Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Cycling Magazines

I now subscribe to three biking magazines, of varying quality, with different audiences and "tone."

Bicycling is an obvious choice and the one I have subscribed to the longest. One could suggest that they try to be all things for all (cycling) people, but they avoid too much discussion of technical issues. There are always articles for beginners ("5 Rookie Maintenance Mistakes" and the like) with "lifestyle" pieces (diet, complimentary exercise programs) and human interest articles of various levels of interest and perhaps even appropriatness. The biggest draw for me ends up being information about new products and bikes, much of which is in highly abbreviated form, which means if something seems interesting I generally have to do follow-on research. The reviews, particularly of bikes, take great care not to offend the manufacturers who of course are also big sponsors. One has to learn to read carefully to know when they aren't very impressed with a bike since serious direct criticism is so muted.

One aspect that I find trying in Bicycling bike reviews is the use of various shorthand that mostly includes no explanation of what they mean by these terms. It's a "you can't have it both ways" sort of problem - by avoiding highly (of even vaguely) technical explanations of most everything, they are left with buzz phrases. (One exception are quotes from the company PR people, such as "the carbon fiber in the new XYZ is extruded by robot in Germany, then blah blah blah, resulting in the stiffest yet most compliant ride we've ever produced." Gibberish, in other words.)

Bicycle Times is a relatively new publication. The web site says, "Featuring the best inspirational stories, practical advice, and intelligent discourse from everyday riders, but with a focus on the pavement side of things." Since the same outfit publishes a separate mountain biking mag, that is out of scope - mostly this is about "urban biking" with commuting and "bike culture" both featured. Road racing is not a featured subject. The bike and other reviews are generally more detailed and more inclined to make technical points in a comprehensible and useful way. Sometimes there are even links to further background information - for example, a comment about a particular bike's "trail" has a URL/link to further background on this subject. Good.

Bicycle Quarterly, according to its web site, is a "magazine for discerning cyclists, who enjoy their bikes, whether on a weekend ride, commuting, randonneuring, racing or touring the countryside." Its main focus is on randonneuring and the history of randonneuring and it works out from there to topics such as racing (and racing isn't really much of a focus). Most of the writing is by the editor/publisher, Jan Heine. There is a lot of good technical information or anyway discussion of issues, but some of the research presented seems less than rigorous. The magazine's apparent editorial view is that many assumptions about how best to achieve bicycle design objectives are incorrect; for example, that achieving high speed on a bike is best accomplished with fatter tires and lower tire pressure, not narrow and high. There is something to this, but not (I think) to the degree BQ suggests. BQ also seems to feel that it's competition doesn't do very good work, for example saying, "Our detailed evaluations are based on weeks of riding in challenging terrain, not just a spin around the neighborhood." Because of the abbreviated format used, Bicycling doesn't talk about how much the bikes are ridden when reviewed, but it is pretty obvious it is much more than "a spin around the neighborhood." One detects self-righteous indignation.

BQ does get points (with me) for being very open about criticisms of bikes reviewed where they find problems. One reason is that where there are substantive problems described, the company is asked to make a statement and these are inserted in the articles.

BQ isn't a high budget publication, so reviews are limited in number and often are driven by someone loaning the publication a bike to be reviewed. This sometimes has funny outcomes - a Civia was reviewed with much criticism; the company response was that they had stopped making the thing, rendering the review pointless for the most part, but having made the effort, this small publication could hardly throw it out, it would seem.

Another oddity is that BQ doesn't have most of its content on its web site, although they do have present their photographs in color, which is good since the publication itself is B&W. And in fact the photographs are quite nice; Heine also published coffee table books about the history of cycling that are beautiful.

In the end BQ is an acquired taste that some folks may not acquire.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Park Tool School - Cassette vs Freewheel

Last Sunday I started going to six weeks of Park Tool School (for bikes) at Spokes Etc in Belle Haven (Alexandria, VA).

I find that sometimes I think I understand something well but because I don't have to apply that understanding (or lack thereof) I can get along fine without learning that oops - I had it wrong.

Superstrada

In the first class, we covered the differences between cassettes and freewheels (part of the rear wheel) among other things. Of course, I could have simply looked up the subject on Sheldon Brown's site but I double that I would have as good an understanding as I do now, having been walked through the exercise with real parts by a real person.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Another Blogger's Experience with Capital Bikeshare

Here is an assessment of the DC Capital Bikeshare based on actual use of the thing.

Capital Bikeshare in the City

He notes that the lighting system (two tail lights, one "blinkie" front light) go off when you stop. Well, that's a fact of life with simple hub generator systems.

He notes that the bike is heavy so one won't be able to ride terribly fast, but a "shareable" bike is going to need to be very strong (and yet not impossibly expensive) so one is kind of stuck with that. And given the flat terrain of most of DC, this isn't so bad as it might be.

I find the geometry of these bikes interesting. The axle of the front wheel is directly in a line with steering tube - this is quite unusual; usually the axle is an inch or more forward of that. Basically the bike has zero "rake" so the "trail" is greater than usual. "More trail is nice at high speeds (motorcycles usually have 80 mm of trail) but can feel sluggish at slower speeds" means this is a puzzling design decision since these are low speed rides. Hmm. Perhaps this is made up for by the head tube angle but I can't judge that by eye.

The drive system is an internal shift rear hub - and there is a thing that looks like a derailleur that is a chain tensioner. This should further insure that users don't end up messing with the chain.

Italian Online Exhibit - Bicycle History

The first Italian "bicicletto" seems to suggest (at least as I read it) an Italian spin to the history of the development of the modern bicycle.

I hadn't realized that Bianchi dated back to 1885. That must make Bianchi one of the oldest bike makers still operating.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Urban Short-term Rental Bikes

In the past week or so, I have seen a half dozen Capital Rideshare bikes being ridden on the National Mall (see example below). My impression of the riders is that they are using it as a tourism tool, which isn't the usual point of the exercise, but it's a start and anyway, some use is better than no use.

Looks pretty good

The Capital Rideshare bikes are similar in nature to the gray bikes in similar (and much greater) use in Paris (below).

Me & a Rental Bike in Paris

Here is a photo of an example of an urban rental bike in Barcelona - but it is less customized as a rental; more of a "regular bike." I note the plastic chain guard on one of them is already broken. The extensive use of brittle-looking plastics on urban rental bikes is puzzling.