April 2025
How long do knicks last?
25/04/25 23:55 Filed in: Gear
That seems like a pretty simple question, but it proves to have a very complex answer.
I've been considering the answer for some time now. And I feel no more prepared to answer the question than when I began.
By the time the fabric is thin and see-through, they are long past their use-by date. On some of my older bibs the end came when the straps stopped being so stretchy - if they can't stay up then they aren't fit to wear. On others, it was the gripper elastic around the leg opening that perished first. My newest shorts were purchased for commuting to work and now have approximately 125 trips through the washing machine on each one. My race shorts from the same brand have the same pad in them, and worn back to back the less worn race pair either seem a little firmer in the padding, or no difference (I think it depends on the day more than which particular shorts that are being compared). The back-to-back wearing thing is what I do with my cycling shoes to decide when they are worn, as long as the current shoe feels similar to the unused new shoe, they can keep going. It seems easy with shoes and hard with shorts.
I don't believe the end comes strictly from numbers of wash cycles - time in the saddle also contributes. And in the case of my commuting shorts, they've had comparatively few miles. At 30ish km per day and 125 days, that's approaching 4000 km. Where I could find a mileage for top quality shorts, it was around double that. But neither is it just mileage - each washing is also contributing to the demise. If I did 100 km per outing, then I'd have no quandary around saying "worn out". Because 12,000 km is on the far side of everyone's line. If 50 km is typical and 8000 km is worn, then that's 160 washing cycles.
By neither distance nor washing can I definitively state that these shorts are worn out. I don't want to drag them past their end, that doesn't look, feel or perform best. Neither do I want to abandon them before they are ready to be abandoned. That's wasteful and expensive.
Like I wrote at the beginning, I still don't know the answer.
I've been considering the answer for some time now. And I feel no more prepared to answer the question than when I began.
By the time the fabric is thin and see-through, they are long past their use-by date. On some of my older bibs the end came when the straps stopped being so stretchy - if they can't stay up then they aren't fit to wear. On others, it was the gripper elastic around the leg opening that perished first. My newest shorts were purchased for commuting to work and now have approximately 125 trips through the washing machine on each one. My race shorts from the same brand have the same pad in them, and worn back to back the less worn race pair either seem a little firmer in the padding, or no difference (I think it depends on the day more than which particular shorts that are being compared). The back-to-back wearing thing is what I do with my cycling shoes to decide when they are worn, as long as the current shoe feels similar to the unused new shoe, they can keep going. It seems easy with shoes and hard with shorts.
I don't believe the end comes strictly from numbers of wash cycles - time in the saddle also contributes. And in the case of my commuting shorts, they've had comparatively few miles. At 30ish km per day and 125 days, that's approaching 4000 km. Where I could find a mileage for top quality shorts, it was around double that. But neither is it just mileage - each washing is also contributing to the demise. If I did 100 km per outing, then I'd have no quandary around saying "worn out". Because 12,000 km is on the far side of everyone's line. If 50 km is typical and 8000 km is worn, then that's 160 washing cycles.
By neither distance nor washing can I definitively state that these shorts are worn out. I don't want to drag them past their end, that doesn't look, feel or perform best. Neither do I want to abandon them before they are ready to be abandoned. That's wasteful and expensive.
Like I wrote at the beginning, I still don't know the answer.
How wide will road tyres get?
20/04/25 18:42 Filed in: Gear
Remember the adage: all things being equal, the wider tyre has lower rolling resistance. Also remember the corollary: Things are never equal.
What are you supposed to make of those two statements?
Every time you move up one size of tyre, from a 20 mm to a 23 mm to a 25 mm to a 28 mm to a 30 mm, the amount that tyre has to distort to make contact with the road decreases. If the thickness of the rubber and the carcass of the tyre are identical across all the sizes, then each step sees a reduction in energy losses. Within one model of tyre it would extremely unusual for all those sizes to be offered. And if several were on offer, the larger ones tend to have a thicker layer of rubber on top, or (sometimes and) a heavier carcass. Both of which increase rolling resistance.
And then there is the matter of aerodynamic resistance. If all of those tyres are put on the same wheel, then only one can be optimally aero, and all the others are less slippery.
No matter what, increased size brings increased weight. The wider rim necessary to provide good support and good aero efficiency to the wider tyre also adds weight and complexity.
Rolling resistance is always important on a bicycle with so little power to motivate the bike, but aero resistance becomes key from around 20 kmh upwards. By 40 kmh the aero factor is so great you can almost forget about rolling resistance.
Wider tyres operate at lower pressures with lower rolling resistance when used on wider rims, but add mass and aero drag (especially when we exceed the optimal tyre size for a given rim). Increasing size reduces one aspect but increases the other aspect. Our optimum then depends on the bike's velocity.
All of that is a way of saying that they cannot become too wide or weight/aero will suffer more than rolling resistance can gain for a net loss in speed. I think that limit has to be somewhere around 30mm tyres.
There is also the question of what feels "good" too, but I haven't ridden enough good, fat tyres to know what to expect from a 30 mm racing tyre. My 28 mm tubeless training tyres surprise me by feeling quite sharp (neither heavy nor slow). But I know the measured rolling resistance puts them well behind a good racy 25 mm tyre.
Perhaps that 30ish mm limit is a temporary one? As technology improves the wider tyres could surpass the narrower ones. Regardless, the practical limit can be observed by looking at motorbikes. The biggest and most powerful litre sport bikes use about a 120 mm front tyre. Those have 150x the power of a bicycle on tap. We never need go there. Even a low powered sport bike has nearly the same front tyre - a 100 or 110 mm section. These tyres are dictated by mass (of the bike & rider combo) more than anything else.
Footnote: looks like the UCI will step in and rule a max size for road bikes. Like the minimum mass they specified around 30 years ago, if they do it will hang around a long time.
What are you supposed to make of those two statements?
Every time you move up one size of tyre, from a 20 mm to a 23 mm to a 25 mm to a 28 mm to a 30 mm, the amount that tyre has to distort to make contact with the road decreases. If the thickness of the rubber and the carcass of the tyre are identical across all the sizes, then each step sees a reduction in energy losses. Within one model of tyre it would extremely unusual for all those sizes to be offered. And if several were on offer, the larger ones tend to have a thicker layer of rubber on top, or (sometimes and) a heavier carcass. Both of which increase rolling resistance.
And then there is the matter of aerodynamic resistance. If all of those tyres are put on the same wheel, then only one can be optimally aero, and all the others are less slippery.
No matter what, increased size brings increased weight. The wider rim necessary to provide good support and good aero efficiency to the wider tyre also adds weight and complexity.
Rolling resistance is always important on a bicycle with so little power to motivate the bike, but aero resistance becomes key from around 20 kmh upwards. By 40 kmh the aero factor is so great you can almost forget about rolling resistance.
Wider tyres operate at lower pressures with lower rolling resistance when used on wider rims, but add mass and aero drag (especially when we exceed the optimal tyre size for a given rim). Increasing size reduces one aspect but increases the other aspect. Our optimum then depends on the bike's velocity.
All of that is a way of saying that they cannot become too wide or weight/aero will suffer more than rolling resistance can gain for a net loss in speed. I think that limit has to be somewhere around 30mm tyres.
There is also the question of what feels "good" too, but I haven't ridden enough good, fat tyres to know what to expect from a 30 mm racing tyre. My 28 mm tubeless training tyres surprise me by feeling quite sharp (neither heavy nor slow). But I know the measured rolling resistance puts them well behind a good racy 25 mm tyre.
Perhaps that 30ish mm limit is a temporary one? As technology improves the wider tyres could surpass the narrower ones. Regardless, the practical limit can be observed by looking at motorbikes. The biggest and most powerful litre sport bikes use about a 120 mm front tyre. Those have 150x the power of a bicycle on tap. We never need go there. Even a low powered sport bike has nearly the same front tyre - a 100 or 110 mm section. These tyres are dictated by mass (of the bike & rider combo) more than anything else.
Footnote: looks like the UCI will step in and rule a max size for road bikes. Like the minimum mass they specified around 30 years ago, if they do it will hang around a long time.
Two sizes of carbon rails
16/04/25 23:01 Filed in: Gear
Why bike industry? Why??
The seatpost that Trek included with my replacement frame - very nice of them too - was the RSL "flexy" carbon post. This ships with 7x10 carbon rail "ears". I discovered that the seat mast that shipped with my original Checkpoint used the same identical ears, but were for 7 mm round rails (ie, metal rails). I quickly put those pieces into play to mount up my Fizik saddle. And a couple of others. None of which I really liked.
Then, as I've noted previously, I tried out some other Bontrager saddles. They use a 7x10 mm oval rail in carbon.
When I decided to try the Ergon saddle, I didn't even consider that the rails might be different. Twenty-five hours of riding and listening to the seatpost head snap over bumps and I had the epiphany while on the bike - the rails are 7x9 mm and therefore too small for the ears. It explains a lot. Tightening does hold the saddle in place, but doesn't feel like it's "tight". And the bottom of the ears touch the actual post - which doesn't seem correct.
I've got the proper ears on order and will report back. Before this epiphany, I was contemplating buying a different post, since I think I like this saddle.
As a side note, I can't believe how expensive these ears are. On the Ergon post (also sold for less money with Canyon branding) they are sold with round rail ears and the 7x9 oval ears are the only other option. Trek sells the RSL post with the 7x10 oval ears installed and will sell you either of the other sizes. All of these things sell for about $60. For two bits of aluminium and a bolt (2 bolts in the Ergon post).
I ask, what was wrong with the 2-bolt post heads that all the lightweight posts used for many years? They could accommodate most any rail size - at worst with longer bolts. I don't feel like these eared posts are any better at retaining or supporting the saddle rails, and in some ways could be worse.
Fingers crossed, the new ears quiet the bike back to pure silence.
The seatpost that Trek included with my replacement frame - very nice of them too - was the RSL "flexy" carbon post. This ships with 7x10 carbon rail "ears". I discovered that the seat mast that shipped with my original Checkpoint used the same identical ears, but were for 7 mm round rails (ie, metal rails). I quickly put those pieces into play to mount up my Fizik saddle. And a couple of others. None of which I really liked.
Then, as I've noted previously, I tried out some other Bontrager saddles. They use a 7x10 mm oval rail in carbon.
When I decided to try the Ergon saddle, I didn't even consider that the rails might be different. Twenty-five hours of riding and listening to the seatpost head snap over bumps and I had the epiphany while on the bike - the rails are 7x9 mm and therefore too small for the ears. It explains a lot. Tightening does hold the saddle in place, but doesn't feel like it's "tight". And the bottom of the ears touch the actual post - which doesn't seem correct.
I've got the proper ears on order and will report back. Before this epiphany, I was contemplating buying a different post, since I think I like this saddle.
As a side note, I can't believe how expensive these ears are. On the Ergon post (also sold for less money with Canyon branding) they are sold with round rail ears and the 7x9 oval ears are the only other option. Trek sells the RSL post with the 7x10 oval ears installed and will sell you either of the other sizes. All of these things sell for about $60. For two bits of aluminium and a bolt (2 bolts in the Ergon post).
I ask, what was wrong with the 2-bolt post heads that all the lightweight posts used for many years? They could accommodate most any rail size - at worst with longer bolts. I don't feel like these eared posts are any better at retaining or supporting the saddle rails, and in some ways could be worse.
Fingers crossed, the new ears quiet the bike back to pure silence.
One-finger braking
10/04/25 23:23 Filed in: Gear
Most current disc brakes (road and mountain) are more than adequate to enable single digit braking. Why would you want to restrict yourself to one finger?
Because that leaves three others to hang on with. It is also much more precise, and precise braking is safe and controlled braking.
Also because that one finger should be the index finger, the most manoeuvrable and well controlled digit, you end up with even better precision.
Even on the road, I do all my shifting and braking with my index finger (and only that finger).
It is so key, I will go as far as to say if you can't get sufficient braking force one fingered, you need to do something to your bike rather than try to slow down with two (or more) fingers. Larger rotors, bigger brakes, better pads - or a combination thereof.
In the bad old days, lots of disc brake levers were quite long, enabling (encouraging) multiple fingers on the blade. Now they are all single finger with the optimal being your finger pad rests on the little hook at the end.
Death Grip is when you don't have a brake "covered". Again in the bad old days, death gripping was essential in rough terrain so you could actually hang on. Three fingers is more than enough to hang on with, so that index finger can cover the brake 100% of the time if you want. (Challenging oneself to ride Death Grip is fun, just reserve it for suitable locations where you won't come to grief.)
Go pay attention to your braking next time you're on your bike. Make it so that single finger braking is your default - and your riding will benefit.
Because that leaves three others to hang on with. It is also much more precise, and precise braking is safe and controlled braking.
Also because that one finger should be the index finger, the most manoeuvrable and well controlled digit, you end up with even better precision.
Even on the road, I do all my shifting and braking with my index finger (and only that finger).
It is so key, I will go as far as to say if you can't get sufficient braking force one fingered, you need to do something to your bike rather than try to slow down with two (or more) fingers. Larger rotors, bigger brakes, better pads - or a combination thereof.
In the bad old days, lots of disc brake levers were quite long, enabling (encouraging) multiple fingers on the blade. Now they are all single finger with the optimal being your finger pad rests on the little hook at the end.
Death Grip is when you don't have a brake "covered". Again in the bad old days, death gripping was essential in rough terrain so you could actually hang on. Three fingers is more than enough to hang on with, so that index finger can cover the brake 100% of the time if you want. (Challenging oneself to ride Death Grip is fun, just reserve it for suitable locations where you won't come to grief.)
Go pay attention to your braking next time you're on your bike. Make it so that single finger braking is your default - and your riding will benefit.
A monument for the ages
02/04/25 23:07 Filed in: Riding
As I write this, Milan-San Remo was last weekend and the coverage of the last few kilometres was stellar. Three top cyclists (all world champions) trying to use their particular strengths against the other two to win the longest (and one of the biggest) one-day races of each year. At 280 km, few races approach MSR for distance. Starting (near) Milan, they head quite promptly down to the Ligurian coast and ride along the coast road to San Remo. As is typical for most coastal roads, it isn't flat all the time. Some obstacles crop up that require a road to go up and down to get around them. Some of these lumps are all-time famous in pro cycling. Cipressa and Poggio are two climbs near the end of MSR that can make or break the race for riders.
Mathieu and Tadej were away together. Ganna was bridging on the descent of the Poggio to San Remo. The three came together with around 1 km to go. They didn't have to worry about the group catching them so they could play silly games and try to win. Both Pogi and Ganna dropped back a bit to watch VDP. He timed it perfectly and with a good stiff tailwind, went with 300 m to go. No one could come around him and he won.
Pogacar was strong, but there was no terrain that gave him a natural advantage. Van der Poel had done the preparation and was the only rider who could stay with Pogacar when he attacked. After almost 300 km, no one had great sprinting legs at the end. Decisive strategy was the deciding factor. On a headwind, going that early would have been suicide. But it's hard to come around in a tail wind.
There are tens of different coverage "cuts" on YouTube. If you haven't seen it yet, and you have any interest in road cycling, go watch this master class in race finishing.
Mathieu and Tadej were away together. Ganna was bridging on the descent of the Poggio to San Remo. The three came together with around 1 km to go. They didn't have to worry about the group catching them so they could play silly games and try to win. Both Pogi and Ganna dropped back a bit to watch VDP. He timed it perfectly and with a good stiff tailwind, went with 300 m to go. No one could come around him and he won.
Pogacar was strong, but there was no terrain that gave him a natural advantage. Van der Poel had done the preparation and was the only rider who could stay with Pogacar when he attacked. After almost 300 km, no one had great sprinting legs at the end. Decisive strategy was the deciding factor. On a headwind, going that early would have been suicide. But it's hard to come around in a tail wind.
There are tens of different coverage "cuts" on YouTube. If you haven't seen it yet, and you have any interest in road cycling, go watch this master class in race finishing.
November 2025
October 2025
September 2025
August 2025
July 2025
June 2025
May 2025
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
October 2025
September 2025
August 2025
July 2025
June 2025
May 2025
April 2025
March 2025
February 2025
January 2025
December 2024
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
August 2024
July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022