Gear count fanaticism and the endless quest for 1 more cog

There is no question that our hunt for quick, easy solutions for long term problems has led us down the path we are now traveling today.  Our world is bombarded with an array of "instant fixes" while the word "free" is thrown around left and right in desperate attempts to sell us the idea that one can get something for nothing.  We are told that the stuff in our lives is not good, fast, compatible and chic enough to rationalize continuous usage, repair and love.  So quick we have been in disposing of our new stuffs predecessors in the name of supposed progress that we often forget that there is typically plenty life left in said objects.

 One of the Taylor brothers (a highly revered trio of traditional frame builders from Britain) once said "I don't like progress.  I think as you get older you find that it isn't progress, its only change and it isn't always change for the better.  When your young you accept all the new idea and new designs and you go along with it. As you get older you find they don't stand up and you become very skeptical of progress".  When it comes to drivetrain component this quote would not resonate more with me. 

this is Rotor's 13 gear cassette.  It is going to change the way you ride bikes.. bonus
 points to Rotor for throwing in the hydraulic actuated derailleur

  Always a trade off

 

  With the advent of Sram's 12 speed cassettes hitting the market early in 2016 I watched as people went nuts over the idea of 12 speed, %500 gearing in the package of an 10-50t cluster.  Yes; that's right; a 10 tooth high gear.  "For the love of God; when is enough enough?" I couldn't help but think to myself as bike geeks rushed forward with open arms for this newest tech that would promise amazing shred-inducing riding and newfound climbing abilities.

  For a quick reminder, a 650b x 2.4" tire with a 2x9 speed setup using 22x32t chainrings on a 11-36t cassette gives you an even lower gear than the 32t ring/10-50t cassette 12 speed equivalent.  Was the 9 speed stuff of the early-mid 00's really so unbelievably inadequate that the mountain bike think tanks needed to spent the next 13+ years in r&d concluding that saving a few hundred grams was worth all this trouble.  Of course they did, as do any company predicated on exponential growth/sales models.  And truly a few grams was really the only "gain" here whatsoever as everything else lost points in the big equation.  Narrower sprockets with narrower chain rings wore quicker.  Even more extreme chain lines cause even narrower chains to wear more quickly.  Wheels with far more dish and less bracing angles will have an inherently shorter life expectancy.  None of the the preexisting 11 speed stuff was compatible in terms of indexing, free hub spacing, and derailleur usage.

 The point here being that as we have hunted so much for more and more cheap and easy gearing, we have simultaneously given away more and more of the quality, longevity, interchangeability and overall value that came with the seemingly less proprietary (though still often so) gearing arrangements of yesteryear.  I am not saying that I fundamentally believe that we all needed 11-36t cassettes coupled with 22/32t chain rings using 9 speed chains in the first place as much as I am trying to suggest that maybe we have gone even more full circle with this stuff than ever before.  We are being sold the same technology of the early 00's back to us in an ever so slightly varying package.  Ramped cogs on cassettes still spin on freehubs that still use index shifting while still offering an incredibly wide gearing spectrum.  And yet here we are drooling over the idea of buying/building brand new wheels to support the new freehub that supports the new cassette/chain/chainring/derailleur that gets shifted with the new shifter; all in the name of maybe a few hundred grams saved and an incrementally quicker shift if at all.

here we have srams patented "pivoting chainring".  This is basically Sram coming out with a public acknowledgement that running a cigarette-paper thin chain at a ludicrous angles is inherently exacerbating the detrimental effects that already existed in your previous 1x11 generation drivetrain.  Yet again throwing more unnecessary technology at a solution to a problem that maybe shouldn't have existed in the first place?

Why we buy it

 As I write this post I have a Sram GX eagle group sitting in the JBI shopping cart for the small bike repair I work at (by request of customer of course).  This is the absolute bottom end version that sells at an msrp of $550 for a crankset/bottom bracket/chainring, cassette, chain and shifter.  For perspective the top end Sram Eagle xx1 equivelent sells for $1,500.  As I will quite likely be the one installing this bit of kit on said person's bike I will inevitably be going through the motions in my head as to weather or not the "upgrade" will bring new bliss inducing gearing to this rider's experience.  For that kind of money spent on replacing already well working parts I would absolutely hope for a truly game changing product.  

The bike industry and its tech-infatuated love of progress will constantly have the susceptible ready to pounce on the latest upgrade as it tightens it's jaws of influence.  We are told we will "climb more efficiently", "descent quicker", "shift faster" and "shed grams" all in the process.  We are spoon fed this stuff as we gobble down the baby food mush of the bike industries blended up and recycled/rebranded ideas/tech.  We want easy and free solutions to inherent issues of both biking and life.  We want to float up hills without exerting energy.  We want effortless sprints.  We want bikes that weigh nothing as every effort we make is measured by our peers on Strava.  No longer are we riding just to ride for fun.  We have been so effectively sold the idea that cycling is a quantitative above qualitative experience that we cringe at the thought of wasted effort.   

The fact remains that at some point if we want to pedal up a hill we have to do just that; pedal.  No matter how much money and technology you throw at the act of turning crank arms with your legs, it takes a frighteningly similar amount of energy to get up that hill with or without the newest buzz-improvement in between your legs.

Getting burnt on the bike world

There comes a point with anything where you reach a plateau of sorts in your work.  You learn, experiment, help others, and in more ways than not give much of what you have to your craft.  You get real world experience, discover truths and disinformation through trial and error as well as having a plethora of humbling experiences along the way.  Sometimes there comes a point where you hit a wall of sorts with it all.  You find that you are lacking motivation to move forward with things for various reasons and begin questioning your place in it all.  I believe that for my own reasons I have as they say in the cycling world, met the man with the hammer.

Fitting in

Iv always struggled to find any sort of identity in the bicycle industry/culture.  Subscribing to ideals that undermine the shop/industry status quo, never fitting the bill of either a road or mountain cyclist, lacking the finances and desire for high end bikes and all the kit to go along with it has put me in a somewhat queer box of sorts.  In March of 2016 I wrote a blog post called  "Not a roadie, not a mountain biker, just a cyclist" in which I spelled out the various conflicting states of trying to fit into a particular genre or sub-genre of cyclist.  As it was for me two and a half years ago it still stands; the less I make attempts to conform to the varying, heavily marketed, often alienating and divisive cycling images that dominate the pages of magazines, the advert side bars of blogs and and the subtle product placement in various forms of media, the less I worry about who wants to ride with me, how I am perceived by them and and weather or not I will fit into the aforementioned boxes.

Now, far more than ever I am less and less interested in paying attention to market trends, being immersed in the growth-at-all-costs cycling industry, painting myself as a "serious" cyclists and being victim to the "more upgrades" mentality that dictates the discussions, lifestyles and attitudes of all too many cyclists.  It is for these same reasons that I tend to ride with other like minded people who are capable of breaking away from these confining molds while enjoying the lovely freedom that a bicycle ride, stripped away of all the racy/tech forward jargon and thinking patterns, can truly offer.

Myself explaining how sketchy but fun our ride was as I underbiked on my old mtb:  Photo - Cass Gilbert

The past and the present

 My work with bicycles has come and gone in a variety of ways.  I started getting into bike stuff by building myself single speed and fixed gear bikes, then for friends and neighbors, creating and maintained a bike related blog (still but less often), working a small side repair gig of my own, eventually becoming a mechanic by trade (now with a different shop) and being hired by the city as a bike mechanic/teacher/builder/dissembler/many-things-er (still).  I had and still have many friends and acquaintances in the bike world here in New Mexico with the long story short being that the connections still permeate much of what my day to day life looks like.

With all this having been said, its not the activity of cycling as much as bicycle culture, industry and waste that I am burnt on.  Maintaining a place in these worlds has become increasingly uncomfortable and difficult for me.  Investing energy and time in it all has substantially worn thin as I am less and less interested with many things bike related.  Though I still love to ride, build/repair,  write/read and teach/learn about all-things-bike related; I struggle to find the drive to become more embedded in these often niche and affluent-forward cycling cliques/communities and businesses/institutions.  Though my place in it all may be on the fringes of hip/cool/in, I know I am having fun, helping others, upcycling bikes and making meaningful connections all the while.  The blog has been a huge outlet for me to express and contemplate ideas while forging a deeper sense of identityless identity in this ever changing bike world.

 This is another good opportunity to thank those who have been friendly and supportive of me in my goofy and often off kilter ways of thinking and doing things.  I appreciate so much the friends I have made who embrace me as I come and are comfortable with my lack of fitting the mold.  Thank you all!

Manufacturing genres: the adventure/gravel/allroad/ bike euphoria

I overheard a conversation at a brewery the other week where two guys were chatting some pretty heavy bike nerd.  "Modular, Adventure road, compliance, frame flex" were all words and phrases that came from the opposing end of the bench where I sat.  I am listening to these two wax poetics about the miraculous wonders that are supposedly going to materialize via new frame acquisition.  The second guy talks about his "cross bike" (wondering if he actually uses it for cyclocross?) and how having an all road/gravel/adventure bike would be a highly welcomed "new" addition to his stable.  I am thinking to myself that this guy can obviously lay down some serious dollars in the name of a very, very similar bike judging by the components and frame materials he spoke of: my mental math has me thinking around $4k easily.  I find myself contemplating the ultra subtle differences between what this guy is describing and what he apparently already has in his possession.  I am thinking two final thoughts: If he didn't have $4k of seemingly easy to come by disposable income would he even consider what he is actually talking about, and if he would even have the inclination in the first place had the ever crafty marketing think tanks/"engineers" not conjured up these not so different bike niches.  God forbid he defiles his cross bike with a few roll bags and maybe a triangle: thats just a no-no. This guy clearly doesn't  need a new bike.  I frankly don't think even truly wants one.  What i do think he wants in fact is a new product that makes an abundantly clear lifestyle statement to his buddies when he goes out and rides that damn-near carbon copy of a redundant bike he is about to purchase.  He wants to make it clear that he was not the last one to miss the bandwagon of "new is hot" inertia that our beloved cycling industry is collectively taking us for a ride on.

Here is a really nice budget build touring bike from the 80's.  Big clearance/tires, bag/basket, slack-ish geometry and some
new components bring this bike back to life as a fully functioning paved/dirt road bike that can be used to camp and such

Calling it what it is 

 In December of 2015 I wrote a blog post called is the "adventure bike" phenomenon a double edged sword?  The basic premise was questioning the rational of owning a different bike for every new cycling category the industry collectively threw at us.  The goal of the post was not to discourage new riders from purchasing a bike and stimulating the bicycle industry as much as it was a question of biting the bullet on a high dollar purchase in the name of marginally differing geometries and designs.  You see the thing is that I think adventure/rando/gravel/whatever bikes are some of the best bikes to do just about a little of everything.  They bridge gaps well, are usually less expensive than full-tilt race machines (be it mountain or road) and are typically more comfortable and practical in the process.  Acquiring one of these bikes is great if it is one of your first purchases; but if you own a cyclocross/randonneur/touring bike already you might want to ask if you are really doing yourself a service as much as you are the bike/component manufactures.

Inconsequential is the word that comes to mind when I hear riders rationalize their way into a new bike to fit the "in-genre" bill.  Its all pretty reminiscent of the all mountain/enduro/gravity craze that we are still trying to sort out in the mountain biking world over the last four or five years.  People buying bikes with an extra 10mm of travel, 1 degree slacker head tube angle and 4-5 mm thicker stanchion tubes etc has caused the used bike market to explode with perfectly capable machines spanning 1-5 or so years in age.  For a song these frames and full bikes can be had as the aforementioned mentality has cleaned the slate for yet another generation of "it" bikes to fill that ever illusive sweet spot of perfect bike riding bliss.  This wont end any time soon, so perhaps its worth asking yourself what will work for you, is within your budget, will last a long time, will be easily serviceable and retain some form of value over the long run if resale or trade is a concern. 

With the reintroduction of slick-ish 26" 2.25 tires dubbed "all road adventure" becoming en-vogue, a 26" mountain
bike conversion seems like a fairly logical way of achieving the goal with that old mtb you might find yourself having the
garage.  Somewhere a rider repurposes an early nineties mb-3 as a seemingly well equipped, drop bar camping/touring bike.

 

When is enough enough

 

If you couldn't tell by now, I am in no way a fan of the bike industry as a whole.  As questioned and elaborated upon in previous posts throughout the blogs short time-line I have really dug deep into the collective psyche that encompasses both the producer and consumer.  I have looked and am still looking far into bike related consumption patterns and both the positive and negative byproducts that incur.  My big curiosities lay in how and why we buy what we do, when we do and as often as we do.  Sometimes the answers are far from what I might have initially guessed as I move forward in my inquires and subsequent contemplation.

  By nature of  the critical subject matter that has dictated my writing as of late I am sometimes made out to be something like that old grouchy archetype who just cant stand "forward" movement.  Often I get lumped into categories like this by those that maybe catch the tail end of a thought or conversation I am sharing with someone.  People see my bikes and associate me with retrogrouches so much so that I have jokingly embraced the moniker by placing a sticker that a friend gave me which reads "retrogrouch" on the top tube of my grocery/camp/whatever bike.  But its not so much that I am anti progress/refinement/change as much as it is that I don't buy the notion that "new" entails inherent goodness; that high frequency equates to quality, or that supposed refinement translates to revolution.  Many an improvement come along over the years, but the fundamental concept that we should discard and upgrade as each iteration "supersedes" it's last is entirely part in parcel with the tremendous levels of waste, bike related debt and component/bike standardizing-frenzies obfuscating older components and bikes.  We are all to often glutenous consumers who chase the "new" at a rate that has us looking for solutions to problems that were created by said chase altogether.

Helmet religion and fear tactics

Some unspoken marriages are seemingly inexorable.  The baseball and the bat.  The typewriter and the ink ribbon.  The bike and the helmet?  All my cycling life I have been told that the two must and will co-exist.  I took it as being part and parcel with the activity and never gave it much attention.  Going to mount up the bike today?  Going to wear my helmet: and thats that.  Its rather tough to think or argue the contrary when there is no outward force giving momentum to such contemplation.  But here I am today as a cyclist, mechanic, student/teacher and blogger of many-things-cycling who does not wear a helmet.  Touchy a subject it will always be; constantly having to defend the stance of cycling without the seemingly common sense "aid" of a helmet, but I am here to touch on why it is that I find myself comfortable engaging in such a taboo act.

Fear sells

I was always told that you can more often than not find answers in life by following the paper trail of which money leads.  Asking questions regarding who has the most to gain will almost always yield truth in the face of such uncertainty.  When it comes to the best selling kit in the cycling apparatus world, helmets stand unchallenged as an easy #1.  A no-brainer it is that the "riding without a helmet as suicide" rhetoric is purported most by the interests that be.  The helmet manufacturing corporations have one very specific job, and that is to produce, stylize, distribute, lobby and most importantly sell us the idea that the helmet is to cycling what peanut butter is to jelly.  

I am not as interested in talking about all of the contradicting, highly refutable, and usually inaccurate metrics by which the helmet is measured "successful" in testing as I am in contemplating the often desperate, fear based approach by which helmet companies and the cycling industry as a whole have used to scared us into buying their usually ultra expensive, highly stylized and frighteningly light-weight/thin helmets.  We seldom do research ourselves these days as the same can not be more true for the at-face-value approach we so often see with regards to the helmet.  We swear by its efficacy, seldom question the surrounding facts and history all while spitting spiteful venom at those who quietly oppose the use of them.  I have seen no other aspect of cycling that has drawn as much desperate extremism as the religious like sacrament that is bicycle helmet usage.

not a fear tactic...

Would you..

Walk in a helmet? Wear a helmet in the work place?  Play outdoors on the playground with your kids wearing helmets?  Call me crazy, but I strongly feel that the likelihood of injury is just as high during these activities as during a bicycle ride.  The type of bicycle riding we are talking about of course makes all the difference as I am speaking of people who are out in public, riding their bikes safely while achieving non-racer speed or high level risk taking.  I am talking about people who are using bikes to get around, cruz and recreate as opposed to those doing tricks, attempting to break strava records down mountain trails or dodging in and out of traffic in an unsafe fashion.

Reflecting back I recall far more incidents of potential injury occurring during walking, working and driving than I ever did riding my bike.  Slipping and falling have happened more than once in both the street and the work place within the not to distant past for me.  Though I am completely aware that hitting my head could have happened during either instance it never crossed my mind to take it upon myself to wear a helmet during these otherwise safe activities.  Walking, working and general outdoor/indoor play and of course driving have without question an inherent risk of injury.  The real question is whether or not it is personally acceptable to subscribe to the notion that bicycle riding yields a higher danger that requires supposedly "life saving" safety net equipment.  Would we would still be as inclined to pedal in the first place if mandatory helmet laws were put in place?  By looking at the huge decline in active cyclists within nearly every county/city/country where the previous has been implemented we can see that the answer is almost always a "no".

definitely not using fear tactics in this public announcement from AZ

But isn't it safer?

From everything that I have discovered during my research of places where bicycle helmet laws have been enacted and implemented, the results yielded seem to be overwhelmingly contrary to the goal.  One of the most known, meticulously documented and openly criticized instances was when Australia passed a still in use compulsory helmet law in 1991.  The law was straightforward; cycle with a helmet or pay fines.  Over the years the evidence that helmets may actually achieve opposite effects started trickling in: helmet use was discovered to perpetuate diffuse axial brain injury (occurring from the head turning quickly due to the increased diameter of helmets), the duration of time spent in hospitals for cycling related injury increased, helmeted cyclists were more likely to be hit by overconfident and negligent drivers in cars, risk compensation in cyclists increased greatly thus increasing injury, and Australia's cycling related serious injury rate rose 22% greater than in the Netherlands (the bicycling mecca with one of the highest densities of bicycle commuter per capita that observes and enforces no helmet laws).  This data and census can be found all over with a quick internet search; abundant data and studies from actual neurologists, surgeons and various third party investigators.  Of course none of these studies are publicly advertised as it would directly undermine the excruciatingly hard work that helmet companies and their contracted lobbying agents have worked so hard for: getting a helmet (and preferably those expensive aero ones) on the head of every cyclist and other supposedly "high risk" activities as well.

A sea of young and old cyclists miraculously managing to keep their brains inside their shells

I feel that my cessation of using a bicycle helmet is in a large way a quiet form of activism.  Instead of going around with a t-shirt that says in bold print "helmets can actually increase your chance of brain and spinal injury", I choose to ride carefully wherever I can without the use of one.  I personally prefer to take the risk of a good cut or abrasion to the head (which will very much heal) as opposed to risking permanent spinal and nerve injury that bicycle helmets can cause.

  Sometimes people ask about my rational behind not using one and I simply state the fact that I no longer blindly swallow the pill that is the common bicycle helmet/safety/fear rhetoric.  I state some basic but bold findings and suggest doing some research while making attempts at being as cordial about it as possible.  I fully realize that many will write me off entirely based on the deep seeded nature of our "helmet or risk death" conditioning, but i refuse to stop being honest with not only others but mostly with myself regarding these illusions of safety and their pervasive byproducts.  Please, think a bit for yourself: do some homework, weigh out the options and come to a logical conclusion of your own without the propagandizing of said corporations and conjoining lobbyists.

In defense of the beautiful bicycle

Not everyone can be picky when it comes to the bike they are afforded.  Some have a somewhat generic yet lovely hand-me-down gifted to them that served a family member or friend well for years .  Others had limited resources and jumped at the least expensive option because it was fast, inexpensive and easily acquirable with minimal research.  Not all of us have the luxury to take the time to purchase and build up a well riding, beautiful looking bicycle that suits our functional needs as much as it satisfies our aesthetic eye.  For some it doesn't even matter much altogether.

Then there are those of us who see the bike as more than just an object of pure utility, but as a gracefully functional piece of art that blurs this line entirely.  For some the bicycle is embraced as an object that will acquire not only tremendous use, but also visual admiration that warrants a treatment in beautiful design and assembly that parallels its function.  For those who see the bicycle as a marvelous object, the craft of bicycle building, assembly and repair becomes much more than just an act of labor, but an expression that elates the workmanship of bicycles to its highest form; an art.

Many people would consider nearly every aspect of this bicycle a constituent of art

Does it really matter?

Many a person has failed to understand my long time affinity with the bicycle let alone my attraction to the object in an artistic context.  Unnecessary and frivolous are words I have heard uttered in conversations that are suggestive of aesthetics' importance in bicycle design.  "Why is it that so many fail to see the mundane as beautiful" I have often wondered in my observance of the lack of love and attention given to so many otherwise potentially beautiful objects.  From kitchen knives to desks, I have seen both polar extremes of pure function vs pure form dominate the design and execution of various objects, both previously said and not.  For many its either one or the other while few manage to seamlessly teeter the fine line that so often dissects the two.  It is when function rests neither above nor under aesthetic that a seemingly perfect blend between the two begins to distinguishing an object as art vs the contrary.  What this whole "art" thing remains to be interpreted as is of course entirely in the eye of the beholder.  For some it is the gentle taper of a 4:1 airfoil that composes the down tube of a highly aerodynamic, fully carbon race machine.  For others it is a thin walled tube of steel that gently announces its encounter with its partnering tubes in the form of softly curving, color contrasting lugs.  Maybe a huge part of all of this is what the user plans to do with these machines of beauty.  Is it an upright, mellow paced cruz through town that the rider is looking for or perhaps an all out time trial effort that boasts the singular goal of speed?  Will swept back bars and a large leather saddle be the visual cue of a cyclist who wishes for optimal speed?  I wonder if conversely, a cyclist seeking leisure, comfort and practicality would find a pair of deep section, low spoke count carbon wheels attractive on their bike that is suggestive of everything BUT high speed?  Do intended applications give rise to particular aesthetic taste? Do our lifestyles and ambitions dictate our concept of what makes a bicycle beautiful to begin with?

Conversely, others would consider this to be highly artistic in execution

Treat your self

Regardless of your cup of tea, or coffee for that matter; I am here to say that I feel we should all be sensitive to one an others' selective taste.  What stands out as art to me might be a repulsive bit of kit to your sensibilities.  I can't expect my desired flavor to resonate deeply with all whom it concerns, but I can make an argument for the search of flavor altogether.

For those of us who might eventually spend decades with a bicycle in our possession, it only makes sense to acquire something that satisfies our visual desire as much as our physical.  When expressing our taste in the form of color palate, component selection, tube bonding and line flow in frame design we are merging multiple elements of beauty that give our ride a unique, personal bit of artistic character.  Will any of the previously mentioned adversely or positively affect the handling characteristics, weight or overall feel of the bike?  The answer is usually no.  But if that is the case, why not experiment with flavor a bit?  Why not take some time and spice up our experience in a way that gives it multiple dimensions that might otherwise be lacking?  For what reason can one argue the revocation of additional layers of depth that only seem to enhance our relationship with these potentially beautiful objects that we integrate into our daily lives?  For what reason should we avoid splicing elements of artistic craft into the "every day" work and product that we inevitably spend so much time laboring over and acquiring?

Why I turned down a full time, well paying job at a small local bike shop

I was recently contacted by the owner of what will remain an unspecified long time favorite bike shop of mine.  Small, homey and friendly are all words that have described my experience at this place over the years, and I feel honored to have been reached out to by the shops founder/owner.  He offers full time (even through slow season), good pay, some perks.. not bad I am initially thinking to myself as a smile comes across my face.  I spend the afternoon pondering the though on and off, considering the pros and cons while looking at my current transitional situation as I take obligatory time off from Esperonza community bike shop after being brought on as a "seasonal" teacher/mechanic/dork.  It of course sounded appealing initially and was somewhat tough to come out and say no, but I did, it feels good, and here is why.

Sticking to my guns

 Somewhere along the line a while back I made a creed of sorts with myself that I would focus on fixing bikes and find used parts far more so than I look to sell new counterparts.  It wasn't super strict as I was working for Stevie's Happy Bikes at the time, primarily brought on to repair bikes and eventually sell mostly used bikes as well (along with the occasional new sale here and there).  I was in love with the gig: being able to fix and often resurrect what were mostly peoples older, sensible, practical and usually serviceable bikes.  It was sort of a mini godsend for me as I had such a big affinity with building up bikes for myself and friends with as many nicer quality, used parts as I could find (be it freebees, ebay and craigslist scores or "boneyard" bits from my favorite shops).  I was getting paid to do what I already so much enjoyed while having great access to unique used bits as Stevie's was truly one of the last shops to support and sell older bikes and parts.  Reviving bikes, keeping workhorses running and helping people source affordable bits for their steeds became the daily MO as it all felt right.

After leaving Stevie's and transitioning to Esperonza I got an even more in depth taste of what I so desired. Not only was I exclusively wrenching bikes without selling a single thing, but I was helping teach people how to work on the bike they already had.  Using donated parts, take off bits from otherwise useless bikes and retrofitting anything necessary to get the job done was business as usual.  Working more and more in this context had me feeling even strong motivation to encourage people to work within their means while supporting positive ideals about the kind of riding that can realistically be done on most bikes.  Between writing on the blog here and teaching/wrenching at the community shop, it was as if I was truly becoming an ambassador of the types of ethics and ideals that I have grown and am still developing.  Being able to endorse various real world thoughts and feelings without undermining any sort of bottom line has been amazing.  Not needing to push expensive upgrades and bikes at the shop or contradict the messages of hypothetical blog adverts has given me the creative freedom to make stream of consciousness recommendations, being unfiltered in my opinions and sharing giving real world, no BS feedback and honesty.

This is my idea of a shop.  Tools, a stand and peoples bicycles.

Shops, sales and growth

To tie things back into here, my fundamental problem at hand is that most of the bikes that we bike shop workers/owners end up dealing with/selling are the higher end, race oriented bike toys.  Its not that I have an issue with people going out on their weekend recreational ride with one of their usually many bikes as much as it is that I have no desire to be a sales person/facilitator for said lifestyle.  There are plenty of bike shops that are already more than happy to make this their priority and it is exactly these bike sales that keep the already close to closing doors open for these shops.  The slow season shop instability stems mostly from business models that boast growth centralized around the season to season rush for the next "new" bike/product.  This inevitably demands that newer tech which is usually no better in quality, value, serviceability or compatibility gets sold in order to keep the revenue/jobs/overhead/net going as said.

Call me crazy but I just cant bring myself to become a cog in the motion that is the buy-sell-grow-repeat bike shop formula.  $1,000 entry level mountain and road bikes coming with a gamut of parts that will only be serviceable for a limited amount of time is not something that I am quick to get behind.  Brifters that gum up and become almost impossible to bring back to good order, hydraulics that only seal for so long and can't expect to work after a few years coupled with frighteningly rare service parts, suspensions that might have product support in the future, the trickle down of electronics in mid range componentry (and inevitably the entry level bikes when cost effective enough as we saw with hydraulics, suspensions and other new tech/standards) and the ever changing dimension standards are what I have to look forward to selling, endorsing, and supporting at nearly any thriving bike "shop" today.

 I use quotations above for the word bike shop because not all bike shops actually sell product beyond service bits, accessories and some small upgrades.  Not all shops are trapped in the jaws of the dealer vice with the obligation to continue to carry the newest said bike from "x" brand to keep the doors open another day.  Though they may be few and far between today, there are indeed bike "shops" that are primarily repair based and offer something that speaks far more to me than any of the aforementioned.  

Just wanting to wrench

   Really, at the end of the day I just want more than anything to service bikes.  I want to help keep the massive abundance of stuff in this world that we have already produced functioning as long as it can.  Ultimately I want to continue to encourage people to try to the best of their ability to live within their means, unsubscribe from the heavy marketing fluff and the "its never good enough" pressure to always seek the lighter, faster, quieter, most expensive products that the over saturated market place always has to offer.  I love bikes and seeing people get on them; but I even more love helping steer people in the direction of bikes that will fulfill their desire to ride for longer than the new-standard-daily/ultra high tech/nu-material-market is willing to support. 

 I don't want to sell disposable bike stuff.  I don't want to encourage people to buy disposable bike stuff.  Even if its what people are asking for, I wont be the mouthpiece sales pitch for this stuff that I fail to find a drive to support myself.  I can't bring myself to perpetuate an industry's increasingly insatiable habit of profiting from our often feeble nature.  If cutting edge tech is what the industry wants to sell while people continue to find the need to buy it then so be it, but I won't be the next in line to dole out the product in an industry that is drowning itself in waste, redundancy and gimmicks.  

Your bike hides no secrets: A mechanic's desire to see well loved bikes

After turning the wrench on bike after bike you begin to notice patterns and anomalies in the sort of lives that bicycles live.  They start speaking to you in differing ways as you nurture them in the stand, attempting to fulfill the love they are so often crying to receive.  Its something that I imagine paralleling a therapist listening to story after story while attempting to navigate the tribulations, secrets, aspirations and difficulties of various patients.  Servicing  peoples bicycles is like having a door opened to the deeper realities of these little machines.  Its as if we mechanics have been granted an intimate tour that tells us of the love and attention or neglect and carelessness that said bikes have experienced.  From severe cases of reoccurring trauma and abuse to paranoia induced cleanliness indicative of overbearing love, we see it all as the bike hides nothing in its varying states.  To the mechanics eyes, ears and hands your bike bears no secret.

Riding on a flat tire to get back home is one of the quickest ways
to throw your wheels seriously out of whack.  Getting a ride or walking
will save you a headache down the road

Your bike wants to be loved

Numerous are the occasion that my soul has been crushed as bike after bike arrives in my stand to share with me their all to often harsh realities.  Skipping gears, bent derailleurs, broken spokes, bald tires, bent handlebars, indexed bottom brackets and headsets: you name it, these are the more obvious first signs that often foreshadow much deeper neglect.  From overambitious and "beyond the intended use" of the bicycle to blatant misuse, I see bikes in states that absolutely amaze me.  Often times I have pondered wide eyed with my peers as we contemplate and imagine the stories behind these bikes.

It seems that basic education, riding technique and simple bike care are often the missing aspects that underscore the varying states of countless bicycles that I and thousands of other mechanics have rehabilitated.  The lack of pre-ride once overs, post ride tlc, post crash inspection, fines in bike handling and the employment of gentle shifting techniques become glaringly obvious as we scan through the aftermath.  Even the best mechanics in the world (no I am not one of them) need your help with preventive maintenance and good riding technique if we are to help keep the gears going as you expect to see a return on the life expectancy of the beautiful bicycle(s) you worked so hard to acquire.

Cyclocross rider Katie Kompton finessing her way through the rough stuff
by letting her body weight off the saddle and her limbs act as suspension

Be gentle and you shall be rewarded

If there is one big drawback (there are many) that modern racing has on recreational and commuter cyclists (no i am not anti racing) its the deeply ingrained mentality that we often have to "mash" and "go hard" at mostly any cost when riding "seriously".  We feel the need to take big risks, push our bodies and gear to their absolute threshold and in turn write off any adverse side effects that incur to our gear as necessary casualties.  "Yeah man.. I totally broke my pedal while I was crushing down that rock garden" is the kind of stuff I hear regularly as some cyclists almost seem to boast about their suffering bikes.  Its as if getting gnarly is directly proportional to how much you can manage to fuck your bike up throughout a season.  Hearing things like "My drive train is totally blown.. I mean I put in so many miles this month on that new cassette" as said rider fails to recognize that shifting under 100% load on uphill pushes will make short use of any cassette/freewheel regardless of how well the shift ramps seem to function is not uncommon.  This is the mentality of a culture that is dominated not only by a hyper disposable/throwaway approach to cycling but by a gear smashing, getting rad at all cost attitude and is reverberated throughout the adverts and rhetoric of the racing world.  The bottom line is that regardless of whether you consider yourself a casual/recreational cyclist or a serious/sporty rider, there is so much that can be done to prevent us from wasting our way through unnecessary amounts of gear by being realistic, riding safely and understanding basic mechanics.

getting aero sometimes means getting air tho....right?

 

  Experiment, watch, listen, learn

As a developing and learning cyclists (and veteran cyclists too for that matter) there should be no shame in asking questions, watching tutorials, attempting to get your hands dirty with basic tune ups and watching experienced cyclists ride.  Learning starts as soon as we open up the doors to criticism, engaging in trial and error and become ready to try new things.  From riding techniques to mechanical advice, there are people out there in the cycling community who want to help you out in any way they can: Forums, local bike shops, group rides and bloggers/vloggers to name just a few.  There is a sea of resource out there to help you give your bike the love it needs in all the good ways you can.  Education is what firstly predicates the subjects discussed in this post and I hope the doors of curiosity and question asking will be the byproduct of my words here.  Please ask! Please help us mechanics take care of your bike as we want nothing more than to see it in a healthy state of being!