Rivendell News

Here da Hunqa...(by Jay)

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:17:11 +0000

Vaughn and I rode in this morning with prototype Hunqapillar 62cm (My PBH is 92) It doesn't have any paint on it, those pics/videos will come later.

Watch the Hunqapillar here.

-Jay

Slight, but not a thousand percent, change in topic

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:38:32 +0000

The Hunqaprotos are due today, one of each size, and all unpainted. We'll shoot some pictures and put them up here. We haven't rec'd the decals yet, so it may be a week before we paint them, or maybe we'll paint them now and put the thin kind of decals on, the kind that are supposed to get clear-coated over but in this case won't, because we just want to make them rideable (I never get that word right) as soon as possible.
Pedalling and pedaling are both correct, by the way. I use the one-L way because why add an extra letter even if the dictionary has your back on it? It looks funny and people will think you're dumb.

So are toward and towards both correct. The British people who live in England like the S, always have and will. That's how they do it over there.

Nauseous means sickening, not sick. Nauseated is sick. Your loved ones cannot be nauseous (to you), but they can be nauseated, and may get that way if they see something nauseous.

Penultimate means "next to last," not "super ultimate" or something. I'm not a master at this, I just know a few things, like these.

Ordinarily we'd put Protovelo stickers on the Hunqaprotos, because at this point that's what they are, but this time the graphics are different from our normal way, and we have to see how they look. The suggestion and first plan was (as it says in RR42, which is online and will be mailed in paper in one week to those who sent in their $4 already)--yep, the plan was dark grey or gray with kidney-bean red panels and head tube; but at the last minute I also added (to the decal order), some 'cals with blue and some more with orange panels, just to see.

There will be some minor metal changes in the frame itself. We know that already. Mainly now we'll check clearances.

In the bag oven baking away are three new Sackvilles at least, and one isn't even a bike bag. It's perfect for riding, something I've used for decades now, based on a Swiss Medic bag, but bigger and more useful in more ways.

Panniers are coming, too, but we have lots of things to work out first, and the prototypes aren't here. There are so many good panniers out there already, and I wish we could just snap fingers and have them in our materials. We have a hard time getting the hardware, but I've bent and broken pannier hardware several times, and my preference is always to do without it, as long as the bag doesn't suffer for it.

-----

Now that we have steel seat posts and steel stems, I'm intrigued by the possibility of a steel Noodle bar. The Alba bar comes in steel already, but a steel road (not track) drop bar---not a Bad Idea. We'd end it there--no steel cranks or rims. A Nitto aluminum bar is as safe as a non-steel bar gets, though, and way safer than you know what.

We'll have a fancy new Double road crank any minute now. Sugino-made and about $300 with rings and no BB. The best deal in a crank is still the XD-2, the Sugino we sell now. It's planets ahead of all other cranks in that way, but a certain percentage of riders don't want a crank that inexpensive on their bike. When you consider the cost of a new racing crank, this new Sugino double will still be a good deal. Nothing looks like a good deal compared to an XD-2 triple for $110, so let's not even talk about that anymore.

Reader-customer sent this link. An oldie but goodie from the 2006 Paris-Roubaix:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9hqUJIwpRc

In this case it was an aluminum steerer. The British, of course, say aluminium. ("Let's organise our aluminium steerers by fork colour, so we can ride towards the hills," is how they'd say it.) Aluminum is better than carbon in certain uses, but still less-than-steel, especially in a steering component, like a steerer. A crack in stressed aluminum grows fast. He suffered no serious injury, but coulda. That'll be the last carbon thing for a while. I don't want to get a reputation, we have other things to do, and so on.

Followups on Grant's carbon bashing, now with Dead Squirrel Scrolls

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:22:59 +0000

Some on the Riv Forum---one of the most polite and friendly groups on the net---don't like it when I "bash carbon", and so...

Listen (or don't...). If you'd seen what I've seen, and heard the stories I've heard, and you had the podium I have and didn't use it---I'd call you irresponsible (and I'd expect to be called the same, if you knew what I'd seen and saw me saying nothing).

It would be a luxury to be a casual observer in this, and it's a burden to not be one. It puts me in the position of either not saying anything and calling myself a schmuck for it; or saying something and being called a schmuck for it. Since I don't go to bed with you every night, I defer to me.

Carbon has many phenomenal properties, and under the best conditions it is THEORETICALLY superior to any other structural material. But carbon is not carbon is not carbon. Just being "carbon fiber" doesn't mean anything....except lightness, and I guess that means a lot in some circles. It is the lowest common denominator.

Boeing spends tens of millions of dollars and a decade testing the carbon it uses in its airplanes, and its QC standards are way higher than those in the bike industry.

The bike industry doesn't do that kind of testing. It recognizes a trend and hops on it fast. I'm not saying NO testing, but it can't afford the rigorous testing employed by the aerospace makers. If the testing is so good, how come so many carbon bits fail? Carbon is like a super-buff boxer with lightning-fast hands, a long reach, trained by Angelo Dundee, but with a 21-20-3 record.

About two and a half years ago, 63-year old bike shop owner Ed McLaughlin was riding in a group of riders, slowly noodling along a mulit-use path at 8mph. He rode into a bollard, his fork snapped, and he's a quadriplegic now. If his fork were steel, I'd bet a million bucks he'd have felt a jolt, maybe crashed, but not as dramatically. What's done is done, and it's too bad we can't turn back the clock and intervene. So we (I) intervene when I can, and that's now.

Is it better to not mention this or better to mention it in the hope that it'll give somebody out there pause before buying the same new bike he was riding (he was a bike shop owner, after all). Is this a bad use of "using" Ed's tragic accident to sell a few steel forks? You can twist it any way you like, but I'm pretty sure nobody who knows me would twist it that-a-way.

A friend of one of my employees took his carbon mtn bike out on its maiden ride, rode over a dip (compressing bump), and the fork snapped. The company gave him a new one. Would you ride the new one? For how long, and with how much confidence? He sold it---which, I suppose, has its own bag of karma, but at least he was off that bike.

I could go on. I've had sword fights with carbon and steel forks. A fresh carbon fork can buckle a steel fork. But "buckling" isn't losing, and this is what's so important to understand if you have any hope of seeing straight with these failures. Buckling is what a structure ought to do when it's traumatized by a blow. Steel nails buckle when mis hit, but can be straightened again. Carbon nails, like carbon frames and forks don't buckle. A carbon fork that's been compromised by a gouge (I've done this, I've had this sword fight) will snap in half when smacked by a steel fork with a similar gouge.

Bike forks aren't swords, but the sword fight speaks clearly to how steel and carbon respond to trauma, and trauma can happen on a bike ride. It does all the time.

You WANT a fork that bends and buckles. There's no advantage to shattering----- Shattering is dangerous, and yet, that's what carbon forks do.

All to save twelve ounces, and you get horrible tire clearance, too (on a road fork).
Some people on the Forum don't like it when I say bad things about carbon.

I wish this weren't the case, and maybe it won't always be the case. But right now it IS the case.

I could (hypothetically) sit tight in our steel-bike niche and figure we'll get our share of business playing the "classic" or "nostalgic" angle, but I don't like angles of any kind. And to play up steel on the basis of the past, to promote it as the underdog--so let's vote for it---doesn't address what really matters: Steel is the safest frame and fork material in the world. And that alone makes it the best. It "fails" slowly and predictably. It is more tolerant of internal gremlins and external gouges than any other material. It's what you want to trust your neck to.

I'm not going to spout out about this neverendingly, but I feel like I have to say something. I fully recognize that stating these things so declaratively makes me look like a jerk, somebody with some kind of steel axe to grind---and by the way, why can't Grant just do his quaint tweed-n-steel thing and be a meek mole in the peat bog?

I would LOVE to be able to, but --- now, don't take this the wrong way ---- I know too much, I've seen too much, so I can't just shut up.

No doubt steel forks break, too. And statistically, we're bound to have it happen here. No doubt some people will delight in that happening, in seeing me and Rivendell embarassed, shamed, and shut up.

But two key things: It won't be because we were too lazy to build forks ourselves, or because we were being guided by the market, or because we thought it was important to save 12 ounces on a bike-and-rider combo that weights 160 pounds or more.

In the meantime, we have to make forks, and the best thing to make them out of is steel. The new NOMOCA forks we're coming out with are not a smart business move, but it's something we can do.

What good am I, if I know and don't do?
If I see and don't say, if I look right through you
If I turn a deaf ear to the thunderin' sky
What good am I?

--Bob Dylan.

Letter from Joe Thomas.

I read your thoughts on the RBW site and thought I'd chime in. I'll preface this by stating that while I'm not a material scientist, I do have a mechanical engineering degree and I've worked in system safety and reliability on the space station and space shuttle programs for the last 22 years.

That said, carbon fiber is a wonderful material *IF* it's laid up in a manner appropriate for its intended use.No one would argue that it's very strong but the key is the stiffness

.It can be made to be incomparably stiff, as in a Formula 1 race car chassis, or fantastically flexible, as in a Shakespeare Ugly Stik fishing rod.

What it can't be, though, is resilient. Either it works or it doesn't; there's no in-between. Damage it and it's done.

Ever seen an off-road vehicle or race car with a carbon roll cage? No, and you won't because it doesn't give. When it fails, it fails completely. Now, I can see that it's a great RACE bike material, if you're a high level professional competitor who doesn't have to ride the same bike for more than a season or two but for the recreational rider who can't afford to plop down several K every few years (and who isn't a delusional racer wannabe), it makes little sense.

This effect is magnified for anyone who tours. If you suffer even a mild structural failure with a carbon bike, your tour is over. There's no fixing that. In contrast, the local welder in Quinter, Kansas, can shore up your steel bike well enough to let you finish the ride. Aluminum and titanium are also fixable but in decreasing degree due to the more specialized skill required. Carbon has its place in the bike world, no doubt, but it's far from the be-all, end-all of materials.
--Joe Thomas

RELATED INTERNET MEMES:

Squirrel brakes bike, breaks aluminum fork

Squirrel breaks a carbon fork

Dead Squirrel Scrolls at this link
(from http://cloudbaseimaging.blogspot.com/2008/06/squirrels-and-carbon-forks-dont-mix.html )

Update to yesterday's post (after yesterday's post)

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:07:01 +0000

Over the years we've collected a small pile of bruised and bent and busted bikes, accident victims that haven't seen a road or whatever in a long time. The individual histories don't matter and are long forgotten anyway, but when you see, for example, a buckled downtube and top tube on the same bike, and the fork is missing, it's clear the guy ran into something big that didn't give.
We have plenty of "roof-racked" frames, too. Being driven into the garage while still up on top buckles a bike a certain way, too---depending on which way it was facing.

Now, if these were any material other than steel, they'd be landfill or garbage, but they're steel. so they're rebuildable, and they're worth rebuilding. That was the plan when we didn't toss them years ago.

Bleriots, Rams, Atlantises, at least one custom, and some others. We'll look at them and figure out the best thing to do---not to bring them back to exactly the way they were, ncessarily, but close and often even better. We can move bridges and increase clearance and change brake requirements and build a new fork to match, and on biggies, add a second top tube. We're going to use lugs that fit the joint and in most cases won't be the same lug as the original, because that'll be our way of telling that it's not an original, maybe in 20 years or whenever.

No matter, that shouldn't wig-out anybody. It's not a travesty, it's a good, functional, creative, quirky use of superfine lugs, and it'll result in a one-of-a-kind frame.

Then we'll paint the bike one color most of the time, and put on either a Resurrectio decal, or something else we come up with between now and then. We may sell the frame as a frame, or build it up as a bike.

The main thing is: This is yet another reason steel rules the world in bicycle frame materials. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Carbon rules the market, steel rules the world. That's fine.

We'll start seeing these in a month or so. We're in no rush, so they'll trickle in as they do. There's no wait list, no details to not divulge. When they're ready we'll lay it all out there. We don't expect a feeding frenzy, and certainly don't want one...but we'll tell a good story about each frame or bike, and we'll post the info here, with plenty-o-pix.

----

Almost at $25K for Smile Train.

Not heard about the fund we have going? Read here:

http://www.smiletrain.org/goto/rivendell

See what SmileTrain is all about in this video.

G

UPdate

It's entirely a matter of---we have these injured frames, and we SAY steel can be fixed, and we've done it tons already, but there are these frames around that--well, when a frame needs a top tube and a downtube (both often get scrunched in front-end impacts), it's easiest to replace the head tube, too; and at that point the fork is gone. But seat tubes, rear triangles--usually undamaged.
In the past, insurance has paid for replacement frames, and often when it hasn't we've sold replacements for sympathy prices (when there was no insurance). We try to put ourselves in the place of the guy who wrecked his pride & joy, and do for him as we'd want somebody to do for us--kind of thing.

And when I say "as good as new or better," I mean it. It's not like fixing a broken baseball bat with a screw and tape. In the world of steel frames, this stuff is doable entirely. The "improvements" aren't that it'll be brazed any better....more like in some cases we'll increase clearance, or add a braze-on or a second top tube--- and whether that's an improvement or not depends on the use and your point of view.

Our operating costs are what they are, but I hope nobody thinks we price things to pay for frivolties or ridiculous salaries around here, because we don't. And we have the cheapest per square foot ($0.90) rent in all of Walnut Creek. We've never pushed the limits, and we try to keep things as lean as possible while still employing good people and paying respectable wages and benefits.

But all that said, this whole project will be cathartic, therapeutic, exciting for us here, and fun. That's the point. We may auction them, we may donate all or some to charities. On that note, I hope nobody gets the idea that the charity stuff is a sign that we're rolling in dough. It's more a matter of---charities are hurting because big companies are laying off a nd hurting, and they watch their dollars better than we do. So small companies have to pick up the slack a little, and we're just trying to do that.

We aren't going to push the envelope or whatever it is on prices, but we'll take a look at what we have into them, and see where it goes. We may sell them ONLY as complete bikes, taking a hit on the frames but selling new parts. Just don't know yet.

We also have some prototypes that are perfectly good and sellable. A 52 Bombadil with a single top tube.....a Roadeo with a different crown than we ended up using; and so on.

All of our lugs are our own, but on the refixedup bikes, I like the idea of throwing in a rogue lug--still ours, but not an original replacement. My thoughts on that have changed (evolved or devolved) over the years. I know the way of thinking that says all lugs on a bike should match. It's not hard to do, and we do it on most bikes.

But to me, a little surprise or assymetry in the lugs has its own appeal. It may be because I look at frames differently than a collectoseur does.

I've seen too many finely detailed prize-winners that win the superficial points and fail the fundamentals---clearance, balance of clearance, a front half that matches the rear half, purpose that matches the use, fit that matches the rider, and hours of handwork on tiny unimportant things when one or two of three of the basics fall flat, because the builder didn't know or didn't have --- well, the best way to say it, and the fairest, is "didn't have the same priorities I have." <--- that was one long sentence.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks and all, and I think I'm not explaining this well, but getting back to the resurrected frames: They'll cost more than a Surley, but we'll keep 'em down as much as possible, and they may be auctioned, anyway. The first one, at least, and then we'll see how it goes.

Bike of the Week #1 with new note at the end there...

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:27:36 +0000

SOLD! $3,000. Congratulations!

Top bid: $3,000 from F.F.

We're trying something new.. For the next however-many weeks, if this works, we'll be auctioning off one bike spec'd by a staff member as his dream bike. The starting bid is a low $2000, for a bike that's worth over $4,000 (see the build invoice). Anything over $3,800 goes to SmileTrain.

Any taxes and shipping costs will be added to the final bid. Shipping is $110 California, $120 West of the Mississippi, $130 East of the Mississipi. Locals pick up here. Californians pay the tax for the county the bike is delivered to.

Up first: Keven's Bomber. It's not literally his. It's a brand-new bike that he spec'd out.

Lots of lugs, shining silver, beautiful big-tire Bombadil. A mountain-tour-trail-commute bike that can adapt to almost anything rough, and will surely be leading an active life under somebody (maybe you if you're in your twenties) in half a century..

Bidding stops at Noon (California time) on Wednesday March 3rd.

We don't know what to expect, and it'll be a happy day if somebody gets this bike cheap, but after one or two bikes go out tooooo cheap, we're probably going to post some others on eBay. Because basically....we're after sustainability. But---good luck to everybody, and we'd prefer to keep the bikes here, on rivBay.

Email bids to john@rivbike.com

The pamphlet.

The build. (Updated)

Hunqacontest (mini)

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:47:38 +0000

Update: The Hunqa contest is over. Winners have been notified. Answers in Peaking Through The Knothole below. While it was technically for the first 10 members who got it right, we did closer to 20, just to allow for slow internet connections or whatever. There were probably close to 80 or 90 correct answers all together. We'll do another one real soon. Thank you! -John, Coupon Maker .

I've been scolded high & low (not by anybody here) for not blogging enough, so that's why I've been doing it, and I'll try to make entries worth your time. This one may be, and it won't take much time. Click here. No prize for finding the typo(s). This will disappear in a day or so, and the typos will be archived forever.
It's a preview, sort of an ultrasound, of the Hunqapillar badge. Craftily made by Hook-Fast, in the smallest state in the union.

How to improve bike photos five to fifteen %, NOW WITH EXAMPLES

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:08:15 +0000

Just things to think about if you want to shoot some good photos and haven't given it much thought. Nothing carved in stone here, but lots of opinions . . . This post will remain up for about two days.

At the end of this there's a link with examples of still-bike photos. It'll upload a PDF to your desktop, or wherever they go. Zoom in to read & view.

STILL PHOTOS OF BIKES AGAINST WALLS, etc.

1. Shoot the drive side.
Whenever possible, and if it's your bike or a friend's bike it's always possible, shoot the right/drive side. If you shoot the left side of the bike, nobody can see the crank and derailers, and everybody wants to see those.

When you shoot the bike on the street you always get the wrong side of it, because that's how people park it, and that's where you are as you walk by it. It's hard to get a good picture of a stranger's bike, because you can't just move it around.

Also, our eyes are used to moving left to right. It's how we read and write, and so a bike that's heading left to right looks more natural. No doubt in Japan and other countries where they read right to left, this is less of a benefit. And in those countries, a bike with left-side drive would probably look better, aiming left. But as it is, showing the drive side components, even in Japan, trumps the bike's direction. It just so happens that here in America, a bike headed to the right wins both points.

2. Back up and zoom in. Split the handlebar.
The bike looks cleaner and less confusing and is just overall a more pleasant subject to look at when you make everything look proportional and clear. When you're shooting the whole bike, don't get in close with a wide angle lens. With most cameras, this throws everything out of whack. The wheels look different sizes, and the handlebar looks a mess.

Instead, back up at least twenty-five feet and zoom in. Then, shoot from an angle that makes the bike look like it's split in half vertically. Hide the left (far) side of the handlebar behind the near side of it, so you see only one brake lever, and there's as little evidence as possible that there's even a left-side handlebar. The ONLY way to do this is by backing up and using a longer lens. I think.

A bike photographed this way has same-sized wheels and looks right.

3. Shoot in the shade to avoid shadows.
There may be artsy ways of using shadows, but if the goal is a clear photograph of the bike, not some moody art shot, then keep shadows out of it.

4. Watch your backgrounds
If the bike is the subject and the shot is posed in a semi-contrived setting, use a plain background, or at least a consistent one. A brick wall isn't plain, but is consistent. A barn door---not plain, but consistent. The entire background should be the same. Don't just lean it against a table outside a caf and shoot away.

Your goal is to make the bike stand out and make the background not distract. When the background is a complicated scene of Chinese New Year celebrations, machines, and muggings, keep the bike in focus and blur the background. (Cameras that let you control the aperture make this easy.)

When possible, shoot against a background that's white, off-white, grey, or black.
Whatever looks right with the bike. Bright colors are distracting. We shoot bikes against our white roll-up doors, and the lines are distracting, but --- what we do and what is ideal aren't always the same.

5. Keep the cables, crop the wheels (a little)
If the bike has cables sticking up, show all of them. But if the focus is the bike's frame and parts, it's good to crop a few inches of the wheels out. This enlarges the rest of the bike, and you aren't eliminating anything that matters.

6. Don't get too wound up about perfection.
Catalogue shots of bikes used to show the tires with the labels legible, usually at 12:00 and 6:00, and with the valve stems either at 6:00, or hidden behind the chainstay and the fork blade. When it's your bike or your friend's bike, or a shot for eBay or whatever, that's too fussy. It's helpful to know some of these ideas and options, but draw your own line.

Pictures of riders on bikes

1. Apply the same rule (not law) of shooting the bike heading right, and showing the drive-side components. It's not so easy to do that here in Japan or England than in America, on roads shared with cars. It's easier on trails or bike paths or in , but you still need to have them ride on the left side, and try to find a good spot to shoot from off the road on the right.

2. Shoot them coming into you, not riding away.
It just looks better, more inviting. Maybe that comes from a preference for seeing a dinner animal come toward you, rather than running away; or having your parents come home, as opposed to leaving you; or preferring to look at faces instead of butts. That may all be hogwash, but shoot coming and going, and see what you like.

3. Try to shoot riders with their right pedal between 2:00 and 3:00. Besided being at maximum flex, it just looks more active, and in a still photo, that counts.

4. Tell your subjects what to wear . . .
. . . if you want them to think you're a controlling weirdo jerk. But honestly, if you're going out for a ride expressly to come back with some good pictures and they don't have a preference, leave the black at home. Navy, too. Dark colors are too easily underexposed and usually lack detail, and you end up with heads suspended above blackness, and arms coming out of the dark. You can see examples of this in some of the homepage photos of Sean in his black wooly. Near the end of the bunch. The one of him riding up the road with the green grass and grey sky would've looked great if he'd had one of our wine-red tops on, but no....he had to wear black.
In color photos, red looks great, and plaid looks great, and if you can combine the two, in a nicely composed scene, it's going to look fine.

5. Helmets in the woods . . .
. . . make the rider look just plucked from a Sci-Fi movie set, or at least like an intruder who doesn't belong. People get all nuts about published photos of helmetless riders, but not every photo sends a message. It can be just an image; and if you think brilliant super-vented elongated and aerodynamic helmets complement any bucolic or idyllic outdoor landscape, then we disagree.The least photo-wrecking bike helmets are plain looking ones, and not white. The photographer's dream helmet looks like a coonskin cap.

Race team jerseys in the woods don't belong, either. They're covered with advertisements and corporate logos, and they wreck woodsy photo.

6. Camera angle
The easiest camera angle is rider's head height, but it's also the worst. When all is in place, the head-height camera can work, but getting the camera well above or below the rider makes even lousy photos at least less predictable, more interesting.

7. Rule of Thirds
It's an old and good rule (not law) for any photo. Visually divide the scene into three equal parts both vertically and horizontally, and try to put the subject at the line intersections. When riders are the subject and you follow the other rules already mentioned, that'll put them coming toward the camera on the left side of the photo.
This isn't the secret to a good photo, but it's a guide many good photographers use.

When you have both land and sky in the photoor road and land whichever one of them you want to emphasize should make up two-thirds of the photo. In this case there aren't any imaginary intersections to guide you, but there are imaginary horizontal lines.

8. Don't let the road itself eat up the hole lower half of the photo
unless the road itself happens to be the subject.
Otherwise, don't let it get so big. It's easy to let that happen when you're concentrating on the rider. You can save a half-road photo by cropping it from the bottom, but be aware it as you're composing, and you'll have to crop less and less often.

The link:

slack off & buff up (formerly don't ride toooooo much)

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:04:06 +0000

In 1985, pro bicycle rider Joop Zoetemelk was a contestant in a European fitness competition that pitted pro athletes against one another in areas outside their specialties, of course. He was a pro for 18 years, completed a record 16 Tours de France, finished second five times and won it once.

The year of the contest, Zoetemelk had won the World Championship Road Race, and now here he was at the bar-dip station. Starting in the up position, he let himself down and couldn't push himself back up. Not one dip.

By bike racing standards, he was arguably the fittest bicycle racer alive, and that should tell you all you need to know about the kind of fitness a focused dedication to long miles gives you. All legs, and a cardiovascular system well trained for one thing.

Bicycle riding can be your main form of exercise, but it isn't all-around enough to justify more than about two-thirds of your exercise time.
It does almost nothing for your upper body. It's not load-bearing, so it doesn't fend off osteoporosis. The repetitive motion leads to muscle specialization, and that leads to diminishing returns (muscles become too efficient at things they do all the time, and so the better you are, the fewer the benefits) and it takes lots of time away from other exercises that lead to all-around fitness.

This is good news, and it's not anti-riding!
It means instead of grinding yourself down for fifty miles, or maybe a hard thirty-five, ride easier for ten or twenty, or five or ten. You'll enjoy the ride more (if you dread beating yourself up), and you'll ride for fun, not to ward off guilt for not riding.

With the hour-and-a-half or two and a half you save, you have time for a half-hour walk with your spouse or the dog or both, forty jumping jacks, twenty push-ups, and a half hour of chasing the Frisbee. Or reading, or pursuing something else that makes you well-rounded (perhaps a bad choice of words there) and happy.

When you cut short your ride and use a small fraction of the time saved to do a few push-ups or go for a walk, you'll have used more muscles and done your body way more good than riding an extra ten, twenty, or thirty miles. Mixing up your exercise makes it go faster, breaks the tedium, and is way better for you than just more riding, with its localized, efficient feet-twirling. Confuse your muscles by changing things around and you'll get more benefit. You don't want to be one of those guys who rides ten thousand miles a year and is still chunky for it.

Chunky, fine---but chunky plus 10,000 miles is a sign you're doing something wrong, and it's probably too much pedaling. It's easy, if you weigh more than you wish you did (and who doesn't?) to get into a trap where you think Holy cow poop---I'm doing all this riding and I still can't lose weight? If I cut back my miles, I'll positively balloon!

It don't work that way. Cut back your carbs and road miles, walk more, do other exercises that aren't nearly as time-consuming. Eighty percent of your body shape & size is determined by what you don't eat, anyway. Exercise just tones the underlying muscles show they show up a bit and makes it easier to do stuff. But if the only stuff you do is twirl your legs in circles, you may die someday because you can't hold onto a safety rope.

Still now: Bike riding can be and maybe should be the foundation of your whole heathy-thing you got going on. It's hard to get injured on the bike, it works your leg muscles so well, and those keep you strong and mobile and balanced throughout old age, even. It's easy on your joints, which is why it's the No. 1 exercise in rehab facilities all over the world.
But it works too few muscles in too repetitive ways to take up more than about 66.67 percent of your exercise time. Tomorrow (today if you're reading this on Saturday, and it'll be taken down on Sunday) I'm going to slog up the mountain here, anyway, because I'm used to it and it's fun. I'll walk the dog later and try to see if I can beat Joop Zoetemelk's dip record. Dips are hard. Don't be bummed if you can't do one, they're really hard. Do something else with that meat above your waist.

Make Friends With Mr. Burpie

They're they antithesis of a long, smooth ride on a bicycle, and that's the point. They work different muscles, and they work them hard, and they don't take any time at all.
Four-count jumping burpie
    1.    Start from a standing position. Compress to a squat, with your hands on the floor by your feet.
    2.    Extend your legs rearward, supporting your body with straight arms.
    3.    Spring your legs back to the squat position.
    4.    Jump up as high as you can.
Each one takes about three or four seconds. Start with however many you can do, and add one a week until you can do fifteen or twenty. Do them more often than you like---at least 3 sets a week. It does you more good in a shorter time than anything else.

Six-count jumping burpie
Like the four-count, but insert a down-up (two-count) pushup between steps two and three.
OK, that's it. This is not a fitness site, but since these posts come and go 5x a week now, there's got to be some variety.

SMILE TRAIN UPDATE: We're still $7k short. We subsidize your donations heavily. Click here for details, and good job so far...

http://www.smiletrain.org/goto/rivendell

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 05:43:28 +0000

Bicycle riding can be your main form of exercise, but it isn't all-around enough to justify more than about two-thirds of your exercise time. It does almost nothing for your upper body. It's not load-bearing, so it doesn't fend off osteoporosis. The repetitive motion leads to muscle specialization, and the time it takes time away from exercises that lead to all-around fitness.

This is good news, and it's not anti-the-bike! It means instead of grinding yourself down for fifty miles, or maybe a hard thirty-five, ride easier for ten or twenty, or five or ten. You'll enjoy the ride more (if you dread beating yourself up), and you'll ride for fun, not to ward off guilt for not riding. With the hour-and-a-half or two and a half you save, you have time for a half-hour walk with your spouse or the dog or both, forty jumping jacks, twenty push-ups, and a half hour of chasing the Frisbee.

You'll have used more muscles and done your body way more good. Mixing up your exercise makes it go faster, breaks the tedium, and is way better for you than just more riding, with its localized, efficient feet-twirling.

Still now: Bike riding can be and maybe should be the foundation of your whole heathy-thing you got going on. It's hard to get injured on the bike, it works your leg muscles so well, and those keep you strong and mobile and balanced throughout old age, even. It's easy on your joints, which is why it's the No. 1 exercise in rehab facilities all over the world.

But it works too few muscles in too repetitive ways to take up more than about 66.67 percent of your exercise time. Tomorrow (today if you're reading this on Saturday, and it'll be taken down on Sunday) I'm going to slog up the mountain here, anyway, because I'm used to it and it's fun. I'll walk the dog later and try to see if I can beat Joop Zoetemelk's dip record. Dips are hard. Don't be bummed if you can't do one, they're really hard. Do something else with that meat above your waist.

Here's an exercise to jolt you into shape and make you appreciate your bike rides even more ()

Burpies, either four- or six-count

They're they antithesis of a long, smooth ride on a bicycle, and that's the point. They work different muscles, and they work them hard, and they don't take any time at all.

Four-count jumping burpie

Start from a standing position. Compress to a squat, with your hands on the floor by your feet.
Extend your legs rearward, supporting your body with straight arms.
Spring your legs back to the squat position.
Jump up as high as you can.

Each one takes about three or four seconds. Start with however many you can do, and add one a week until you can do fifteen or twenty. Do them more often than you like---at least 3 sets a week. It does you more good in a shorter time than anything else.

Six-count jumping burpie

Like the four-count, but insert a down-up (two-count) pushup between steps two and three.

OK, that's it. This is not a fitness site, but since these posts come and go 5x a week now, there's got to be some variety.

SMILE TRAIN UPDATE: We're still $7k short. We subsidize your donations heavily. Click here for details, and good job so far...

http://www.smiletrain.org/goto/rivendell

Long letter and answer about internal gears and so on.NOW, with more FOLLOW-UP at the end..

Rivendell Bicycle Works — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:57:30 +0000

(Part of our new "nearly a new posting every day here" program)

Nick W. wrote:
My perspective on bicycle riding is as a commuter (13 mile round trip every day) and errands. I own several cars but almost never use them just by myself. I'm 55 and just average fitness. I'd like to take overnight trips and even travel by bike, but I've never actually done that. I don't know anybody who is interested in bicycles as transportation; every cyclist I know is either a gung ho mountain biker or roadie wannabee. No sweat, but that means I've had to figure out bicycle setup and gear without the advice of more experienced cyclists. What I've settled on is that I want an upright riding position with a wide sprung saddle and pull back handle bars. I want an internally geared rear hub, a dynamo front hub, fenders, chain guard, kickstand, rear luggage rack, front basket. All of these set up decisions are based on having a comfortable bike with low maintenance and not being concerned with weight or speed.

It seems that you also have these same concerns and set up desires but they've lead you to a bike with drop bars, narrower seat, and front & rear derailleurs. So my question is why derailleurs and drop bars? Isn't a 7, 8, or 14 speed rear hub a lot easier, simpler to use with a lot less maintenance and adjustment? Isn't an upright riding position with pull back handle bars instead of drops a lot more comfortable? Does the difference have to do with length of trip? I thought that maybe the upright position is more comfortable for trips under 10 miles and less comfortable for trips that are 2 or 3 or 10 times that distance? What about speed? Does your preferred setup make a little comfort compromise for the sake of better speed? Maybe the answer is simply personal preference but it seems to me that you know more about this than I do and have design basis reasons that aren't just personal preference. Another way to put this is that I'd like to understand reasons for preferring a certain setup based on practicality and not on fashion or market force. Fashion might be a reasonable concern but its not my concern.

My second question is maybe simpler. Have you considered selling a bike with an internal geared rear hub? If you did would it have to have a chain tensioner or could you have adjustable rear drop outs or adjustable bottom bracket? Have you considered a bike with a drive shaft or belt drive instead of a chain?

Like I say, I don't have anyone to discuss these ideas with so if you or Peter White or Sheldon Brown (rip) don't write about them then I'm not sure what to think.

Sincerely,
Nick W.

So I answered:
Hi Nick,
My tandem and Atlantis have Albatross bars. If I had to pick one bar forever it would be that bar. Plus, we've promoted upright sweepy bars more than most expensive bike places, and so---I think you've read some of our site etc, but maybe not enough and not that part. It's OK, there's a lot to dig through.
Your experience with local riders is pretty normal. The average Joe bike guy is head to toe spandex and rides in race costumes, believing that he's going faster, or that without it his crotch would be scraped raw, or that he'd go slow without the shoes. It's not easy to get out of that, and many never do, but they may enjoy the ritualistic dress and all that goes with it. The functional arguments aren't there, though.

About riding position, I'd say it goes about like this: A bar with a rise and a sweep-back (like the Albatross) can make up for a bike that's too small or long or for any combo of reasons makes you lean too much with drop bars, or flat bars on long, stretchy mountain bikes. BUT, and this is a big thing here, there is nothing inherently uncomfortable about drop bars. The shape is smart, and offers lots of hand positions.

The key is to get the bars high enough (in the comfort zone), and close enough. Not right in front of your ribs or anything, but certainly high enough to take weight off your hands and to not require an uncomfortable lean. Most bikes have the bars too low, and they can't get higher because the steer tubes are cut short, the stems are the clamp-on kind. You can get a steep rising angle, but that looks atrocious and it's usually not enough, anyway.

The big deal with our bikes, and the way we fit any bike, is that we get the drop bars well up into the comfort zone, so you can take advantage of the lotsa-hand-positions. Bar position, not shape, is the big deal.

Internal gears, etc.
We get this question or some variation of it many times a year. Eight or so. Sometimes, I'm not saying now, with you, but sometimes it's more of an accusation than a question---like, if you guys don't talk about and sell bikes with Rohloff hubs or Sturmey-Archer gears, then you must be against them. How come you hate them so much?
We don't hate them so much. We're a small company with limited resources and a website that sometimes gives a different impression. We just can't do everything, and so we focus on what we know best, and everybody here grew up with derailers and is comfortable with them.

The innards of a Rohloff or SA hub---or Shimano, for that matter---amaze and befuddle me. I understand how they work, with the planetary gears and all, and I know for a scientific fact that the designers are about ten times smarter than I am. How did they come up with it?
For some riding and some riders they're the way to go. (That's why we haven't campaigned against them!)
Internal gears were developed for --- well, one could say "all weather riding," but I'd say something along the lines of "crappy weather riding, and/or for riders who refuse to do any maintenance whatsoever." If I were riding my bike to the Birmingham coal mines every day and I got home too bushed to brush my teeth, I'd go for an internal gear and hope the gear-chain dealybob didn't slip and leave me spinning air.
I think---not for all, but for sure for some riders, there's romance in their history of utilitarianism, and how they're so un-racy.

But it's a rare morning for most Americans when the challenge is a sleety ride though a mucky peat bog. A typical bad weather ride is a commute on wet streets, or a ride on a muddy trail. I'd take external gears for that, any day, even if I were the only one, and here's why.

If I get a flat or have any mechanical difficulty in bad weather, I want to be able to diagnose the problem instantly, and the black box of internal gears doesn't let me do that. A fully enclose chain case (often touted as the way to go in bad weather) makes fixing a flat a pain in the neck. No matter how stout the tires, IF you get a flat, you're screwed. I don't buy the argument that exposed everything leads to more problems. I've ridden in too much muck to swallow that, and cyclo-cross racers do it for a living, with external gears.
Some riders--and I know Sheldon was one of them---understood internals completely, and could or can overhaul them with their hands tied behind their back, but I'm not one of them, and nobody who works here is. But we do ride our bikes all year long in challenging and crappy conditions, and now and then a half-chainring guard shows up on one of the bikes around here, but for the most part, everything's external, so the rare problem can be found and fixed fast.
BUT, internal gears have been around for more than a hundred years, and they'll be here long after I'm not. It all comes down to me and everybody else here at Rivendell dealing with what we know, and we know external gears more.
We have NOT ruled out an internal bike forever, but for now, it's not in the works. We aren't up to speed on them.
Belt drives are fine, but I'm not into them, and replacing the belt requires a removable seat-stay. Again, it's good for some things, there's tons of room for lots of different and good kinds of bikes, but for the most part, I think belt drives are an overreaction to getting a grease mark. Shaft-drives---way over my head. I hear they're even less efficient than internal gears, though. And you're limited to one speed, aren't you?
G

Now, two emails rec'd from readers...

Dear Grant,
Enjoyed your response to Nick W.'s letter re. internally geared hubs. I live in Germany where these things are everywhere and thought I'd chime in. You're right on about the "no maintenance" part. SRAM 7 and 8 speed hubs are defacto on most commute bikes here, but it's important to emphasize most Germans ride and treat their bikes differently than folks in the States. People will buy a bike, ride it to work/school/errands every day, keep air in the tires and squirt oil at something if it squeaks. That's it. I have plenty of friends who, after two or three years of this, start complaining of funny shifts or weird braking action (most of these things do have a coaster brake), can't fix it because they're too complicated, then ride the hub into the ground and replace the rear wheel. You're right about being screwed if you have a flat, though for most people in town it's not an issue as the next bike shop is maybe 500m away.
Over the years (I moved here from the Bay Area in 2003), I've come to doubt the long-term reliability of internal gears. You can have "no maintenance" or you can have "all-weather," but unless you're riding something like Phils you can't really have both. The "no maintenance" part appeals to people, but in reality the weather eats them, then they break, can't be repaired and are thrown away. They're cheap enough that people deal with it, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Rohloff solved the reliability problem, but they cost a mint and you never see them in the city because bike theft is out of sight. (You see them in the woods though, always mountain bikes, always spandex).
Derailleurs represent long-term reliability and serviceability, internal gears are just another thing you toss out when it breaks. It would be great to see someone other than Rohloff make one that's reliable and not priced through the roof. I live in Cologne where the city and surrounding area are mostly flat, in the meantime I do okay on a fixed gear with moustache bars and Schwabel Marathon Supremes. Karneval ended two days ago and the streets are still covered in glass, no flats yet though I'm still keeping my fingers crossed.
My best regards to you and Rivendell,
Owen in Germany
-----
Hi Grant --

I'd add a few thoughts to your comments about internally-geared hubs, based on my experiences working in a shop:

1. I am proud of knowing how to overhaul a Sturmey-Archer 3-speed hub. I am proud that we insist on requiring all of our apprentice mechanics to learn how as well. However, it has been at least FIVE years since I was last asked to overhaul one for a customer. The fact is that far fewer of these bikes are on the roads now, at least in the US, and those that remain are either junked beyond repair or already up and running.

2. The "new" S-A hubs (re-designed and updated for the European market) take almost all the same parts as the "old" ones, but not exactly/entirely. There are a few subtle differences and if you don't know which is which you can really louse it up. At this point, we only stock parts for, and service, the "old" S-A hubs. We are sitting on a small mountain of parts for the "old" S-A hubs and try to source more when and where we can. We do this because we're still known as "the three-speed folks" here in Portland, and other shops still send three-speed jobs to us. But those jobs are showing up far less often. The time may come when bikes with original S-A hubs may well go the way of the Boneshaker -- they'll become relics; and when I'm in my eighties (G-d willing) and see one parked outside a cafe I'll go all misty-eyed and nostalgic.

3. I own four bikes. None of them has an IG hub. After helping other folks with their bicycle issues all day, the last thing I want to do at home is deal with mine. So when I HAVE to deal with my bikes I want it to be as straightforward as possible. I live in a rainy place and even I don't want to deal with IG hubs. That right there probably says something.

Thanks for the blog posts. Happy riding --Beth