In May, I went for a ride on the Mount Tam trails in Marin County, California, with Grant Petersen, the founder and owner of , and his buddy Dan Leto. It was a warm and sunny Sunday morning. As we were unloading the bikes from Dan鈥檚 car at the trailhead (and Grant was working on a flat), an older gentleman in an Audi convertible pulled over to admire them. Having seen the 2006 documentary Klunkers, he understood that mountain biking had been born more or less exactly where we were standing.

He then asked: 鈥淎re you guys reenactors?鈥�

It was funny to us, since our bikes and our clothing were essentially new, but it also wasn鈥檛 surprising given the current state of mountain biking and cycling. We were riding steel bicycles with leather saddles and without suspension, and while our clothes were perfectly normal for three guys hanging out together on a Sunday, they were abnormal in the context of contemporary bicycling where roadies dress like speed skaters and mountain bikers dress like hockey goalies. Certainly to a non-cyclist, we far more closely resembled the people in Klunkers than the people you鈥檒l typically find riding the roads and trails around Marin County today.

Normal Bikes for Normal People in Normal Clothes

A knowledgeable cyclist can tell the difference between a modern Rivendell and a vintage klunker at a glance. But even among them, there鈥檚 a general sense that if you choose a bike like this, you鈥檙e willfully and obstinately slowing yourself down, dropping anchor in the past, and refusing to change with the times. Bikes are supposed to get faster and easier. They鈥檙e supposed to take you deeper into the landscape and over increasingly challenging terrain with less effort. If you’re having trouble getting up a tricky climb without putting a foot down, or you鈥檙e not breaking Strava records on the descent, it鈥檚 because your equipment is inadequate鈥攜ou’re 鈥渦nderbiking,鈥� in the current parlance.

Of course, Rivendells are not designed for the body armor set or the rider looking to push the absolute limits of speed and physics. You don鈥檛 chug a Red Bull before you hop on your Rivendell, but you might sip a kombucha afterward. Yet these are not relics that are frozen in time, nor are they replica klunkers made for the cycling equivalent of Civil War reenactors. Rather, they鈥檙e the natural evolution of those early two-wheelers if they hadn鈥檛 become the borderline motocross bikes you see out on the trails today. (Complete with motors, increasingly.)

They鈥檙e stable, strong, comfortable, competent, and capable bicycles, the designs of which Rivendell has refined and continues to refine. The mountain bike you rode 40 years ago did not have the ample tire clearance of Rivendell鈥檚 trail bike, the Clem Smith, Jr., or the long wheelbase that keeps the bike planted on rough terrain (whether you鈥檙e climbing or descending), or the low-slung top tube to facilitate dismounts, and remounts both planned and unplanned. (If you think a step-thru frame makes it a 鈥済irl’s bike,鈥� you need to get with it.) Your old mountain bike cleared 2.1鈥� tires if you were lucky, it had tiny wheels, a short piece of pipe for a handlebar, and a low-slung cockpit, and on challenging downhill sections it did its best to send you over the bars.

A company that makes normal bikes for normal people in normal clothes who want to enjoy the outdoors in a completely normal way faces certain challenges in a cycling industry that considers this form of normality abnormal, though. One of these is sourcing drivetrain components. The dominant suppliers of bicycle shifting systems are Shimano and SRAM, and while both continue to make mechanical drivetrains, they鈥檙e clearly focused on a wireless, electronic future. At the high end, their offerings have been almost exclusively battery-powered for years, but as the technology continues to make its way onto lower-priced bicycles, electronic shifting becomes increasingly ubiquitous. As a result, plenty of bike companies now offer frames that are not compatible with mechanical shifting at all.

Rivendell’s ‘Low Normal’ Derailleur

The mechanical systems these companies produce are now often designed around wide-range, single-ring drivetrains. Such systems have become popular because they鈥檙e both simple and robust. However, the individual components are generally not suitable as replacement parts for older drivetrains, or for riders who still prefer more traditional double or even triple chainring setups as opposed to clicking their way up and down massive 12-speed 10-50t cassettes. Front-shifting is going extinct, which is lamentable, because on undulating terrain sometimes nothing beats the simplicity of dropping into the small ring for the climb and then shifting back onto the big one for the descent.

Rivendell has long seen where things are going. Rather than design their frames in response to what the big drivetrain manufacturers are producing, they鈥檝e been designing and selling their own drivetrain components, drawing inspiration from the past but improving and refining them for today鈥檚 bikes and today鈥檚 riders. Rivendell鈥檚 Silver friction shifter is an update of the SunTour Power Ratchet, which was one of the finest shifters ever made until Shimano introduced SIS (鈥淪himano Indexed Shifting鈥�) in 1984 and eventually put SunTour out of business.

Friction shifting unlocks an entire world of component compatibility, allowing you to mix cassettes and shifters and derailleurs from different manufacturers across many decades. The Silver shifter can be mounted on the downtube or the bar end or pretty much anywhere else. It feels like winding an expensive watch thanks to the extremely fine ratchet, and it will let you shift pretty much any derailleur across as many or as few cogs as you want.

Now, Rivendell is getting ready to offer its own Silver-branded rear derailleur, the OM-1. (Actually it will be a 鈥渄erailer,鈥� as Rivendell eschews the unnecessary letters of the French spelling. However, after all these years, I just can鈥檛 stop myself from typing them, so it will still be 鈥渄erailleur鈥� in this story going forward.)

A small bike company like Rivendell really has no business designing and selling a derailleur. A frame or a tire or a handlebar or a line of Scottish cotton bike bags or even a ratcheting shifter is one thing, but the rear derailleur (even a budget one) is one of the most complicated contraptions on your bike鈥攁 robust yet highly sensitive articulating arm consisting of a bunch of plates and springs and rivets and pulleys that must all fit together with perfect precision. You certainly don鈥檛 need to be an engineer to install or adjust a derailleur, but if you鈥檝e ever tried to disassemble one, you understand how intricate it is, and if you then tried to put it back together again, your brain probably exploded along with the derailleur itself. No bicycle company in its right mind wants to deal with the expense and sheer hassle of designing a derailleur. It鈥檚 a part you buy from one of the big companies and bolt onto the bike. It鈥檚 like designing your own kitchen faucet instead of picking one up from Home Depot.

But Rivendell is not a normal bike company and this is no normal derailleur鈥攐r rather it is, but it鈥檚 low-normal, which is the exact opposite of pretty much every derailleur out there.

Rivendell’s OM-1 rear derailleur will be available in mid-September, the company states.

Here’s how Rivendell explains it on its packaging:

RIVENDELL鈥橲 S!LVER OM-1, BETTER BECAUSE IT鈥橲 BACKWARDS

Most rear derailers are 鈥渉igh-normal鈥� (HN) style: With no cable tension,
the spring pulls the pulleys to the HIGH gear (small cog). The spring in
a 鈥渓ow-normal鈥� (LN) derailer pulls the chain to LOW gear. Our S!LVER OM-1
is this type. The OM means 鈥渙pposite movement,鈥� which works better,
linguistically, than 鈥渓ow-normal,鈥� since 鈥渓ow-normal鈥� isn鈥檛 normal. All front
derailers are LN, so when you add a LN rear, the left and right shifters
work in mirror image; the same direction or the same levers for high or low
gears. 鈥淕host shifts鈥� and the rare broken or slipped cable default you to
lower gears, a blessing on steep hills or in the boonies. LN shifting takes
ten shifts to get used to, twenty shifts to love, and there isn鈥檛 one drawback.

The OM-1 is a Beacon of Hope

Just as Rivendell didn鈥檛 invent the ratcheting friction shifter, they also didn鈥檛 invent the low-normal derailleur. In recent cycling history, the most prominent examples in the marketplace were Shimano鈥檚 鈥淩apidRise鈥� derailleurs of the late 鈥�90s and early aughts. RapidRise was aimed primarily at mountain bikers, who ultimately rejected it, even though it worked perfectly well. Not only was it different and therefore weird, but Shimano eventually paired it with one of its worst mountain bike shifters ever, the hated 鈥淒ual Control Lever鈥� system, whereby you moved the entire brake lever to shift鈥攋ust like their road shifters, only horizontal鈥攁nd so people came to associate the two. Between the weird derailleurs and the floppy shifters, people eventually wrote RapidRise off as just another Shimano gimmick, like BioPace eccentric chainrings or their short-lived Airlines air-powered shifting system.

But as it turns out, low-normal derailleurs pair brilliantly with friction shifters, and so Rivendell has been stockpiling them for years. Like everyone else, I鈥檇 always dismissed RapidRise derailleurs despite not having tried them myself, but in 2020 Grant sent me a 9-speed era RapidRise XTR M950, which I installed on my A. Homer Hilsen, already equipped with Silver friction shifters. Because the spring moves the derailleur inboard instead of outboard when you release the cable, downshifts were noticeably smoother and easier. More significantly, my bar end shifter was well out of the way of my knee on climbs, because with a low-normal system both shifters are pointing straight down instead of sticking straight out as they do with high-normal derailleurs. I鈥檝e ridden everything from Di2 to mechanical Campagnolo Super Record, but in terms of sheer smoothness, the drivetrain on my Homer was now perhaps the finest I鈥檇 ever used.

Rivendell鈥檚 path to its own production low-normal derailleur was as undulating and intermittently rocky as the Mount Tam trails we rode that spring day when we were mistaken for historical reenactors. Bicycle frame and component manufacturing has largely shifted overseas, but derailleur manufacturing has pretty much always happened overseas. There鈥檚 no Great American Derailleur Company that shifted (that鈥檚 a pun) its manufacturing to China and left a small town destitute, and with certain exceptions, such as the rare and exotic derailleur of the mid-鈥�90s, quality derailleurs have pretty much always come from either Europe or Asia. So tariffs or no tariffs, while a bike company can still have something like a frame manufactured domestically if they really want to, there鈥檚 pretty much no way to get someone in the U.S. to build you a derailleur. And even having one made overseas in the factories where they already make derailleurs is a challenge, because no bike company in its right mind designs its own derailleurs. But Rivendell wanted low-normal derailleurs that work great with friction shifters and double and triple cranks (not to mention silver and smooth instead of black and chunky like most modern derailleurs), and they didn鈥檛 want to keep settling for new old stock or existing production derailleurs that weren鈥檛 quite what they wanted, so they took it upon themselves to make it happen, time and expense be darned.

In 2020, around when Grant sent me that XTR RapidRise, Rivendell engaged an engineer and bike industry veteran, Dan Falvey, to work with them on designing a low-normal derailleur. This eventually yielded a beautiful, wholly original design and a functioning prototype that was prohibitively expensive to produce. (The cycling world does not need another $900 rear derailleur, which is about what the latest Campagnolo Super Record electronic rear derailleur costs; in fact, the cycling world arguably doesn’t need any $900 rear derailleurs.) So the OM-1 that will be available for purchase will cost $150, and it integrates the low-normal action integrated into a design from their manufacturer that is far easier to produce, yet will still look far better on a lugged steel bicycle than something like a Shimano CUES鈥攏o offense to Shimano CUES, but it ain鈥檛 exactly pretty.

By the time I received a Silver OM-1 prototype (around the time I met Grant and Dan for the ride on Mount Tam) I鈥檇 been using Silver friction shifters and low-normal derailleurs on two of my bikes, so I already knew what to expect when I installed it on my Platypus, which also used Silver shifters but still had a high-normal derailleur.

When downshifting with the OM-1, the chain flew right up the cassette with the flick of the lever, and because of the low-normal action, front and rear shifting actions now matched. With the Silver shifters in under-the-bar-thumbie mode, that meant forward to downshift, and back to upshift, on both the front and the rear.

Platypus uses its share of chunky black mountain bike components, so it doesn鈥檛 require a classically elegant derailleur with smooth contours and a silver finish (plus its grimy drivetrain is an affront to said finish), but it certainly doesn鈥檛 hurt, and aesthetically it鈥檚 a component that would look at home on anything from a vintage road bike to a modern gravel bike, even (gasp!) a carbon one.

If all this talk of low-normal derailleurs and friction shifting makes you scoff, rest assured that nobody is trying to take away your suspension and your dropper post and your disc brakes and your wireless drivetrain. You鈥檙e safe. The mainstream bike industry is committed to these things, and to you. The Silver OM-1 is for the older riders who feel left behind, or for the younger riders who want to try something new, or really for anyone who wants an utterly simple and smooth-shifting bicycle that doesn鈥檛 require firmware updates and is compatible with decades upon decades鈥� worth of components. It also represents the first complete dedicated friction drivetrain in probably 40 years, it brings meaningful improvements to it (ratcheting shifting and low-normal action), and if you鈥檙e friction-curious and decide to try it out, you鈥檒l find it to be the very pinnacle of refinement. And the reason you鈥檒l still be able to buy all this stuff new in 2025 like a civilized person instead of scrounging for used parts on eBay is because a small bike company took on a huge project that makes little financial sense, all for the love of cycling.

So yes, the TLDR of it all is that Rivendell has made a derailleur that works backwards. But it鈥檚 more than that, and as our bikes go electronic like everything else, the OM-1 is a low-normal beacon of hope for those of us who don鈥檛 want to add our bikes to the increasingly long list of Stuff That Needs To Be Charged. Rivendell is fighting for the future of the mechanical bicycle so you don鈥檛 have to.

The post Cyclists: Rivendell Has Crafted the Rear Derailleur of the Century appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

As a parent and an American during an election year, I had to make all sorts of crucial decisions in 2024. The聽most difficult and important of all was which bike to bring with me on my summer vacation.

Each year at the end of August my family and I travel to Adirondack Park in upstate New York, where the cycling terrain includes paved climbs, gravel roads, and and rocky trails that disappear deep into the wilderness. Every spring, I start thinking seriously about which bicycle will have the privilege of accompanying me. The optimal choice is generally a rig聽wide of both tire and gearing, and past standouts have been my A. Homer Hilsen and my LWB.

This year I figured I’d probably just bring one of those two bikes yet again, but at the very last second I made a bizarre and potentially foolhardy decision. Like George Costanza buying an ’89 Chrysler LeBaron because it once belonged to Midnight Cowboy star Jon Voigt, I ultimately went with a 1998 Trek Y-Foil 77, on loan to me from the collection, a historic bike museum and shop based in Washington.

Like the LeBaron, the Y-Foil 77 was also聽of highly dubious celebrity provenance, having once belonged to the late writer and bon vivant George Plimpton.

It may seem far-fetched, but Classic Cycle also to “prove” it that it was owned by the Paper Tiger author. Who am I to argue?

As a rider with traditional (some might even say old-fashioned) tastes who likes normal diamond-shaped frames made from metal and who has been one of the cycling media’s most outspoken critics of the carbon fiber hegemony, I’ve always found the Y-Foil to be absurdly outlandish. It was hard to imagine myself even riding the thing, let alone liking it.聽It seemed more like a triathlon bike than a road bike, which鈥eew. Yet the more I rode it, the more I began to appreciate it.

Sure, the bike only holds one water bottle at a time, and yes, the void where the seat tube is supposed to be makes it look like a device made to bore holes in giant wheels of cheese. (The unorthodox frame design also makes sure you get every last bit of road spray should it rain.) But I rarely carry more than one bottle anyway. Despite its outrageous appearance it handles just as any well-designed road bike should, plus the beam design of the frame provides just a tiny bit of suspension which makes the ride surprisingly smooth and comfortable.

Trek only sold the Y-Foil for two years, in 1998 and 1999, and since then the bike has acquired a bit of a cult following鈥攑artially because they’re kind of rare and some people think they’re cool-looking, but also because of the aforementioned smooth ride quality, which is unusual for a road bike that only clears a 25mm tire. I’d never been a member of the Y-Foil cult, and so I knew little about the bike’s history, apart from vaguely recalling the design having been banned from competition or something.

So I started reading up on their history, and was surprised to learn that not only wasn’t it a triathlon bike, but it had supposedly been designed with Paris-Roubaix and the cobbled classics in mind, and early versions even聽had a suspension-corrected fork. This explained the pinched-looking front end of the frame as well as the elongated fork crown, which Paul Johnson of Classic Cycle likens to a pair of high-waisted jeans.

The revelation that the Y-Foil was聽designed not for triathlons but for the cobblestones of Europe was almost harder to believe than the whole George Plimpton thing. So to find out for sure I reached out to Trek, who connected me with Jim Colegrove, a now-retired engineer who worked on the Y-Foil.

In the nineties, Colegrove told me, cyclists (or at least bike companies) were having a love affair with beam bikes. Trek was also having lots of success with . So the idea behind the Y-Foil was to bring the design over to the road and to take聽taking advantage of beam-maina.

As Colegrove and the team at Trek saw it, when it came to road-oriented beam bikes, 2001 model was the one to beat, though they also felt it had three fatal flaws: lateral deflection (they called it “wag”); bob (the feeling that you’re sitting on a diving board); and weight (the Zipp was quite heavy). So Trek set out to design a Y-frame聽road bike that would suffer from none of those problems. At the same time, they also saw an opportunity to incorporate a , which people at Trek were convinced was “going to be a thing,” as Colegrove puts it.

Not everybody on the team agreed, and of course suspension forks on road bikes聽didn’t turn out to be a thing at all (at least not until gravel happened). Still,聽the 1992, 1993, and 1994 editions of Paris-Roubaix had all been won on Rock Shox forks. Trek planned to offer the new Y-frame road bike to pro teams, and so the suspension fork made it onto the bike. (Or at least the suspension fork compatibility did. Colegrove doesn’t know if anybody actually ended up using a suspension fork on a Y-Foil, and I’ve certainly never seen a squishy Y-Foil either in the wild or on the Internet.)

Alas, just as Trek launched the Y-Foil, the Union Cycliste Internationale, cycling’s governing body, ruled that road bike frames “shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle.” This rule meant the pros wouldn’t be able to ride the Y-Foil in any race under the auspices of the UCI, which is to say all the races that matter to people when they’re deciding which expensive road bike to buy.

Colegrove wonders if perhaps the UCI may have made the rule specifically to foil (see what I did there?) Trek in order to protect innocent European bike manufacturers from a big bad American company with the capability of producing futuristic aero bikes at scale. However, it’s worth noting the ruling affected European bikes too, such as, so perhaps they really did just want to uphold tradition and spare us all from a nightmarish all-recumbent pro cycling future.

Of course there was still nothing keeping you from buying a Y-Foil to race聽a triathlon, or your local USA Cycling-sanctioned criterium, or just riding it for fun and enjoying the head-turning looks and aero benefits. (According to Colegrove the wind tunnel results showed the Y-Foil to be “significantly” more aerodynamic than a traditional frame.) But the bike industry doesn’t work like that, and since the Y-Foil would never be seen under the winner of the Tour de France it had limited appeal and went into, as Colgrove puts it, a “black hole.”

Despite the aero factor it wasn’t a true triathlon bike, nor would it ever have a pro cycling pedigree. While the bike did make it into production, the last year it appeared in the Trek catalogue was 1999鈥攖he same year Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France on a stock Trek 5500 with a diamond frame.

25 years later, all of this lends the bike a certain pathos, and since I was enjoying the bike much more than I thought I would I figured I’d bring it with me on vacation as sort of a consolation prize. Just across Lake Champlain聽 from New York State lies Vermont, a land criss-crossed with gravel roads, where the bike could finally taste the terrain for which it had been designed, yet few Y-Foils have ever experienced.

Road cyclists have recently embraced wider tires. With cyclists tackling roads with rougher surfaces, 25-millimeter tires鈥攚hich is the widest a Y-Foil will allow鈥攁re now considered too narrow.

However, I made it through the roughest sections without washout or pinch flat, and otherwise the bike was not only competent but smooth, the beam offering just enough flex to allow me to comfortably shift my weight onto the rear wheel. Having successfully negotiated the gravel roads of Vermont, I rolled onto the ferry to Ticonderoga, NY.

Ticonderoga is steeped in history and the things that made this country great. There’s the eponymous , the eponymous (they weren’t made there, but that’s where the graphite used to come from), and there’s the , which draws Trekkies from all over the galaxy.

At no point in our conversation did Colegrove mention the Star Fleet Insignia serving as an inspiration for the design of the Y-Foil, but I have to wonder if perhaps it crept in there subconsciously.

If you’re a fan of technical innovation you may think we lost out when the UCI banned bikes Y-Foil, and if you’re a traditionalist you probably think we dodged a bullet. I’d certainly count myself as a traditionalist. But more than anything I’m also a bike nerd. I can appreciate and enjoy this relic of what might have been.safe in the knowledge that it is no longer a threat to the supremacy of my beloved diamond frame.

The Y-Foil may not have been a commercial success, but Trek did accomplish what it set out to do, which was design a Y-shaped bike without wag, bob, or excessive weight that performs like a good road bike should. I enjoyed every ride with it on my summer vacation, and by choosing it I don’t think I missed out on a thing鈥xcept maybe that second water bottle.

The post I Took a Star-Trek Inspired Journey on a Retro-Futuristic Bike appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

If you follow cycling influencers or regularly read outdoor-themed lifestyle publications, you may assume that you’re the only person who’s not biking on gravel roads or disappearing into the wilderness on exotic bicycles laden with high-tech baggage systems. Quite the contrary: schlubs like us who are stuck in urban areas account for . Moreover, , which means if we want to maintain both our riding lives and our sanity we’ve got to make do with whatever we can find in our backyards.

I live in New York City. While the nation’s largest metropolis is known for a large bike share system and chronically obstructed bike lanes, few people equate us with a recreational cycling paradise. Yes, it is true that four out of the five densely-packed New York City boroughs are situated on islands, meaning getting out of the city for a ride can be a frustrating experience akin to punching your way out of a cardboard refrigerator box.

However, I’m fortunate to live in the Bronx, which is the only borough connected to the mainland United States. This means it’s easy for me to slip out the city’s back door and onto roads and trails that give the facade of riding in the country.

Ironically, it’s precisely because the city is such a massive and ever-growing metropolis that it is so easy for me to get out of it. There are two car-free trails that transport me directly from my home to some of the area’s best riding, and both are built upon the city’s sprawling infrastructure.

One of these is the , a paved bicycle path that sits atop a former commuter rail line, and the other is the unpaved Old Croton Aqueduct Trail, 26 miles of dirt along the city’s 19th century drinking water. Both these trails head straight north into the “country,” which not only makes escaping the city by bicycle ease, but also makes the decision between riding road and dirt as easy as flipping a coin.

On one recent particular outing, I decided to ride road and dirt, so I headed into the park and onto the Empire State Trail, where in a matter of minutes I arrived at the New York City line:

As you can see, the pavement markings that tell everyone where to go abruptly end when you leave the city, which is how you know you’re really in the wilderness.

Being an old train line, the Empire State Trail boasts loads of features which delight both the rail nerd and the history buff, including ghost stations and a

Gone are the rail cars (service on this railway ended in 1958), and in their stead you’ll find cyclists pedaling off into deepest suburbia. As for me, having traveled about eight paved miles since crossing the city line, I figured it was time to put my fat tires on some dirt.

There are a number of popular mountain biking spots close to New York City where on any given weekend you’ll find parking lots full of SUVs and riders prepping their dual-suspension bikes for an hour or two of riding over the same obstacle repeatedly. For years, I too drove places to go mountain biking, but over time I lost my taste for it. Why spend time driving when you could be riding?

Furthermore, while riding to these destinations, I’ve discovered all sorts of little spots I’d otherwise have missed had I loaded my bike into the car. When you’re driving you’re focused on the road (well, ideally, anyway鈥攎ost people seem more focussed on their phones or whatever they’re vaping) but when you’re riding you spot little gaps in the trees, notice little trails beyond them, and ask yourself, “Where does that go?”

Sure, sometimes you follow it and find out it just goes to some nasty spot strewn with detritus where someone’s been sleeping for six years, but other times you find a whole new set of trails you never knew existed, like that recurring dream where you discover another wing in your apartment. These are the places nobody drives to, because they don’t have parking lots, and they can be some of the very best places to ride.

On this particular occasion I was headed to a spot I discovered many years back when I was riding in light snow. In the distance I spotted a rider on a fat bike, and while he was too far away to catch I managed to follow his tracks. These let me to a trail I always figured just led into someone’s backyard or something, and I’ve been coming back to the area and finding new stuff ever since. No parking lot, no trailhead, just a little gap in the guardrail.

It may not be exotic, but when you ride to the ride everything feels like a little bit of an adventure.

Plus, few of us have the time for actual adventures鈥攎uch less time to get lost. There are places where the price of exploration is finding yourself deep in the wilderness as the sun sets and having to build a shelter and spend the night. That’s not really compatible with my lifestyle, and I much prefer the sort of exploration where the consequences of a wrong turn are winding up in the parking lot of a Chipotle鈥攚hich if you think about it is less of a “wrong turn” and more of a happy accident.

Sure, the closer you are to civilization the more rules there are. For example, when you stop to rest beside an inviting body of water on a hot summer day it’s usually surrounded by signs admonishing you not to swim.

If a tree falls in the forest and there’s nobody around to hear it does it make a sound? I have no idea. But if a sign in the forest tells me not to swim and there’s nobody around to see me then I’m going in anyway.

There are all sorts of tricks you can play to make a short ride feel like an adventure. One of them is an illicit swim, and another is avoiding paved roads as much as possible. So, for the return trip I hopped on the Old Croton Aqueduct Trail. If you know where you’re going you can pretty much ride dirt the whole way back to the Bronx. Just keep the Hudson on your right shoulder.

You’ll barely encounter any cars, either, though you do have to watch out for the wildlife:

I wonder if that deer has deluded itself that it’s living in the wilderness as successfully as I have.

The post You Can Have a Wilderness Biking 国产吃瓜黑料 in New York City appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

There are a few things you learn right away when you start cycling 鈥渟eriously.鈥� Carbon fiber is the best material for a bicycle. (False.)聽 You need to use clipless pedals for maximum efficiency. (Double false.)聽 And of course you should avoid wearing cotton, since it鈥檚 a very poor choice when it comes to cycling attire. (Wildly, ridiculously false.)

So what are you supposed to wear to partake in 鈥渟erious鈥� cycling?聽 Generally, the answer is one of the various branded forms of spandex, the most widely known being Lycra鈥攖he Band-Aid of stretchy clothes in that it has become a byword for it. The reasoning is that the fabric is form-fitting for aerodynamics, it affords you full range of movement due to its stretchiness, and, most importantly, it鈥檚 鈥渨icking,鈥� meaning it allows moisture to evaporate quickly, thereby keeping you dry and cool.

Meanwhile, cotton, as your friend who uses clipless pedals and just completed a century (or its 21st century equivalent, a gravel race) on a carbon fiber bicycle will patiently bike-splain to you, is not wicking. Therefore, if you ride in cotton clothing, you鈥檒l get all bogged down with sweat. This can result in chafing and fungus, as well as poor thermoregulation, since if you ride around wet for hours on end you can catch a chill and die, or you鈥檒l never cool off and get heatstroke, I forget which. Maybe it鈥檚 both.

Of course, cotton dries just fine, which is why you wear t-shirts all summer long. So how did riding in cotton become the object of the second-most aggressive fear campaign in cycling after riding without helmets? How did we come to the crazy conclusion that it takes a t-shirt (arguably the single-greatest piece of activewear ever invented) a long time to dry鈥攕o long that you shouldn鈥檛 ever ride in one? Well, it鈥檚 tempting to blame Big Oil, since we blame them for everything anyway, and of course spandex is made from petroleum, so making cyclists deathly afraid of cotton is their way of making sure people who ride bikes still consume fossil fuels. But I admit that鈥檚 a bit too conspiracy-minded, and as with most things involving cycling the truth is a lot simpler: it鈥檚 the power of marketing coupled with the aspiring cyclist鈥檚 desire to be seen as doing the right thing.

Now none of this is to say spandex cycling clothing is bad. On the contrary; it鈥檚 highly engineered, and as such it鈥檚 generally ideal at the more extreme ends of the sport. It would be foolish to deny, for example, that a rider ascending a steep climb 60 miles into a ride on a humid 80-degree day is not going to benefit from a lightweight stretchy bicycling speedsuit鈥攁nd sure, a lightweight carbon bicycle, and clipless pedals, and hey, what the hell, might as well throw in a power meter since we鈥檙e going for max performance here.

However, what I am saying is those same cotton clothes you used to run and jump and play football and baseball and hide-and-seek in and generally wore into the ground when you were a kid still work just as well when you鈥檙e an adult. In fact, if you grew up riding a bike you almost certainly did it in a t-shirt and jeans, and fundamentally little has changed since then apart from the fact that when you show up at the trailhead in a t-shirt the people unloading their dual-suspension bikes from their SUVs will probably look at you funny. Yes, cycling clothing is engineered for performance, but it鈥檚 also engineered to clearly display sponsor logos, which is a feature very few of us will ever need.

Modern cycling clothing is great, and there are absolutely circumstances in which it will enhance your ride. At the same time it鈥檚 often expensive, and extremely limited in utility, and generally one minute crash away from winding up in the trash, unlike your jeans which you can wear until you blow out the crotch鈥攁t which point they can be darned and worn again. Not only can riding in the same cotton clothes you wear to clear out the basement or play softball or just hang out can be one of the great joys of cycling (when was the last time you just hopped on a bike and ripped around without worrying about what you were wearing?), but it can also make your fancy specialty clothes last longer.

All I鈥檓 saying is go ahead, ride your bike in cotton once in a while. It won鈥檛 kill you.

The post Why Are People Afraid of Riding Bikes in Cotton? appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Everyone knows cultivating a garden takes work. You must nurture it with sun and water and soil. But you鈥檝e also got to prune it once in a while, and that鈥檚 the hardest part. How do you walk into a beautiful garden and start to hack at the greenery? But cut you must if you want it to flourish and remain healthy and lush.

Bikes are no different. If you love to ride it seems impossible to have too many of them. But tending to your garden of bicycles also requires judicious pruning from time to time, and that often means letting some of them go.

So how many bicycles should one person have? Well, there鈥檚 no consensus on this matter. For some riders one single speed may be enough, and for others ten bikes with twenty gears apiece might be scarcely sufficient. Of course, cycling philosophers have ruminated on this question since the days of the penny-farthing, and according to the oft-cited , the equation for the correct number of bikes is as follows:

The correct number of bikes to own is n+1. While the minimum number of bikes one should own is , the correct number is n+1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner.

However, the Velominati rules are stupid and should be ignored in most cases. The Velominati also says you shouldn鈥檛 use a saddlebag, which is like saying you shouldn鈥檛 keep a spare roll of toilet paper in the bathroom.

Obviously if you have bikes you never ride at all, there鈥檚 no reason to keep them. But for a long time I also believed in what I thought was a corollary to this: that whether you had one bike or 100, you could never have too many as long as you were riding them all鈥攚hich I was. As it turns out, this is a dangerous line of thinking, akin to believing you can never have too much booze in the house as long as you鈥檙e drinking it all. Consumption is a bad metric, since you can over-consume anything, even bikes, and because of this it鈥檚 far too easy to rationalize your own gluttony.

What I eventually came to realize is that you have too many bikes when you consistently have trouble deciding which one to ride. This is not a question that should require deliberation: if you鈥檙e going for a road ride, you take your road bike; if you鈥檙e going for a mountain bike ride; and so forth. Easy. Obviously you may decide ride the 鈥渨rong鈥� bike from time to time for the sake of variety, but when you find yourself deciding to go for a road ride and then wondering, 鈥淥kay, now which road bike should I ride?,鈥� and then standing there like an idiot, it鈥檚 probably time to start cutting back.

This was the predicament in which I increasingly found myself. I also found that I鈥檇 end up choosing one bike over another mostly out of guilt鈥攊f I hadn鈥檛 ridden a bike in a while I鈥檇 go with that one, figuring as long as I still rode it I could justify keeping it (the gluttony rationale). Furthermore, as my bicycles continued to multiply and I had near-duplicates of pretty much everything I鈥檇 concoct ever-more implausible scenarios. 鈥淲ell sure, there鈥檚 a lot of overlap here, but if I ever get a vacation home I鈥檒l just move all the duplicates there and I鈥檒l be all set.鈥� Right. And perhaps the Lord might send a great flood, and biddeth me build a great ark, and to lead all my bicycles upon it two by two. Implausible to be sure, but about as likely as my getting a vacation home, which would also require an act of divine intervention.

It was at this point that I came to terms with the fact that I needed to start getting rid of my bikes. After that it was easy. Do you know that people will often give you money in exchange for bicycles? It鈥檚 true! As long as you鈥檙e reasonable about price and don鈥檛 think your ass sweat has somehow caused your bike to increase in value (a delusion from which many sellers suffer), there鈥檚 a buyer for pretty much every bike. Furthermore, the thing about bikes is that they鈥檙e merely physical objects, and while we do form strong attachments to our material possessions, we don鈥檛 really miss them when they鈥檙e gone鈥擨 mean sure, we may miss them in a superficial 鈥淗ey, I used to have one of those鈥� way, but not in the 鈥淚 now have a hole in my heart that can only be filled with drink鈥� way.

Also, getting rid of some bikes makes you love the bikes that you do keep even more, and the trusty steed you ride day in and day out brings far more satisfaction than the one that makes a fleeting cameo as part of a rotating cast of characters. Once I figured this out, I found the process of getting rid of a bike to be even more satisfying than acquiring a new one! Yes, bikes are just things, but the bond we form with them is very real, and it grows stronger the more we ride them. This is even reflected in our art. Bruce Wayne was a millionaire, but would Batman have been nearly as compelling if, when the Bat Signal appeared, instead of taking to his trusty Batmobile he stood there in his garage like a schmuck trying to decide which of his many exotic sports cars to drive? Of course not.

A bike should bring you nothing but pleasure, and you should never find yourself riding one out of duty. Moreover a bike can only bring you that pleasure if you ride it, and ride it often. It can be hard to give up a bike, but it鈥檚 hard to love a bike you don鈥檛 ride, and in the end you gain far more than you lose.

The post Against the N+1 Theory of Bike Ownership appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

When it comes to bicycles and components, people tend to defend their preferences with what amounts to an almost-religious fervor. But ultimately our opinions about what鈥檚 鈥渂est鈥� are often just that鈥攐pinions. The insufferable retrogrouch insists that steel is the only material worth considering, while the performance-obsessed racer maintains that, gram for gram, nothing beats carbon fiber, and ultimately they鈥檙e both right in their own way. Then there are all the parts you can bolt to them: from stem to stern you鈥檒l get a thousand recommendations on which components to use, and unless you鈥檝e got uncommon fortitude you鈥檒l probably find yourself burnt out on bike setup tips before you even get past the handlebars. It鈥檚 all enough to make you decide, 鈥淔uck it, I鈥檓 leasing a Hyundai.鈥�

But what if you鈥檙e not worried about what鈥檚 鈥渂est,鈥� whatever that means? What if your goal is to build yourself a future-proof bicycle? Something simple and cheap to maintain, and that you can ride and enjoy more or less indefinitely so you鈥檒l never have to listen to any of this crap again? Well here鈥檚 your step-by-step guide to building a future-proof bike that will last you (almost) forever.

The Frame

If you ask the question 鈥淲hich frame material should I choose?鈥� the answers may send you running for the hills. You鈥檙e about as likely to get a measured, impartial answer to that one as you are to the question, 鈥淲hich presidential candidate should I vote for?鈥�

Nevertheless, at least there is an easy answer to the frame question: steel. No, I鈥檓 not saying materials like carbon fiber are bad鈥攚ell, not this time, anyway. There are valid reasons to pick almost every frame material, with the exception of, I dunno, glass or ice.

Still, we鈥檙e not talking about which one is lighter, or stronger, or faster, or even more comfortable. We鈥檙e talking about a future-proof bicycle here, and here鈥檚 why you want steel for that:

Over time, standards change鈥攅specially axle widths, which keep getting wider, and steel is the only material that really doesn鈥檛 care what size axle you cram in there. I have a 40-ish year-old steel road bike frame, which would have been designed to accommodate a 126mm rear axle. In my time with it I鈥檝e used everything from 120mm to 130mm in there with no problems, and I doubt very much the frame would care if I took it up to 135mm or even beyond. This means I can potentially choose pretty much any hub made in the past century, which means if I need a new wheel I can spend a thousand dollars on something new and modern or I can pick up a used one for $40 on Craigslist without worrying too much about the dimensions. No other material offers this amount of versatility. Plus, you can pick up a 40-ish year-old steel road frame yourself for a couple hundred bucks and confidently (and cheaply!) ride it for another 40 years.

Of course, you don鈥檛 need to choose a road frame: hybrid frames, mountain frames, cyclocross frames, even those newfangled 鈥済ravel鈥� frames all make good candidates. But an older road bike frame in particular will also have additional attributes that make it a great candidate for a future-proof bicycle. These include:

• A threaded bottom bracket shell, which means you can use anything from the loose-ball square-taper bottom brackets of yesteryear to the outboard bottom brackets of today.
• A threaded fork, which means you can use a quill stem and easily futz with your bar height for all eternity as you become less and less flexible鈥攐r convert to a threadless fork if you鈥檇 rather, which is a relatively straightforward operation, even with a one-inch headtube.
• Caliper rim brakes鈥攍ike steel, I鈥檓 not saying they鈥檙e better (at least not this time), but old-fashioned sidepulls (dual- or single-pivot) are cheap, effective, so simple as to be idiot-proof, and you鈥檝e got decades upon decades of inventory to choose from
• Horizontal dropouts鈥攜es, a vertical dropout is more secure, but a horizontal dropout lends versatility in that it even allows you go single-speed should the need or desire arise. Also, you know those ? Horizontal dropouts are the original flip chip.
• Clearance鈥攔oad bike designers didn鈥檛 come up with the idea that road bikes should have limited tire clearance until somewhere around the 1990s. That means you can generally fit 28mm tires easily and even go wider in many cases on those older steel road frames.

Also, remember: there鈥檚 no rule that you have to use drop bars on a road bike frame. You can turn an older steel road frame into anything from a full-on race bike to an upright urban commuter.

The Wheels

Forget the 鈥渨heel systems鈥� with proprietary rims, hubs, and spokes. Whether you buy them already built or you customize them yourself, you want a traditional pair of wheels with 32 or 36 steel spokes. This means if a spoke breaks you can just install a new one鈥攁nd you can keep riding in the meantime, since you鈥檝e got 31 (or 35) more. This also means you can keep your hubs and even sometimes your spokes should you need to replace your rim due to wear, damage, or changing needs. There鈥檚 nothing stopping you from swapping in wider rims, or tubeless rims, or even carbon rims if that鈥檚 what you鈥檙e into. As for the hub, you want a Shimano-compatible spline pattern, and better yet an actual Shimano hub. Cartridge bearings are generally used as a selling point when it comes to hubs, but those are for skateboard wheels, and nothing beats good quality cup-and-cone bearings for smoothness and serviceability. Also, a Shimano hub will let you use like 30 years鈥� worth of cassettes, from 7-speed up to as high as 12 speeds depending on the vintage of the hub; plus the freehub bodies are not only replaceable, but in lots of cases they鈥檙e even interchangeable, which means you can keep the hub going practically forever. Also, you want a Hyperglide hub, not the newer 鈥淢icro Spline鈥� stuff. Given how long Hyperglide has been around, parts for it shouldn鈥檛 be disappearing anytime soon.

The Drivetrain

As far as shifting, for maximum future-proofing, you want the oldest system there is: friction. Shimano derailleur? Campagnolo? 5 speeds? 10 speeds? 20 speeds? (Okay, 20 speeds is not a thing鈥et.) Pretty much anything will work with a friction setup, giving you virtually unlimited access to decades upon decades鈥� worth of cassettes and other consumables.

Okay, fine, frictions not for you. Go with indexed downtube shifters, or bar-end shifters, or thumbshifters. Or, by all means, go 鈥渕odern鈥� with the convenience of integrated shifters such as Shimano STI or SRAM DoubleTap. (Or of course Campagnolo Ergo, but once you commit to indexed, integrated shifters you start getting locked into manufacturers鈥� proprietary parts, and Campagnolo can make using more widely available Shimano drivetrain stuff a bit more difficult.) Just keep in mind that indexing requires you to match your drivetrain components more carefully, though given the abundance of components out there this isn鈥檛 much of a problem.

And whatever you do, go mechanical. I mean, nothing鈥檚 really stopping you from putting electronic shifting on that old steel frame, but if you鈥檙e going for future-proof above all else nothing beats the simplicity of levers and cables, and even if mechanical shifting is disappearing from the high end of component makers鈥� offerings it鈥檚 unlikely to vanish completely within our lifetimes. And again, we鈥檙e talking about future-proofedness here, so you want to be able to keep riding through those solar flares and electromagnetic pulses.

So yeah, you want a classic road bike. For sheer versatility and simplicity, nothing beats it. Or lease a Hyundai, whichever works for you.

The post How to Build a Bike That Will Last (Almost) Forever appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Carbon fiber is light. It鈥檚 strong. It can be used to build everything from frames to seat posts to handlebars to cranks. And it鈥檚 one of the worst things that鈥檚 happened to bikes.

Now, to be clear, carbon fiber makes perfect sense for professional racing. Because it鈥檚 basically a fabric, builders can mold it into all sorts of aerodynamic shapes. Moreover, they can tune ride quality and maintain strength while simultaneously keeping the weight to a minimum in a way that鈥檚 not really possible with metal tubing. It used to be that racers had to choose between a light bike and an aero bike; now they can have both, all thanks to the miraculous properties of carbon fiber. At this point, there鈥檚 no reason for elite competitors to use anything else.

But here鈥檚 the thing: you鈥檙e not them. I鈥檓 sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you鈥檙e almost certainly incapable of milking the handful of seconds a wind tunnel-sculpted pro-level carbon fiber race machine might theoretically net you in certain situations. Moreover, the pro racers who do need carbon fiber bikes get them for free; only the people who don鈥檛 need them actually pay for them. This means that, ipso facto, if you鈥檝e purchased a carbon fiber bicycle, you鈥檝e made a mistake.

鈥淥kay, fine, I may not be ,鈥� you may be thinking. 鈥淢aybe I didn鈥檛 need a carbon bike. But how does that mean I鈥檝e made a mistake?鈥�

Simple: while you鈥檙e not able to extract carbon fiber鈥檚 small performance benefits, you are in an ideal position to experience its many drawbacks鈥攁nd for normal people, carbon fiber bicycles have only drawbacks.

Probably the biggest drawback to carbon fiber bikes is that they鈥檙e like eggs. You know how eggs are almost impossible to break if you squeeze them from the pointy ends, but if you squeeze them any other way you鈥檒l quickly wind up with a handful of yolk? Similarly, while carbon bikes are quite strong when used as designed, what they鈥檙e designed for is racing. They鈥檙e not designed for crashing, falling off a hitch rack, getting knocked over in the garage by your young children, or any of the other little mishaps that befall normal people鈥檚 bicycles as part of the messy business of day-to-day living.

Yes, plenty of those things also happen to pro racers鈥� bikes, but they don鈥檛 have to worry about it, because if the bike breaks in two after a crash or the baggage handlers at the airport manage to crack it the team just throws it away and gives them another one. But you don鈥檛 have that luxury. Crashing a carbon fiber bike can be a one-and-done scenario鈥攁nd even if there鈥檚 no visible damage you can鈥檛 be sure it鈥檚 not structurally compromised without giving it an . Even can potentially result in failure. Admittedly this is not terribly common, but the fact that it鈥檚 even a possibility is ludicrous.

And the daintiness isn鈥檛 just limited to accidents. You鈥檝e also got to be really careful when working on a carbon fiber bicycle. Don鈥檛 clamp it in a repair stand. Don鈥檛 over-torque any of the fasteners. Don鈥檛 drop your multitool on that dainty top tube. Then there鈥檚 all the internal cable routing and press-fit bottom brackets and other maintenance headaches that are an unwelcome side-effect of all that wind tunnel testing. See, carbon bikes and components were designed to be serviced by shop technicians and team mechanics, not regular schmucks like you. In fact, you鈥檝e probably even less qualified to work on them than you are to ride them.

Finally, let鈥檚 face it: carbon bikes are ugly. They look like they鈥檙e made of cheese. Have you looked at a Pinarello Dogma lately? It looks like it鈥檚 melting.

So what should bikes be made of then? What, do you even have to ask? Steel! They should all be made from steel.

For most uses, there鈥檚 little reason to build a bike out of anything other than steel. It鈥檚 light, it鈥檚 strong, it鈥檚 relatively inexpensive鈥攊t鈥檚 as close to being perfect as a bike material gets. Is it as light as carbon fiber? No, it isn鈥檛. But so what? Unless you spend more time carrying your bike than riding it, a slight weight reduction is utterly meaningless, and foregoing a nice steel bike because the carbon one is lighter is like choosing a single $50 bill over twenty $5 bills because the fifty easier to fit in your wallet. Can a steel bike crack? Get destroyed in a crash? Get swept away by a tornado? Of course it can, anything鈥檚 possible. But generally speaking steel dents instead of cracks, if it does crack it fails very slowly instead of splintering, and for the most part steel is going to shrug off the kind of incidental abuse and hard knockage that鈥檚 an unavoidable part of owning, riding, working on, and traveling with a bike.

And if you鈥檙e one of those people who worries about steel bikes and rust, you can relax, because in order for rust to destroy your bike you鈥檇 pretty much have to store it at the bottom of the sea.

Best of all, steel bikes look fantastic. Assuming the designer hasn鈥檛 gone out of their way to make it ugly, or done something really stupid like equipping in with suspension, a steel bike is timeless. Meanwhile, a carbon bike is thrillingly cutting edge until it鈥檚 about two or three seasons old, at which point it becomes yesterday鈥檚 hunk of plastic and nobody wants it, including you.

And no, I鈥檓 not one of those retrogrouches who鈥檚 afraid of carbon bikes and thinks they鈥檙e all about to explode at any moment. In fact, . (It was a finely aged hunk of cheese.) Yes, I know they make airplanes out of it. Yes, I know it can often be repaired. Yes, I know the majority of people who own carbon fiber bikes won鈥檛 have a problem with them. But airplanes have a whole federal agency looking after them, and who the hell wants to have to send their bicycle frame out for repair because of some dumb little crash in the first place?

I鈥檇 much rather ride steel and just live with the dents and scratches, they give the bike character.

The post There鈥檚 No Good Reason to Buy a Carbon Bike appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

The best thing about bikes is riding them. However, depending on where you live, winter may curtail your ability to do so. Sure, you could fritter away the cold and dreary months by Zwifting, but do you really need more screen time in your life? Instead, put your hands and your mind to work and learn how to master your machine by undertaking a winter bike build.

A Fixed Gear (Or Single Speed)

Are you a relative novice when it comes to working on bikes? Do you find it intimidating? Do you wish you weren鈥檛 totally dependent on the local bike shop?

A wise person and/or a very good shoe salesman once said: 鈥淎 journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.鈥� This is especially true when it comes to learning how to work on bikes. Start simple! Making paper airplanes is how you get started in aviation. Pouring yourself a bowl of Lucky Charms is the first step in learning the culinary arts. And building a fixed-gear rig is how you begin to learn to work on bikes.

Thanks to the Great Track Bike Boom of the early aughts, there are about a gazillion suitable frames and parts out there for your fixed-gear project, many of which can be had very cheap. You won鈥檛 have to deal with the trickier stuff like tuning derailleurs or running lots of cables or bleeding hydraulic brake. At the same time, building one presents an opportunity to to learn essential stuff like how to install a bottom bracket or a chain鈥攊deally on a cheap frame you won鈥檛 cry over if (or when) you manage to scratch it or worse. And of course you don鈥檛 have to spend much money, since fixed-gears don鈥檛 have very many parts.

Best of all, they鈥檙e great bikes to ride in the winter when conditions are slushy and salty, since you don鈥檛 have to worry about destroying your fancy drivetrain.

All of the above also applies to single speeds, except you鈥檒l also want to add a rear brake.

A Vintage Gravel Bike Conversion

Okay, you鈥檙e not going to win any originality points with this one. Converting older hybrid and mountain bikes into gravel bikes is totally 鈥渁 thing,鈥� and at this point doing so is like being the 50 millionth person to sport a Nirvana t-shirt. Nevertheless, it鈥檚 a worthy intermediate-level project, and Nirvana remains popular for a reason, so there鈥檚 no reason to feel self-conscious.

A gravel bike conversion does pose some challenges, and the main one is finding a suitable frame. The good news is that there are innumerable rigid mountain bikes and hybrids from the grunge era that are viable for this purpose. The bad news is that, because gravel conversions are so popular, there are too many people who think they can get big, big money for that unremarkable 鈥�90s RockHopper. Even so, you should be able to find something cheap, since pretty much any rigid bike with canti brake bosses and decent frame clearances will do. Just figure out which tires and bar shape you鈥檇 like to use and go from there.

Unlike that fixed-gear, you will have to do a fair amount of cable routing, and if you really want to get fancy you can size up (or down) to 650B wheels. You鈥檒l also have ample opportunity to experiment with drivetrain curation. Do you want to stick with that triple crankset? Do you want to go with a modern single-ring setup? Do you want friction shifters? The cycling landscape is awash with nearly-identical gravel bikes, so why not spend the winter building something with some personality and versatility?

A Classic Road Bike

Speaking of personality, no bicycle exudes charisma like a classic road bike. Light, fast, comfortable, simple鈥� The industry keeps slicing those drop bar bike categories thinner and thinner鈥攇ravel road, endurance road, aero road, endurance aero road鈥攂ut as anyone who buys cold cuts at the deli knows there鈥檚 such a thing as too thin, and at a certain point it becomes impossible to pull the turkey slices apart. A simple road bike with mechanical gears and downtube shifters is the very essence of cycling, and it can handle everything from fast group rides to solo dirt road excursions. Every cyclist should have one.

While people often associate road cycling with elitism and expensive equipment, it is in fact the most accessible form of recreational cycling. There are lots and lots of old road bikes out there that are worthy of rehabilitation, but go for a steel one if you can. Not only is it timeless, but it鈥檚 also accommodating of numerous tire widths. Use friction shifters and you don鈥檛 have to worry about how many cogs it has either. Classic road bikes approach fixed-gear levels of simplicity, but are about a thousand times more versatile. They鈥檙e light as gossamer yet not even remotely precious. Build up an old steel road bike and you can ride it 50 miles into the countryside or head downtown and lock it to a pole.

Extra Credit: Build Yourself A Wheel

These days it鈥檚 just assumed you鈥檙e going to buy a complete wheel 鈥渟ystem鈥� out of a box. However, every cyclist should attempt to build a wheel at least once. Not only is it immensely satisfying, but even if you only do it once the knowledge you gain from it is invaluable, if only because you鈥檒l be able to true your own wheels.

By the spring your knowledge will have bloomed along with the flowers and the trees and you can ride your project triumphantly into the horizon.

The post Forget the Trainer. Build a Project Bike This Winter. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Did you know that over 87% of online content consists of people reviewing stuff? Probably not, because I just made it up. Still, it might as well be true, because there are a lot of reviews out there: movie reviews, car reviews, people on Yelp whining about the service at their local Chipotle, the list goes on. Humans are consumers, and reviews are a fundamental part of the act of consumption, so it鈥檚 only natural that our discourse contains a whole lot of it.

Of course, in addition to being consumers, humans are also emotional creatures, and each one of us experiences things differently. That鈥檚 why many so may reviews are highly subjective and therefore of little to no value. Here鈥檚 why this is especially true of bicycle reviews.

One reason is that most companies marketing high-end bikes are making stellar products. As long as the designer hews reasonably close to the basic concept and doesn鈥檛 try anything to stupid or gimmicky they鈥檒l probably come up with a really good bicycle.

So, how do you choose from among all these great bicycles? Bikes come with different frame materials, different component groups, and different geometries. Don鈥檛 you need a reviewer to tell you if you should choose between Brand A or Brand B, or between the aluminum bike or the carbon one? Well, assuming you鈥檙e starting with a good quality bike and not one with a Lightning McQueen theme you found next to the lawn fertilizer, there are two factors that matter way, way more than any others鈥攜es, even frame material鈥攁nd they are:

• Does the bike fit?
• Is the bike designed for what you鈥檙e gonna do with it?

If the answer to either of those is 鈥淣o,鈥� the bike鈥檚 gonna suck. If the answer to both of those questions is yes鈥攁nd you can afford it鈥攖hen you鈥檙e probably looking at a winner. Sure, you can absolutely read a roundup of 鈥�44 of the best gravel bikes you can buy in 2023鈥� (an actual tweet from an actual publication), but it鈥檚 a complete waste of time, like plunging your hand wrist-deep into a bowl of M&Ms and trying to pick out the very best one.

That鈥檚 not to say all these bikes are exactly the same, but if you鈥檙e looking at specific bikes for specific applications they鈥檙e usually way more similar than they are different. Moreover, when you ride two similar bicycles back-to-back, you鈥檙e usually not feeling what鈥檚 better or worse about them, you鈥檙e mostly just feeling those minor differences, and after awhile you get used to whatever those differences are and they quickly disappear.

A reviewer comparing the GravelBlaster SL and the PebbleShredder Pro is going back and forth between two different bikes with different tires and different saddles and different bars and different bar tapes and different shifters and all kinds of other minor differences that nevertheless go a long way towards informing your first impression of a ride and then making a recommendation based on all these minor subjective differences that mostly just amount to a bunch of noise.

But the differences between bikes that actually matter are the objective ones. Like maybe it鈥檚 really rainy where you live, the GravelBlaster SL has eyelets for fenders, but the PebbleShredder doesn鈥檛鈥攖his is information you can actually use. Certainly a good reviewer will point this out, but then again so will the spec sheet, and all too often important details like this get lost or ignored amid rhapsodic descriptions about the bike鈥檚 鈥渞ide quality,鈥� which is the cycling equivalent of 鈥渕outh feel.鈥�

Then there鈥檚 the fact that when someone鈥檚 reviewing a bike they鈥檙e reviewing it now; even a 鈥渓ong-term鈥� review usually only amounts to several months of riding. However, the truth is it takes years to get to know a bike, just as it takes years to get to know a person. Sure, you may think you could marry the person you鈥檙e dating, but you don鈥檛 know if you love them until you鈥檝e experienced something truly horrible together, like a layoff, or a death in the family, or a lengthy poetry reading. Similarly, you don鈥檛 really even begin to know a bike until you鈥檝e been through at least several sets of tires and brake pads and maybe a chain or two. Really, you probably shouldn鈥檛 even bother reading a bike review unless the reviewer has pulled the crank and overhauled the bottom bracket. Unfortunately nobody abides by this principle, which is how we ended up with BB30 in the first place.

Perhaps most frustratingly, you should only read reviews from people who love bikes, but if you truly love bikes it鈥檚 almost impossible to review them. For people who love bikes, whichever bike you鈥檙e riding at the moment is your favorite, and then you get on another one and that one becomes your favorite. You might as well ask dating advice from a compulsive womanizer.

Okay, so if bike reviews are useless, then what are you supposed to do? Well, the media is like a bag of Kirkland trail mix, and the bike media is no exception, so all you can do is pick through it and try to extract the healthy stuff. You can also seek out people who do the sort of riding you do, or at least are interested in doing, and learn from them. This too comes with its share of risks鈥攔eading about bikes on Reddit and other forums can be like learning about sex in the schoolyard鈥攂ut hands-on experience from people outside of the industry who live and breathe cycling can be incredibly valuable. Through these channels you鈥檒l also learn about bike companies that are actually doing something different, and you might ultimately find that something different is for you.

But of course the most valuable knowledge of all is the knowledge you acquire yourself, and when it comes to that there鈥檚 no substitute for experience. So take some chances, buy used stuff, be safe, don鈥檛 be afraid to experiment, and most importantly, get out there and ride.

The post Most Bike Reviews Are Useless. Here鈥檚 How to Parse the Noise. appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Bike trips in the United States have 聽since 2019鈥攁nd fatalities have along with them. In New York City, where I live, 2023 is shaping up to be for cyclists. Yet when it comes to messages about bike safety, most of what you鈥檒l hear tends to fall under one of the following two categories:

1) We Need To Fight For Better Bike Infrastructure

or

2) Wear A Helmet

None of this is necessarily bad advice; however, it is woefully inadequate. The problem with the first item is that bike infrastructure projects take years if not generations, and if your town doesn鈥檛 have any then it does nothing for you right now. The problem with the second thing is that wearing a helmet doesn鈥檛 do anything for you if you get run over by a truck. So here鈥檚 some advice to fill the wide gulf between changing the world and strapping some foam to your head and hoping for the best:

You鈥檙e Going Too Fast

The word velocitation refers to when you become accustomed to speed when you鈥檙e driving on the highway, so you keep speeding up until you get pulled over or you drive off a cliff. Similarly, because we鈥檙e so car-centric, our entire country has essentially become velocitized鈥攚e think car speed is normal speed, whether we鈥檙e driving or not. Since bicycles go nowhere near as fast as cars, we just take it for granted that it鈥檚 impossible to speed on our bikes.

But it鈥檚 easy to go too fast on your bike, and just like driving, 鈥渢oo fast鈥� is a matter of context. When you鈥檙e driving, 50 miles per hour is too slow for the Interstate yet way too fast for neighborhood streets. (鈥�) Similarly, 20 mph isn鈥檛 exactly warp speed when you鈥檙e out on your road bike, but it鈥檚 quite fast on a city street. The faster you go, the less time you have to react to drivers pulling out of driveways, their passengers flinging their doors open in your path, pedestrians stepping into the street right in front of you, and all the other stuff that happens on your commute. This is especially true in bike lanes, where you might feel a false sense of security鈥攁fter all, bike lanes belong to us (), and some of them are even 鈥�,鈥� but protected lanes are keep you in a more confined space with less room to maneuver and react.

Also, You鈥檙e Going Too Fast

There鈥檚 going too fast just because you can, or because you think you should, and then there鈥檚 also going too fast because you鈥檙e running late, or you just don鈥檛 feel like waiting. But whether it鈥檚 preparing a lavish meal or riding your bike, rushing is how you make a complete mess of it. Yes, there are some valid reasons to run a red light on your bike, but being in a hurry is never one of them, and the moment you find yourself taking risks just to save a handful of seconds is when you put yourself on a potential collision course with all the other risk-takers out there with whom you supposedly 鈥渟hare鈥� the road.

Above all, safe cycling is a matter of reducing risk whenever possible, and the only place it鈥檚 (relatively) safe to be in a rush is in an actual bike race where everyone鈥檚 got the same agenda; otherwise if you鈥檙e in a rush to get to work on your bike you鈥檙e that much more likely to get hit by someone else who鈥檚 in聽 rush to get to work in their car. Would you rather be a little late, or a little dead?

Don鈥檛 Worry About What People Should Be Doing; Worry About What They Actually Do

Yes, drivers really should signal before they turn. They shouldn鈥檛 turn in front of you in intersections. They shouldn鈥檛 open their doors without looking. But they do all of these things, and more, all the time.

Given the fact that you can pretty much count on drivers to do the wrong thing, as a cyclist you have two choices: anticipate it, thereby reducing your own risk of injury or death, or just charge directly at it in a suicidal fit of righteousness like . Granted, in the age of social media there is no greater currency than capturing injustice on video, so the latter may be tempting. However, being right is only worth so much when your bicycle is destroyed and you鈥檙e splayed across the hood of a Hyundai Elantra.

Don鈥檛 worry, anticipating bad driver behavior and acting accordingly isn鈥檛 a form of surrender; it鈥檚 self-preservation. Your number one goal as a cyclist should be to get to where you鈥檙e going and live to ride another day. You will never change anyone鈥檚 mind out there on the road. Once you鈥檝e arrived safely you can go ahead and fight the evils of motordom all day long.

Oh, and pedestrians don鈥檛 always do what they鈥檙e supposed to do, either. So expect it and cut them some slack. Yelling at pedestrians is the cycling equivalent of rolling coal.

Equipment Matters

• Use lights鈥攁 red one on the rear, a white one in the front.
• Wider tires offer better traction, and are less susceptible to road imperfections.
• An upright position not only gives you better visibility but makes it less likely you鈥檒l go over the bars in a crash.
• Is it wet where you live? Fenders help keep you dry; being dry keeps you comfortable; being comfortable means you can focus more on the ride and less on how miserable you feel.
• Is it hot where you live? Get your bag off your body and put it on your bike instead. This will help keep you cool; being cool keeps you comfortable, and so forth. (See above.)
• You don鈥檛 need foot retention to be a 鈥渞eal cyclist.鈥� For certain types of cycling clipless pedals might enhance your experience, but most of the time flat pedals arguably superior. Also, plenty of novice cyclists still think you should use toe clips.聽 Toe clips are pointless. All they do is create yet another opportunity to fall down. .

Remember Who鈥檚 in Control (Hint: It鈥檚 You)

Riders on social media will often complain that the assholes parked in the bike lanes are forcing cyclists into traffic. Remember: you鈥檙e a cyclist. Nobody can force you to do anything. Yes, you are more vulnerable in the sense that you鈥檙e not in a steel box full of air bags, but thanks to the fact that you鈥檙e riding a light, nimble, and efficient machine you also have more freedom than pretty much anyone else out there on the road. Freedom is power. Is the asshole in the bike lane creating a potentially dangerous situation? Is the traffic outside of the bike lane too dangerous? Just hop off the bike, get on the sidewalk, and walk around it. No, the driver hasn鈥檛 won in this case. Would you rather be right or鈥� well, you get it.

This holds true beyond the bike lane as well. Exercise your control when planning your route, and apply all of the above when you do so. Don鈥檛 pick the shortest route because you鈥檙e in a rush; choose the safest route because you want to enjoy the ride in comfort. And remember you鈥檝e got nothing to prove to anybody: if riding in the rain or the dark or the cold makes you uncomfortable then make alternate arrangements and save the ride for another day.

Ultimately, you can鈥檛 control the behaviors of others, but you have complete control over your own behavior. You鈥檝e also got the power to avoid conflicts instead of engaging in them, and to avoid potentially dangerous situations, and to choose being a happy cyclist instead over being an angry one. The key to enjoying the ride is enjoying the ride. Figure out how to do that and the rest has a way of taking care of itself.

The post Five Bike-Safety Tips That Are More Important than Wearing a Helmet appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.