycles are useless, but everyone (even aliens, apparently) drive cars. It's just another example of the way that Hollywood reinforces the notion that bicycles are inferior to cars. In this case, they're explicitly "useless." And given that this is basically a film for kids, I have a hard time seeing the message as anything other than blatant propaganda. Teach 'em young, I guess. Most kids don't ride bikes anymore, and I'm not sure they even want to.

Go by the average American elementary school on a typical morning and see the long line of minivans and SUVs dropping kids off for school -- a freakish every-man-(or child)-for-himself clusterf*$k where anyone would be taking their life into their own hands by trying to arrive on foot or bicycle -- assuming they were daring (or stupid) enough to try. Kids don't ride to school, and I'm guessing their hovering parents wouldn't dream of letting them do it because it's been drilled into them that bicycling is unsafe. (Ironically, though, the same parents will sign their little boys up for football). Even toddlers want cars -- in the form of little battery-powered drivable SUVs, just like the ones their parents drive. Kids learn early on that cars equal status.

When bicycles aren't "useless," they are
dork chariots -- the butt of a car-centric joke.
Why is it that Hollywood so often portrays bicycles (and the people who ride them) as a joke? Remember 40-Year-Old-Virgin? The film is about a guy who's such an unbelievable dork that he makes it all the way to middle age without ever having sex. And what does the dorky 40-yr.-old-virgin ride? A bicycle of course -- the ultimate dork-chariot, apparently. There are lots of other examples too. Bicycles are not to be taken seriously. People who ride them are a joke. They are middle-aged virgins. Or overgrown children (like Pee-Wee Herman). Or sometimes they're pompous, environmentally-conscious douches who need to be taken down notch. Is it only the status thing? Or is it because people in L.A. have built themselves a city in which cars and air-conditioning are king? Either way, a lot of people -- especially young people -- take their cues of what's hot and what's not from Hollywood. And its rare to see anyone in TV or movies these days choose to ride a bike and not be the butt of some kind of joke.

My kids seemed to enjoy Home well enough, and I always enjoy watching movies with them. But I think the best times we have together are the times we spend riding our bikes -- to the library, or around the park, or to have a picnic along the nearby bike trail. I hope that's the message that sticks with them, not the message they get from mediocre movies like Home.

10 Most Beautiful Bicycles?

0
0
I love articles like this one from BBC Autos: The 10 Most Beautiful Bicycles. Or rather, I love to make fun of them. It's pretty clear to me that automotive writers and editors have very different priorities, and a very different interpretation of beauty. I might describe some of the bikes listed here as "interesting," and in some cases, "useful" or "utilitarian," but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


So here's the rundown of the 10 most beautiful bicycles to a bunch of automotive editors.

BSG Wood.b Duomatic. Made in France out of plywood and aluminium, the BBC Autos editors call it "closer to art than machinery." Whatever. Wood bicycles seem to be all the rage right now. Why? Sustainability? Okay. Wood can be constructed beautifully, but this isn't. It has all the beauty of a junior-high woodshop project, and it gets even uglier when you find out that it costs over $4200. I'm guessing from the name "Duomatic" that maybe it has 2 speeds? Just a guess.

Pashley Parabike. Now this one is a classic -- or more correctly, classic-inspired. Based on the old BSA paratrooper bikes used by British soldiers during WWII, the Pashley version keeps the bowed multi-tubed frame, but lacks the folding frame of the true paratrooper bikes. Beautiful? Maybe. I prefer to call it "interesting."

Vanmoof S Series: There's something very Mies van der Rohe about the Vanmoof, which might work for modern architecture, but I don't think it makes for a beautiful bicycle.The oversized top tube, which intersects the seat and head tubes (and contains integrated head- and tail-lights) completely dominates the look of this bike, which some people seem to want to declare as the ultimate urban commuter bike. Sorry. Keep looking.

The Donky Bike is appropriately named. With 20in. wheels and cargo platforms front and rear, the Donky is supposed to be a compact alternative to much larger cargo bikes. Utilitarian, and potentially very useful to some people. But not beautiful.
Viks Urban Cycle. Designed by Estonia's Velonia studio, the Viks is best described as industrial minimalist -- right down to its seat-tube-less frame design. Its shape is formed out of two large steel tubes that join together at the head tube. Given the extra wheel-following curve at the "down-tube," it seems like they've more than made up for whatever weight they lost with the lack of a seat tube -- while further reducing structural integrity at the same time. According to the designers, brakes would be very tricky to fit. In other words, this is better suited for hanging on the wall than actually riding.

GreenChamp Original: Made in Singapore out of bamboo (technically a grass, not a wood) that has been infused with honey (?) the GreenChamp is a balance bike for teaching kids to ride. The BBC Autos editors call it "a triumph of design." Why? Kinda looks like a bike that a kid might make out of Lincoln Logs. 

Cherubim Hummingbird. In sort of an art-deco inspired streamliner sort of way, the Hummingbird is, I'll admit, kind of beautiful. From a functional standpoint, well, I suppose it is rideable art, with the emphasis more on "art" than "rideable." One of the truly unusual details is the arching top tube that blends into the handlebar stem (visually - not physically), and continues out over the back wheel. I've never seen it in person, but I understand it is exquisitely made.

Faraday Porteur. It doesn't look like it at first glance, but the Faraday Porteur, from Portland Oregon, is an electric-assist bike. It has a hub motor, with batteries packed into the frame tubes, and offers up to 15 miles of electric assist. The Porteur's look has a certain industrial functionality that makes it better looking than most e-bikes I've seen -- but I don't think I'd call it beautiful, either.

Engeenius Cykno. Made in Italy, the Cykno makes me think more of vintage motorcycles than bicycles. I can't tell if that's stainless steel in the frame, or what, but the forks, as well as the radial-spoked wheels, are carbon fiber. It's another e-bike, weighing in at 57 lbs. Lucky that its 500-watt motor and battery pack (tucked inside that leather-wrapped central compartment) give a 37-mile range. Getting stranded with a dead battery on this thing would mean a pretty brutal pedal home. Again, I might describe the look as "interesting" but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh - by the way - this thing sells for about $22,000.

World Bicycle Relief Buffalo. Proving that there are multiple ways to define beauty, the Buffalo is perhaps beautiful for what it does or what it represents, more than how it looks. Basically not much different from any typical utility bicycle, the Buffalo is designed to help provide relief in Africa. The U.S.-based charity World Bicycle Relief provides the bikes to facilities in several African nations where they are assembled by local workers, and donated to various organizations, or sold cheaply to consumers who need them for transportation. 

Well, there you have 'em. The 10 most beautiful bicycles. Any thoughts?
Viewing all 689 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images