In 1903 the Wright brothers flew for a few seconds in a heavier than air craft of their own design. They worked outside of typical aeronautics thought, reworking and recalculating established thought. The wooden propeller they developed, hand hewn from laminated wood, was 83% efficient. Modern Propellers, the most advanced among them, are a mere 2 percent more efficient. The Wrights had no computer models, no expensive wind tunnel testing facilities. They were just bike mechanics from Ohio with some spare time on their hands.

In the early days of the century, racers looked down on 3 speed hubs and derailleurs with pulleys. It was thought that the bend in the chain and the rotation of the pulley wheel added friction (with requisite loss of efficiency) to the chain. 3 speed hubs, with their complex internal workings, were indeed less efficient than derailleurs, although they certainly had advantages including a straight chain-line, sealed against the elements, no derailleur to snap off. Fortunately this paranoia of friction had some good outcomes: the invention of the quick release (to change cogs in the back by flipping from one fixed gear to another) and time. Time for the tourists to perfect and explore the concept of multispeed shifting without the undue influence of racing.  Racers in those days prized simplicity and low friction over all other factors.  They were willing to sacrifice ease of use, smooth shifting, and even low weight in this quest for the cleanest, slickest (friction-wise) and more durable gear changing equipment.  This often lead to ridiculous shiftering systems like the Campagnolo Paris Roubaix, the Vittoria Margeita, and the Egg Super Champion.  In fact, there were numberous durable, low friction derailluers on the market, being used by tourists daily.  These cyclotouriste derailleurs saw a range of conditions, and endured incredible distances.  The Cyclo Standard was used on four and seven thousand mile tours, with only oiling and adjustments needed.

Interestingly, hub gears have regressed in efficiency over the years: pre WWII Sachs 3 speed hubs, lubricated with oil have an efficiency of around 95% averaged across the 3 speeds. Contemporary hubs are about 3 percent less efficient. Oddly, the Rolhoff, with its precision machining, is only 88% efficient on average. (Berto, The Dancing Chain: 351-352)  This is mainly because of the sheer number of planetary gears it contains.

Tourists, from say, 1900-1985, knew another established fact of efficiency that has been lost to contemporary cyclists: Bigger cogs are more efficient. The current trend towards eleven and twelve tooth rear sprockets not only prematurely wears chains down (and cassettes and chainrings by default) but also has an adverse effect on efficiency. 12 tooth cogs are 2-3 percent less effiencent than 14 tooth cogs. This is why the old french tourists ran 14-16 tooth cogs as thier smallest cogs in the back.  The current micro-drive rage has come to its logical conclusion in the world of the BMX drivetrain.  Eight tooth cogs and 22 tooth sprockets are the norm on contemporary bikes, and the resulting strains on the chains is seen in the ridiculously overbuilt chains that are needed to withstand the added stress.

“Their mentality is, well, you should just get on with it because Bernard Hinault won the Tour like that and you should be grateful.”

Of course, Ancy McLarmstorg’s über scientific approach is distasteful in its own way, but it gets results. Practical realism has been the defining aspect of the last two centuries of civilization, winning every war and enriching every economy that shed romanticism and ideology, and doing “what works.”

From a personal perspective, having a “throwback” tour with lugged bikes and no ear piece radios would be a public relations coup that might put big time cycling past “le doping” once and for all.

Just to balance this post out, and since kneejerk ranting is a well know personality trait of this here weebblahg, I provide, for your grumbling purposes, Lancey Thesteriodman’s Damien Hirst Designed madone:

(Picture from the slamxhype blog)

anyway here is a conundrum I am in these days, see if you can answer it:
(I’m pretty sure it’s a recurring issue I know the solution for, which I’ll pipe in with later.)

when I am pedaling along at a normal (~75rpm) cadence under a light to moderate load (generally flat terrain) on my mountainbike I have a distinct slipping feeling at my left foot with each revolution as the foot passes the top (12:00) dead spot. it has the feeling of a loose pedal or loose crank or even a poorly adjusted cleat. seeing as how none of these have turned out to be the culprit, please help me try to solve the problem. as a note, I do sometimes have the feeling that pedaling smoother circles can somewhat diminish the issue, and also that it may seem to go away on longer rides (maybe I just forget about it.)

in the interest of science I have replaced the pedals, with a new pair of a similar model; I have replaced the cleats with a new set; and I have tried a second set of same model shoes with their old cleats; none of which have alleviated the issue.

clean drivetrain

btw, everything is always (85% of the time) lubed and cleaned directly (within 3-4 weeks) after every ride. and all (~35%) rides take place in ideal (or possibly rainy, muddy, or snowy) conditions.

that’s about it.
lots of little checks and the problem persists.
leave questions and answers in the comments!

-cory

On the ethics side of the wooden nickle, Carbon bikes can be lugged.  Aluminum bikes can be lugged.  Aluminum can be bonded to carbon via lugs.  If we were DJs, this would be called a mash-up, culling what some might consider the best attributes of various construction techniques into a unified whole, while retaining distinctive parts of said whole.  However!  We are not DJs, we are serious investigators on a serious path.  Thus-for, we must coin a new word.  A bike that employes a variety (not a hybrid, we will approach these monsters later, big stick in hand) of construction techniques and materials (must be both) is an example of the mash-fab technique, phrase whose etymology resides in the hands of two artists and a number of rail shots of tequila.  Further reading on said etymology found here.

Mash-fab bikes differentiate from bikes where the lug is aesthetically hinted at, or visually aped, the express purpose of such being to (as Walter Benjamin would put it) cull some of the Aura of the lug.  Hybrid (Morphologically speaking) bikes generally employ tig welded tube junctures with carbon tubes bonded inside of the tig welded tubes.  The most extravagant example of this is the Titus Exogrid.

Faux lug shore lines seek to capitalize on the collective value theory based consciousness, as well as the collective notion of beauty and craft.  Lemond perhaps started said trend when he sought to bond carbon OCLV half triangles to Reynolds Steel.  The juncture was mildly stylized, resulting in a highly bland lug inspired shore-line.  Consumers were very drawn to this brutish juncture, even though it offered none of the advantages of the lug construction method.   Nor, as far as I can tell, do the Titus or Jamis versions, to name a few.  Indeed, lest we forget:  ‘A lug is a socket that forms the junction between two or more frame tubes.’  So speaketh Sheldon Brown, God Rest His Immortal Soul.  Ethically we cannot even refer to these designs as lug-like.  They are luggish! Joan Miro painted Child-like paintings.

A fourth grader paints childish paintings:

Ergo, lug stylings are not to be regarded on the same ethical plane as lugs.  Luggish bikes are an ethical affront to the contemporary lug master.  The engraving, tube cutting, and painting of lug inspired graphics cheapens the original work.  For example:  every commercialized copy of Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa erodes the intent of the original.

And now that beaded curtain from that show Dharma and Greg:

Some one’s candle:

And an asinine T-shirt:

What does this do FOR the original work?

Ethical lugs = real lugs.  Impostors need a new word to describe their ‘inspired’ erosion of a traditional, yet highly evolved artistic industrial craft socket.

Sram shafts Super Randonneurs and tedious tweed touting tourists with wacky wonder shifter.  The new, portlier, uglier, and less ergonomic shifter adds another nail in the coffin for those who know how to shift the righteous way.  Friction of course.  Fabulously faultless and finely fine-tunable, friction is rejected by racers who refuse to reap the rewards of rebuildable and reliable shifting.  Obviously the only ostensible application for an ass-backward assemblage as this is tri and time trial travesties trying to trump the next chump’s cacophonic collection of Chinese carbon chintz.  (and to coin a colloquialism: chintziphenalia)  Riders rocking righteously ridiculous skin suits and specially situated suck stations (tri geeks holla) clearly cant concentrate on shifting when skin suit style is paramount.  Tri geeks titilate and tempt me into malovent mockery.  Paying to purify prodigioiusly lubricated chains.  (its already clean mate!) Shelling to shed sinfully slothful training tires for tubulars and titanium ten speed cassettes.  Spending cheddar to chamoix and cherish the carbon chintz, chain ring chines, and chain chamfers.  Time is nothing to a tri geek.  Prestige and proper poise propped up by perfect coifs and pedicures.  Underarmor undulates unsolicited in immoral ways.  White rimmed sunglasses speak silently about certain sidelines.  The tri time trialist take tradition and twists it to a technological terminus.  Real riders roll on, hording harems of hardly handled simplex and suntour and shimano six hundred shifters.  The charlatans who cartwheel over compatability and contextual cooridnation for convenience and contemporary con-sensus continue cajoling without carterwauling press to convince consumers to the contrary.  Carbon crap continues to cash in, function loses to form and fashion, tourists keep touring.

Sorry I havn’t written for a while.  Maybe this makes up for it.

.

.

.

.

so we had a super good turn out for the scramble.  dave got points for driving the furthest to get here.  phil got points for riding a bike that would give a cory townie a run for its money (crappynesswise).  way to many people showed up on fixed gears and kicked ass on them.  joe, jay, john (sort of) jason and phil were all punished the roads with their insanity.  there were, if i recall, 9 flats, 4 of which happened to Rob and two of which happened to Damien.  Is that right?  Or were there more?  We made it home before blinky lights were needed, but not by too much.

Dave took pictures, which he hasnt posted on Flickr yet, so did John (same thing) but Joe has some up here.

I hope everyone had as good of a time as I did, pain aside.  That said, I rode the next day and felt 90 percent OK.

I want to not feel OK next time.  I want to be groveling on the side of the road.  To that end, I propose a mega monster ride for october.  That gives you almost two months to lay off the sauce and ride a bunch.  We could split the ride over two days, but where’s the suffering in that proposal?

I’m thinking sort of an expanded dirty sugar ferry ride, to include much more dirt and plenty of more excuses to get flats.  there would be no singletrack, but just alot of farm roads and potholes.  120 miles.  It’s totally doable.  We’d have to start early, and we’d definately end after dark.

here’s a link to the proposed ride route.  

Go ahead and call me crazy.  There will mad amounts of dirt.  Or you will be mad about the amount of dirt.  Check it against the dirt road database.  There is more dirt than pavement, almost. I’d say at least 40 solid miles of dirt.  Let’s say October 26th for now.   Image from last year’s Ferry Ride here.

Maybe someone knows someone’s yard we can sleep in down that way.