I love to ride my bike

I love to ride my bike, but for some reason hate getting ready to ride my bike. It seems to take me on average about 45 minutes, half an hour if I rush; from the time I decide to go for a ride, to actually walking out the door with my bike.

If I procrastinate over getting out for a ride, it is never over actually riding, but because of this chore of getting ready. How long does it take to throw on a jersey and a pair of shorts, you may ask? 

The first thing I do is pump the tires up, check for cuts, and give the bike a quick look over. Then fill two large water bottles with filtered tap water, and place them on the bike.

Then I get dressed, shorts, jersey, socks, that is relatively easy. I don’t put my shoes on until the last minute otherwise I am likely to slip on the kitchen or bathroom floor and fall on my arse.

I have done this on a few occasions, hurting nothing but my pride, but the thought that I could do myself serious injury makes me cautious.

Next I stuff my pockets. A multi Allen wrench, wrapped in a shop towel, and a hard plastic case which houses my cell phone. It is actually a plastic traveling soap case that I found at Target; it keeps the cell phone dry and protects it if I should fall. This is most likely when I would need a cell phone, and a broken one would not be much use.

I used to carry my wallet, until I read in the local paper that a man got robbed on the bike path I ride on, so now I just carry a photo copy of my driver’s license as ID, with relevant phone numbers written on it. If I were intending to go on a long ride, I would take some cash or a debit card.

I often take a banana with me, just in case I decide to ride a few extra miles. I think bananas are the ideal cyclist’s food. The perfect size and shape to fit in the back pocket, and the skin is nature’s own wrapper that is biodegradable.

Can it be I am almost ready, put my helmet on. No, wait I have to change my glasses, I have a special prescription pair for riding, with clip on sun glasses. Invariably they are covered in sweat from my last ride; I go to find the lens cleaner. Will I ever get out of here?

Okay, sun glasses on, can’t see a bloody thing; stumble to the bathroom. For some reason I can’t put a helmet on without the aid of a mirror.

Gloves and shoes on, am I finally ready? I know I am forgetting something; my bike is in one hand and the other is on the door knob. I stand there and do a mental check.

Sunscreen.....I forgot the fucking sunscreen. Off come the gloves, helmet and glasses; Go find the sports spray, quick once over on my arms and legs, that doesn’t take long. However, I can’t use it on my face as it says to keep away from the eyes.

Back into the bathroom, almost slip and fall on my arse, ‘cos now I’m wearing my cycling shoes with the cleats and hard plastic soles. Squeeze some different sunscreen from a tube and apply to my face, ears and the back of my neck.

Glasses, helmet and gloves back on, pick up my door key. Look up at the clock; forty-five minutes, just like I told you. Step outside and the heat and humidity hit me. I feel like I have just stepped into a bowl of hot cream of mushroom soup.

The summers here in South Carolina are brutally hot; it is important I get out as early as possible. Afternoon temps get to 90F or a 100F (32C to 38C) with the humidity anywhere from 80 to a 100%. Anyone who says you don’t need special clothes to ride a bike are welcome to do so. Not me if I’m riding more than an hour.

I look down at the bike, it needs a clean. Did I tell you, I also hate cleaning the bike, but I love to ride my bike

Steve Bilenky Fuso Tribute Frame

I never know from one day to the next what surprise will show up in my email box. Like yesterday for example, Ron Lau a friend from the West Coast, sent me pictures of a Fuso “Tribute” frame that he had Steve Bilenky build for him. Ron already owns several frames I built.

When I started building the Fuso frames in my shop in San Marcos, California in 1984 I was simply trying to produce a reasonably priced hand built frame that would compete with all the Italian import frames that were around at that time.

I never could have imagined that some twenty-five years later another esteemed framebuilder like Steve Bilenky would replicate the frame as a tribute.

Steve did not copy a Fuso exactly; there would be little point in doing so as there are still plentiful supplies of used Fusos around.

Instead the frame is definitely a Steve Bilenky, but there is no mistaking where the inspiration for the paint scheme came from.

I am deeply touched.

Bigotry

If you find the above cartoon funny, you might be a bigot.

Think about it, would you repeat the joke if the caption read, “I once saw a Black Man run into a Jew, and didn’t know who not to help.” Most decent people wouldn’t, it would be socially unacceptable.

Those old enough to remember back to the 1950s and before. Racial jokes were accepted and it made those at the brunt of these jokes somehow less than human. To some it even made it okay to go out and beat up, or murder members of these minorities.

This dehumanizing meant these minorities were not seen as people with families who loved them, somebody’s father, mother, or child. Often referred to as “They,” or “Them,” which put a less than human face on a person, than it would by saying “Him” or “Her.”

“They” as a group were always judged by the worst behavior in that group. "You can’t trust them; they will rob you blind, given half a chance."

So too are cyclist as a group judged by the worst standard of behavior. “They always run red lights;" or are even blamed for their very existence. "They shouldn't even be on the road."

And when a cyclist puts on Lycra, it becomes his different color skin, and it too becomes fair game for ridicule. "Those stupid skin tight clothes they wear, those ridiculous shoes, and helmets."

I will admit if a cyclist strays more than ten feet from his bike he does look a little strange, but then so too would a guy walking down Main Street in a wet suit and flippers.

It is now against the law to discriminate against a person on the grounds their race, or sexual preference, etc. Because of these laws, such discrimination becomes socially unacceptable. It is a shame when society has to enact a law to force people to do what common decency should tell them what is morally wrong.

Strangely the above cartoon takes a cheap shot at two groups of people whose only crime is that they delay a person for a moment. The person collecting money for a charity that makes you stop and dig in your pocket for change. And the cyclist who may delay you momentarily, preventing you from getting to the next red light a little quicker.

Back before the 1950s a person of different race or color, could be harassed just for being out in public. In some instances cyclists get the exact same treatment today. Has our society advanced at all?

Do we have to keep passing laws to stop people from discriminating against this group or that? It is sad when otherwise responsible and upright citizens behave in this way.

The people, who draw cartoons like this, and the newspapers and magazines that publish them, justify the discrimination and need to stop. Not because cyclists as a group are too sensitive to take it, (Actually our Lycra skin is pretty thick.) but because it dehumanizes people who for whatever reason, choose to ride a bicycle.

And when you dehumanize a group of people, it makes it okay to honk at and harass, to even buzz real close and put the cyclist’s life in danger. To a very small minority it makes it alright to deliberately injure or kill a cyclist.

Some may think "Bigotry" is too strong a term, but is there any difference in hurling abuse at a man because of his race, than doing the same because another is riding a bicycle?

Some may shoot down this argument by saying a man can't help being black, but cycling is a choice. Religion is also a choice, and like religion riding a bike is my right. I have been racing and riding bikes since I was a teen; it has been a life time passion for me, I am not about to quit.

I should not have to endure harrassment and abuse because I exercise my right to do something as simple as ride a bicycle

From this story here

And this one

Understanding the New UCI Regs: Part 2

Bicycle design used to be simple. For 100 years frames were steel, tubes were round, and the tubes remained pretty much a standard diameter throughout the world.

Then during the late 1980s early 1990s frames molded in carbon fiber began to appear. No matter how the frame is assembled, the finished frame has the appearance of being all one piece.

There are no tubes, (At least not round in the traditional sense.) the UCI refers to the parts as elements. Up until now there were no guidelines as to the size and shape of these frame elements.

For many years now the UCI has had in place a set of rules governing the geometry of a bicycle. (In particular, the frame.) These consist of maximum and minimum measurements; here is an example of a few.

Bottom bracket height from the ground, can be between 24cm. and 30cm. Distance from the center of the bottom bracket to center of front wheel, 54cm. to 65cm. Rear centers, (Chainstay length.) 35cm to 50cm.

These measurements have not changed. It allows a framebuilder or manufacturer plenty of scope to design and build a frame to suit any rider.

These measurements can be found in this document; (Starting at page 56, click on the page symbol at the left side of your screen to bring up thumbnail pages, scroll down and click on p.56.) The drawing at the top of this article gives the page numbers in that document where the maximum and minimum limits can be found.

The UCI has always disallowed any form of added on streamlining. Their rule is simple; if it is part of the structure it is okay. For years they would not allow a skin over the spokes of a wheel; considered streamlining not structural. It was not until wheels could be molded so the outside skin or shell actually supports the rim, were they allowed.

Who can say, with an irregular shaped molded frame, what is streamlining and what is structural? You can’t, so the UCI has laid down some standard parameters regulating the dimensions of the elements of the frame. As before there is a maximum and a minimum dimension, but not a restriction as to the shape of the element within the stipulated size.

The elements can be round, oval, triangular or any other shape, as long as the cross section is within an 8cm. maximum by 2.5cm. minimum the narrowest way. The measurement is 8cm. x 1cm. for the seatstays.

The elements can also be any shape along their length; curved, tapered, etc., as long as they do not go outside the 8cm. wide box, also, the form of the element has to enclose a straight center line. See the picture below.

There is another regulation that may be a little confusing to some. The depth and width of the elements have to work out to a 1 to 3 ratio. If the element is the maximum 8cm one way then it has to be 8cm divide by 3 which equals 2.66 wide minimum instead of 2.5.

If the manufacturer chooses to opt for the minimum width of 2.5cm. then the measurement the widest way will be, 2.5 x 3 = 7.5cm maximum instead of 8cm.

Seatstays seem a little unclear, but my translation is still a 3 to 1 ratio which would be 8cm. (Max.) x 2.66cm. (Min.) for the maximum size.

3cm. (Max.) x 1cm. (Min.) would be the minimum allowed.

If the seatstays and chainstays are curved they should fall within an 8cm wide box.

The rest of the new addendum can be viewed here.

I can’t see where these new restrictions will stifle R&D. It still allows individual manufactures to each make their own unique design frame within these parameters.

With any sport, not just cycling, there must be rules governing the equipment used for that sport. My comment is that these rules had to come into play for the sake of some sort of uniformity in bicycle design. 

My view is, it should have been done much sooner when it became clear that CF frames were going to be the standard racing equipment of the future. However, it wasn’t, so better now that later.

Also only my opinion, pros will still ride special bikes built just for them as they have always done, and no one will know (Or even care.) because the bikes will be built within these UCI specifications.

It will stop the publicity seeking, “Million Dollar” bike, circus acts in the future. Maybe that will be a good thing; there will be more focus on the important thing, the sport of cycle racing and the person riding the bike rather than the bike itself.

Understanding the New UCI Regs: Part 1

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is the world governing body for the sport of bicycle racing. Last Monday 15th June 2009 they issued a new set of regulations that are an addendum to the existing rules and regs pertaining to bikes used for Cyclo-Cross, Road Racing and Track Racing.

The reasoning behind UCI regulations, as with any other sport, is to put all the competitors on an equal footing. In bicycle racing it means everyone having the same size wheels, etc, etc. It would be chaotic to have some riders on recumbent bikes, or some with smaller wheels in the middle of a race pack.

These new regulations have got some people in an uproar, saying it will be a disadvantage to bicycle manufacturers, teams, and even certain nations. This article I felt was an over reaction. The UCI document was not easy to understand, but after studying it I put forward my interpretation.

As always this is only my view, but I think and unbiased one. I no longer have any connection the bicycle industry; I have no personal agenda to promote. This part of the new regulations (Quoting from the UCI pdf document.) probably caused the most controversy:

The bicycle must be accessible to all participants. It must be marketed (i.e. available for sale on the market) or marketable (i.e. available for sale directly from the manufacturer, by subscription or through an alternative distribution network).

Prototypes and the use of equipment specially designed for a particular athlete, event or performance is prohibited. “Special design” means a bicycle with a technical added value when compared with other equipment.

In part the bike industry is to blame for this one. Does anyone remember the “Million Dollar” one off bike that Koga built for Dutch Olympic rider Theo Bos? At the time I thought this whole episode was a huge publicity stunt, and I felt the Theo Bos would go just as fast on a stock bike.

It is my opinion, there is no technology available at this time that would give a rider a mechanical advantage. Maybe there is an aerodynamic advantage. If this is the case then is it fair that one rider should have access to unlimited funds, wind tunnel testing, etc? And this advantage is only available to limited riders.

The whole doping issue is about leveling the playing field so that one rider does not have an unfair advantage over another. The million dollar Koga was only available to Theo Bos, and even if another rider or sponsor would have came up with a million they could not have bought one.

Whether or not Theo Bos had an actual advantage is not the issue; there was the possibility he did, and there is a definite possibility it could happen in the future. As I see it the UCI is addressing the issue before it becomes a problem.

Professional riders and top amateurs have always had their bikes custom built, but the same basic bike has always been available to all. The new regulation simply states that, “The bicycle must be accessible to all participants.”

It has been suggested that the pros ride prototype bikes to test new models that will become future production bikes. I am no longer in the industry so I can’t say for sure, but I doubt the pros are riding true untested prototypes. It would be crazy to have someone race in an important event on an untested bike that might fail.

The UCI wording, as I see it, simply states the bike should be available for sale to all riders. It doesn’t say it has to be a stock model that your local bike store sells. It says the bike can be bought direct from the manufacturer.

It does not set a price or even say the bike has to be in stock to buy off the shelf. If special bikes are made for a certain team, there is no reason why other teams could not order the same bike, if they have the money and are prepared to wait for the bikes to be built.

There was too much information in the UCI document to discuss in one article, so I decided to make it a two part piece. In the second part that I will post on Friday 19th, I will write about the new regulations that affect the physical dimensions of the bicycle.

Please limit any comments to the "Accessible Bicycle" issue addressed here. We can discuss the rest of the new regulations after I post the final article