The number of readers on my blog has steadily increased this year from 100 visitors a day in January, to 500 a day at the beginning of December. It always drops down a little on the weekends, but stays pretty steady Monday through Friday.
Last Tuesday Velo News featured this blog as “Site of the day,” and the number of hits that day shot up to over 5,000. It has since dropped back again, as Velo News moved on to feature other sites of the day.
When things level out again it will be interesting to see how many new readers I pick up. All this has made me realize that I am only scratching the surface when it comes to the number people who read the stuff I write here.
These last three days there have been new comments on some of my older blogs. This tells me that new readers are going back through the old stuff. Don’t forget to look at the “Archives” page on my website; this lists almost 200 articles on a single page.
All this increased activity here and on my website has meant that my Web Host is having to move my personal site to another server. Because of this, www.ProdigalChild.net will be down for about an hour on Saturday, December 15, sometime between noon and 5:00 pm. (EST.)
I thank Velo News for posting the link, and Chris, the guy who wrote and told VN about Dave’s Bike Blog. Thanks to all the regular readers, I see you as my extended circle of friends. And welcome to new readers, I hope you will stick around.
If you Google “PGA Drug Testing” you will find many conflicting views whether professional golf should, or should not test for performance enhancing drugs.
One thing is clear, to the top officials of that sport; “de Nile” is not just a river in Egypt. Or is it denial.
To hear PGA officials talk, golfers apparently do not cheat they play by the rules. After all, they keep their own score cards, and if people cheated the whole system would break down.
PGA Tour Chief Tim Finchem said if he had any indication a player was using illegal drugs, he likely would confront the player. All righty then, that takes care of that problem.
I know sod all about golf, in fact I have little interest in any sport that involves a hitting a ball, running after a ball, much less searching for a ball in the long grass; so why am I even writing about this?
I am tired of reading articles by sports writers who hold up cycling as the worst case example of a sports organization failing to control the use of illegal substances.
Pointing the finger and saying, “We are not like those guys.” It is easy to pick on cycling because it doesn’t have the fan base of say the NFL, Baseball, or for that matter the PGA.
I believe the fan of cycle sport is actually more concerned about the use of illegal substances than NFL or Baseball fans, most of whom could care less. The reason being most cycle-race fans, at least in the US and the UK, actually ride a bike, whereas fans of the major sports are mostly non-participating spectators.
The nature of the war on illegal substance use is the same as the war on crime, one side trying to detect, and the other side avoiding detection. A war that is ongoing with no winner, and no clear end.
It seems logical to me that illegal substances used in cycling would be basically the same as those used in other sports. So if cycling does not have control over the issue, then neither does any other sport that has a drug testing policy in place. This would include the PGA, if and when they start testing.
Implementing drug testing does not immediately stamp out the problem; I doubt there is one sports controlling body that has a complete handle on the issue yet, and there won’t be. Professional sport is big money, and so too is the manufacture of illegal substances.
It used to be just about dope, stimulants that give more energy; now it is body-altering chemistry. Not just bulking up like a football player, but lower, often-undetectable doses of human growth hormones, building lean body mass, enhancing the strength of the athlete.
I have written about this before, but it stands repeating. I believe there has always been dope use in all professional sport throughout history since performance enhancing drugs have existed, for this simple reason. Professional sport is entertainment, and the greater the athletic performance the greater the entertainment value, which translates into more money for sports promoters, the athlete, and the people managing the athlete.
When big money is involved, unfortunately, it is human nature in some to look for an edge in improving performance, and professional golf is definitely big money. Are cyclists any less human than golfers, or vice-versa? Or any other professional athlete for that matter.
No one can convince me that lean body mass, and extra strength would not help a golfer hit a ball further. Professional golf officials need to get their head out of their ass and get with the times. Denial of a problem is not a cure for a problem.
In addition, sports writers need to back off, and give the sport of cycling a break; at least officials of the sport are trying. The UCI was criticized in the past for doing nothing; now there is large scale testing and a few offenders are getting caught, they are still criticized. They find themselves in an unenviable no win situation.
Cycling happened to be one of the first to be exposed for doping; most other sports have since had to deal with the same problem.
Just because cycling was first, doesn’t make them the worst, any more than thinking because professional golf is one of the last to implement drug testing, makes them squeaky clean.
The picture at the top is from an article in the Wall Street Journal, called “Golf, Drugs and Denial” by John Paul Newport.
When a fork blade comes from the tube manufacturer’s factory, it is straight; the framebuilder bends it to a curve that suits his requirements.
An un-raked road fork blade is oval at the top; the oval section runs parallel for about a third of its length. Then the cross section becomes round and starts to taper gradually to its smallest section at the bottom end.
The fork blade is bent on a curved form that is sometimes made from hard wood. I used one I made myself from two heavy-duty steel fork blades, bent in the desired curve, and brazed together side by side. This made a natural grove between the two blades where the blade would sit as I was bending.
I would slip a short piece of tube over the thin end of the form and the blade I was bending to hold it in place. Then start bending, first by pushing down by hand. The thin end of the blade bends easily, and I would finish off by squeezing it in a vise.
Bicycle tubing is hardened, and it will spring back after bending. Because of this, the form needs to be a greater curve than the finished fork blade will be.
A fork blade is several inches longer than it needs to be. The framebuilder chooses where he will put the bend, and where he will cut to length. For example, if I were making a criterium frame and wanted a very stiff fork, I would cut from the bottom, thin end.
If I were building a touring frame, and wanted a flexible fork for a more comfortable ride, I would cut from the top end and leave the blade thin at the bottom end. The framebuilder creates the perfect fork blade, by selecting the best place to bend the blade, and by choosing how much to cut from either end.
It is rather like a furniture maker choosing where to cut from a piece of wood to achieve the best end product. Once I arrived at the perfect fork blade, it was then an easy matter to repeat the process again and again.
On a John Howard
On a Fuso
And on a Recherche
One exception to this process was the Reynolds 753 fork blades. 753 was heat treated to a degree that the material could not be bent after. These were bent at the factory, then heat treated, and the framebuilder then cut to the required length. You will notice on the 753 Fuso Lux frame (Pictured below.) that the fork bend is a different shape than the ones bent by me. More pictures of this bike can be seen here.
Chainstays and seatstays are also tapered and the same selective cutting to length is employed. In this case, where the cut is made depends a great deal on the size of frame and its end use.
The perfect fork blade is stiff enough to allow precise handling, but with some flex to absorb road shocks. It also looks pleasing to the eye. I have a theory that when something is designed correctly from a functional standpoint, it has a natural aesthetic beauty. This is true of a boat, a bridge, a building, and even a bicycle frame.
The modern trend of building straight forks of course saves the framebuilder a great deal of time and effort. If this look has become acceptable, why should today’s builder go through all the time consuming process I have described here?
The straight blade is angled forward so the same fork rake or offset is achieved and handling would be the same. I can’t comment on the shock absorption qualities because I have never built a frame with a straight fork.
In my view, a great deal is lost aesthetically, so where does that leave my theory about function being linked to aesthetics? On the other hand, is it simply that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?
When I first produced the Fuso in 1984, I had hoped to keep things simple. My goal was to produce a frame that was built better than the average import frame, was better finished, and rode and handled better. At the same time was competitively priced.
In order to achieve this I built one model, and offered it in four different two-color paint schemes. The frame was available in 18 different sizes in one-centimeter increments, so the customer got virtually a custom fit.
However, I soon found that you can’t please all the people, and soon I had requests for different colors, chrome plating, etc, etc. I explained that this was not “Burger King;” it was not quite as simple as, “Hold the cheese, and add a pickle.” I still offered my custom ‘dave moulton’ frame, but the price was much higher, and the wait was longer.
In 1986 I gave in to the whiners compromised and brought out the Fuso “Lux” model. The standard Fuso was always in stock (Unpainted.) in every size, so I could fill an order immediately. The Lux was built to order, in other words an order existed before the frame was built.
It was built in the same standard geometry as the other Fuso frames. However, it had a different rear brake bridge, tubular, with diamond shaped reinforces. (See top pictures.)
Later Lux frames would have the same flat machined brake bridge as the standard Fuso, but engraved with the words, “Fuso LUX.” At this same time, the Lux had engraved seatstay caps. (See left.) The earlier Lux, (Pictured at the top.) had the same seatstay caps as the standard Fuso.
The Lux had Chrome plated dropout faces, and a chrome right chainstay; it also had an integral aero fork crown, which gave a one-piece look. (Below right.)
The big difference was in the paint finish; the Lux had the decals “buried” under eight clear coats, then sanded smooth.
All this LUXury came at a price. In 1990 a standard Fuso FR1 with C-record components retailed at $1,600, a LUX with the same components was $3,150.
A week ago received photos and an email from Hiram Sloan, he said,
“I recently purchased a Fuso Lux; it is the 1987 anniversary model. I was thrilled to find it among the used bicycles at Richardson Bike Mart in Richardson, Texas. As you can see in the pictures attached, it is in pristine shape and has been ridden very little.”
Hiram's bike is the red and yellow model pictured at the top. I never kept records of exactly how many of the Lux model were built; out of just under 3,000 Fuso frames, I’m guessing about a hundred or so.
An American Icon died on Friday. On the last day of November he took his final jump into the next realm. What makes this man an icon? He was the first to do what he did, on the scale that he did. All who follow are merely imitators.
Evel Knievel passed on at 69 years, a relatively young age by today’s standard, but maybe not so young when one considers the punishment he put his body through over the years.
I don’t know what effect this man had on the sport of motorcycling, or motorcycle design; but I believe the design of bicycles, and the way they look today can be traced back to Evel Knievel.
The moment this larger than life character began appearing on television in the 1970s performing these seemingly impossible jumps, every boy child in America went out the very next morning and built some form of crude wooden ramp and attempted to jump on his bicycle, to emulate Evel Knievel.
The heavy cruiser bikes that had been popular through the 1950s and 1960s were too heavy for jumping, and the bicycle of choice for all young boys eventually became the smaller and lighter BMX bike.
Early BMX bikes were built with a brazed lug construction the same as all other bicycles. Soon manufacturers realized that these frames could be welded far cheaper than brazed lugs, because, after all, children are not interested in the niceties of lugged construction.
Fast forward to the 1980s and another entity is developing, the Mountain Bike. Initially a sport of “downhill racing,” hence the name mountain bike. Mountain bikes were also built, using lugged construction, with level top tubes, and using the same standard size tubes as a road bike. Head angles on early MTBs were a shallow 69 degrees; like I said, designed for riding downhill.
Move forward again to the late 1980s and a genuine mountain bike-racing scene had developed, just as there had been a BMX racing scene. However, not all kids became BMX racers, and not all adults who bought a mountain bikes used them off-road.
The generation from the 1970s who as kids had emulated Evel Knievel, were now young adults and saw the mountain bike as a reincarnation of the BMX bike. These people were not interested in racing or riding down mountains, they wanted to jump over stuff, and perform stunts, just like when they were kids.
I remember a proliferation of MTB magazines in the 1980s. Each had a picture on the front cover of a rider on a mountain bike in mid-air doing some seemingly spectacular jump. A low camera angle made it appear the rider was several feet from the ground, when in reality he was probably at a much lower altitude.
The magazines showed pictures of people “Bunny Hopping” on and off picnic tables, and performing all manner of spectacular stunts. With all the abuse these bikes were recieving, it became necessary for manufactures to “beef up” the frames by using larger tubing, as well as adding suspension.
Larger tubing meant that frames had to be welded, because there were no lugs available for the oversize tubes. Welded frames were not accepted on road bikes at that time, but MTB customers were used to welded BMX frames. There is something about the look of a welded joint; it has an “Industrial” look, utilitarian, strong and very masculine.
The first idea the mountain bike borrowed from the BMX bike was the “Uni-crown” fork. In reality, this is a “No-crown” fork, with the round fork blades curved at the top and welded directly to the steering column. Cheaper and easier to produce than a brazed crown fork.
By the mid 1990s manufactures had borrowed another concept from the BMX bike; namely the sloping top tube. With the resulting longer seat post, manufactures were able to get away with building less frame sizes.
Once this look and concept was accepted, it was not long before road bikes were being made in this same style with welded joints. Throughout history, bicycle manufacturers and framebuilders have used cost-cutting ideas, and then sold it to the customer as an advantage.
A classic example of this was the notion in the 1970s that braze-ons weakened a frame. Leaving the braze-ons off a frame saved a tremendous amount of time, and was a cost cutting ploy that was sold to the customer as a benefit. When braze-ons reappeared in the 1980s there were no wholesale frame failures. Where was the argument that braze-ons caused a weakness?
People can argue that a sloping top tube frame is stiffer, but the pros in Europe are using both level top tube frames and sloping; there is no huge difference. So if anyone has cause to wonder why a road frame has a sloping top tube? The main reason is that it benefits the manufacturer who has to produce less sizes.
The practice became acceptable because of the mountain bike. Mountain bike design was influenced by the BMX design; not so much by public demand, but by manufacturers realizing welded frames, built in fewer sizes is cost effective.
The BMX bike had a sloping top tube for no other reason than style. Just as the old cruiser bikes of the 1950s and 1960s sometimes had fake gas tanks. The sloping top tube of the BMX bike represented the upward slope of a motorcycle gas tank. Because after all as its name suggests, the BMX (Bicycle Motor Cross.) is a bicycle pretending to be a motorcycle.
The popularity of the BMX bike is closely linked to the popularity of Evel Knievel, which is why I say that he indirectly influenced the design of all bicycles today.
Just this one man’s opinion, and one that no one is obliged to agree with. It is an opinion that I have held for many years, at least since the late 1980s. I felt that I couldn’t let the passing of Evel Knievel go by without sharing my views.