Helmet fit
04/12/24 23:26 Filed in: Gear
I have seen so many cyclists with ill-fitted helmets lately I am proposing you go test your helmet fit to ensure it is OK. A poorly fitted helmet can do more damage than it prevents - depending on the accident. According to published literature, a loose helmet roughly doubles your risk of head injury and one that can come off during the accident (because it is too big, not strapped on) triples the risk. The stats suggest that a poor fitting helmet is perhaps slightly safer than not wearing a helmet at all - I assume sometimes people fall on the helmet the "right" way despite the poor fit (and are saved) but for me if my choices were a poor fitting helmet or no helmet, I'd go no helmet. A poor fitting helmet can also fall over the eyes without notice, causing an accident.
What does properly fitted look like?
The helmet, unstrapped, fits snugly (but not tightly) on the head with little to no gap anywhere between the skull and the foam. When strapped on, the straps are tight enough that only 2 fingers easily slide between the strap and the skin of the wearer. The splitter device where the 2 straps come together should be immediately below the ear - both forward and aft straps equally snug.
Wearing it jauntily tilted back so the entire forehead is visible is inviting brain damage in a crash and makes the helmet easier to roll off your head (in the test or in real life).
What does properly fitted look like?
The helmet, unstrapped, fits snugly (but not tightly) on the head with little to no gap anywhere between the skull and the foam. When strapped on, the straps are tight enough that only 2 fingers easily slide between the strap and the skin of the wearer. The splitter device where the 2 straps come together should be immediately below the ear - both forward and aft straps equally snug.
Wearing it jauntily tilted back so the entire forehead is visible is inviting brain damage in a crash and makes the helmet easier to roll off your head (in the test or in real life).
Electronic shifting - for whom?
30/11/24 22:18 Filed in: Gear
We've come a looooong way from the first two forays into electronic shifting: Mavic Zap and Mektronic systems - they seemed to not work more often than they worked. I'm over a year into riding Red AXS on a daily basis and a Flight Attendant equipped MTB with AXS gearing regularly, and they are essentially faultless.
Shimano has their Di2 option (now with fewer wires - I love the description I saw online of wiredless) and Campagnolo the Super Record EPS wireless for the non-SRAM consumer. These are fundamentally the same. An electronic switch tells the computer to shift the gears for you. A servo-motor moves the derailleur. The chain shifts.
They aren't faster than cable activated. But they are digital where cables are analogue - my XO1 Eagle equipped bike I ride most weekends also shifts almost perfectly, but it is up to my thumb just how perfectly. Push a little too far and get a 2-gear downshift instead of the desired single gear (upshifts are a single shift per push so you can only have one at a time), or a 3-gear downshift instead of the desired two. The digital shift button is pushed or not pushed. The derailleur then shifts.
I've seen women with small hands who struggle with the mechanical front derailleur shift to the big ring because the lever needs to be moved a certain distance to effect a shift and small hands can fail to move it quite far enough. The same hands get a perfect shift with a digital button - every time. Even the rear derailleur shift governed by the thumb (on a MTB) can be a struggle for a small thumb. One tiny tap on the digital button effects a perfect shift. For my large (size 12) hands, I can shift on the road bike with a knuckle. Just tap the button with my index finger knuckle and knock off perfect shifts.
Both Shimano and SRAM (have never played with EPS so I can't comment) permit a sequential shifting mode as well. Instead of governing the front and rear derailleurs separately, the up and down shifts are requested from the lever and the computer decides if a front derailleur shift is required. This is great for an inexperienced cyclist who might not know when is the best time to shift the front derailleur. It is also great for people who have a shift-inhibiting issue with one hand as all shifting can be accomplished from one lever with Di2 though AXS requires right and left button presses to achieve up and down shifts (the default is both buttons for a front derailleur change, in sequential mode the both-sides push can be ignored or used to control a Reverb AXS post - or with new E1 Red there are auxiliary buttons on the lever that I believe can put all the shifting on one lever for the first time in SRAM gear).
I use what they call compensating mode. Every front derailleur shift is accompanied by an automatic shift the other way at the rear derailleur, if possible. When I go from small to big ring, it shifts into one lower sprocket at the same time, and vice versa. It can't if I am already in the largest (or smallest) sprocket. And AXS won't permit the small to small selection in any circumstance. I wouldn't use compensating mode in a race, but it is handy during commuting.
Bowden cable activated shifting can leave you stuck in high gear when the rear derailleur cable or any of its supporting hardware breaks - I've had this happen when the cable housing stop on the frame broke off in a race. Break the front derailleur cable and most front derailleurs will leave you in the small ring. When the shift cable breaks off inside the shift lever, it can be incredibly difficult to extract the stub end left behind with frayed cable ends poking everywhere. Housings wear out with routine use. Ratchet mechanisms that do the shifting wear, get dirty, can jam, can break.
While I am sure digital derailleurs have a lifespan, the main issue is forgetting to charge your battery and being left stuck in a gear (not high or low gear like a broken cable, but whatever gear you were in at the time). (The Shimano batteries are large and last months between charges so unlikely to fail mid-ride if you pay attention to the charged state of the battery at all regularly, and SRAM/Campag batteries are small so a spare one can be purchased and carried around for emergencies).
Installation is also super easy as there are no cables to run anywhere unless you chose Di2, in which case there are thin wires to run from the main battery to each derailleur. In an aero bike like my Madone, running the cables was a several hours long job that could (and should) be avoided by using wireless.
So who is electronic shifting for? Small hands, big hands, lazy mechanics, aero bikes, bikes without capability to run cables, small thumbs, weak thumbs, hand strength or coordination issues, those seeking perfection in shifting, novices, people not afraid of spending money and people who desire perfect shifting behaviour. I think that covers almost everyone. (which is why there are numerous frames without capacity to take cables...)
Shimano has their Di2 option (now with fewer wires - I love the description I saw online of wiredless) and Campagnolo the Super Record EPS wireless for the non-SRAM consumer. These are fundamentally the same. An electronic switch tells the computer to shift the gears for you. A servo-motor moves the derailleur. The chain shifts.
They aren't faster than cable activated. But they are digital where cables are analogue - my XO1 Eagle equipped bike I ride most weekends also shifts almost perfectly, but it is up to my thumb just how perfectly. Push a little too far and get a 2-gear downshift instead of the desired single gear (upshifts are a single shift per push so you can only have one at a time), or a 3-gear downshift instead of the desired two. The digital shift button is pushed or not pushed. The derailleur then shifts.
I've seen women with small hands who struggle with the mechanical front derailleur shift to the big ring because the lever needs to be moved a certain distance to effect a shift and small hands can fail to move it quite far enough. The same hands get a perfect shift with a digital button - every time. Even the rear derailleur shift governed by the thumb (on a MTB) can be a struggle for a small thumb. One tiny tap on the digital button effects a perfect shift. For my large (size 12) hands, I can shift on the road bike with a knuckle. Just tap the button with my index finger knuckle and knock off perfect shifts.
Both Shimano and SRAM (have never played with EPS so I can't comment) permit a sequential shifting mode as well. Instead of governing the front and rear derailleurs separately, the up and down shifts are requested from the lever and the computer decides if a front derailleur shift is required. This is great for an inexperienced cyclist who might not know when is the best time to shift the front derailleur. It is also great for people who have a shift-inhibiting issue with one hand as all shifting can be accomplished from one lever with Di2 though AXS requires right and left button presses to achieve up and down shifts (the default is both buttons for a front derailleur change, in sequential mode the both-sides push can be ignored or used to control a Reverb AXS post - or with new E1 Red there are auxiliary buttons on the lever that I believe can put all the shifting on one lever for the first time in SRAM gear).
I use what they call compensating mode. Every front derailleur shift is accompanied by an automatic shift the other way at the rear derailleur, if possible. When I go from small to big ring, it shifts into one lower sprocket at the same time, and vice versa. It can't if I am already in the largest (or smallest) sprocket. And AXS won't permit the small to small selection in any circumstance. I wouldn't use compensating mode in a race, but it is handy during commuting.
Bowden cable activated shifting can leave you stuck in high gear when the rear derailleur cable or any of its supporting hardware breaks - I've had this happen when the cable housing stop on the frame broke off in a race. Break the front derailleur cable and most front derailleurs will leave you in the small ring. When the shift cable breaks off inside the shift lever, it can be incredibly difficult to extract the stub end left behind with frayed cable ends poking everywhere. Housings wear out with routine use. Ratchet mechanisms that do the shifting wear, get dirty, can jam, can break.
While I am sure digital derailleurs have a lifespan, the main issue is forgetting to charge your battery and being left stuck in a gear (not high or low gear like a broken cable, but whatever gear you were in at the time). (The Shimano batteries are large and last months between charges so unlikely to fail mid-ride if you pay attention to the charged state of the battery at all regularly, and SRAM/Campag batteries are small so a spare one can be purchased and carried around for emergencies).
Installation is also super easy as there are no cables to run anywhere unless you chose Di2, in which case there are thin wires to run from the main battery to each derailleur. In an aero bike like my Madone, running the cables was a several hours long job that could (and should) be avoided by using wireless.
So who is electronic shifting for? Small hands, big hands, lazy mechanics, aero bikes, bikes without capability to run cables, small thumbs, weak thumbs, hand strength or coordination issues, those seeking perfection in shifting, novices, people not afraid of spending money and people who desire perfect shifting behaviour. I think that covers almost everyone. (which is why there are numerous frames without capacity to take cables...)
Cleat position matters
22/11/24 19:22 Filed in: Gear
I recently retired a pair of shoes. This took my newest shoes out of the "pain cave" and onto the road. I had ridden them several times on the trainer and found them to be fine. But as soon as I got them outside, they felt weird.
I double checked the cleat position against all the old shoes I've got with cleats still mounted - and they looked identical. But it felt unstable out of the saddle.
I took the time to slide the cleat approximately 1 mm further rearward on the shoe, and the difference was remarkable. There is no discernible difference when seated, but standing feels correct again.
One test I try when I put new shoes into action is to ride one new shoe with one old shoe (both combos) on the trainer against a load to ensure they're correct. And these shoes passed that. I'll have to throw in a standing sprint effort for future checking.
The bottom line is that differences between shoes means that even perfect replication of position doesn't mean that the position is perfect! To be perfect requires a bit of testing.
I double checked the cleat position against all the old shoes I've got with cleats still mounted - and they looked identical. But it felt unstable out of the saddle.
I took the time to slide the cleat approximately 1 mm further rearward on the shoe, and the difference was remarkable. There is no discernible difference when seated, but standing feels correct again.
One test I try when I put new shoes into action is to ride one new shoe with one old shoe (both combos) on the trainer against a load to ensure they're correct. And these shoes passed that. I'll have to throw in a standing sprint effort for future checking.
The bottom line is that differences between shoes means that even perfect replication of position doesn't mean that the position is perfect! To be perfect requires a bit of testing.
The problem with flat mount brakes
27/10/24 15:09 Filed in: Gear
My first issue with flat mount brakes was why did we require another standard?
When disc brakes came out they were mostly IS - International Standard (some back then were proprietary and meant you were stuck with whatever brake you were supplied with). IS were bad - left/right movement of the caliper required shims or filing material off - and the brakes didn't actually mount on there, rather the appropriate adaptor did, and then the caliper mounted on that adapter. Back in the IS days, I purchased a brake mount machining kit because it was essential on almost every bike's swingarm I ever worked with (forks were cast and so better - but not perfect). I've updated the kit to work with PM and flat mount brakes (thanks Park for offering the update kit) but haven't had to use it. The range of adjustments and the quality of alignment on carbon frames means using one is extremely rare. I've also machined off part of the adaptor using the tool when the frame alignment was off but there didn't appear to be much of the tab to remove to get where I needed.
Next up came PM - post mount. And PM is still how it's done on the mountain bike. PM uses a bolt on the axis of the rotor (IS was perpendicular to this axis) and oval holes in the caliper to permit some side-to-side movement in the caliper body. To move to a larger rotor is easy with an adaptor that spaces the caliper further from the axle and some longer bolts (some adaptors use 4 bolts and move the caliper backwards as well as upwards to be more compact). I like PM. Early disc road bikes were PM because flat mount hadn't come along yet.
And then flat mount came for road bikes. For the front brake using flat mount, a literally flat adaptor bolts to the threaded holes on the caliper which in turns bolts to the fork via blind threaded holes - very similar to PM, but different in that it sits right on the fork (also worth noting that flat mount works with 140 or 160 mm rotors only - PM works with 140, 160, 180, 200 and 200 and some variations like Shimano's 203 mm rotors). At the rear, however, the mounting bolts pass up through the chainstay and into the caliper. The bolts have to move with the caliper and so tiny adjustments become markedly harder than for PM adjustments. If the bolt head at all sticks to the chainstay because of paint, dirt, a non-flat surface or any reason then the caliper can be pulled into a slight angle that will cause brake rub. Even with everything set well it is easy to get a little brake rub on a flat mount system but easy to avoid this with a PM system.
One tiny issue is that the chainstays of the frame can be thin or thick. The bolts have a short threaded section, so they need to be sized to work with the frame. When I purchased my Campagnolo gruppos, I had to figure out what length bolts to order. I also ordered 2 of each thinking they were sold individually, but I got 4 of each as they are sold in pairs. Campagnolo lists sizes in 5 mm increments and one of the bikes required 49.5 mm bolts according to the brand guidance, which is 0.5 mm from the limits of the 45-50 mm bolts. I ordered them, they worked. I was slightly worried. At only a couple of Euro per bolt, it wouldn't have been the end of the world.
Now some stylish, high-end and race-oriented mountain bikes are using flat mount disc brakes. Great if you don't actually like stopping. I say that because my hardtail now has 180 mm rotors on it, my trail bike 200 mm rotors and my DH bike has 220 mm rotors. Bigger rotors are much better for heat management. Lots of hardtails had 140 mm rotors on them but I'm with Enduro magazine in thinking that the big rotor goes on the back wheel so you can speed control on steep slopes safely.
When disc brakes came out they were mostly IS - International Standard (some back then were proprietary and meant you were stuck with whatever brake you were supplied with). IS were bad - left/right movement of the caliper required shims or filing material off - and the brakes didn't actually mount on there, rather the appropriate adaptor did, and then the caliper mounted on that adapter. Back in the IS days, I purchased a brake mount machining kit because it was essential on almost every bike's swingarm I ever worked with (forks were cast and so better - but not perfect). I've updated the kit to work with PM and flat mount brakes (thanks Park for offering the update kit) but haven't had to use it. The range of adjustments and the quality of alignment on carbon frames means using one is extremely rare. I've also machined off part of the adaptor using the tool when the frame alignment was off but there didn't appear to be much of the tab to remove to get where I needed.
Next up came PM - post mount. And PM is still how it's done on the mountain bike. PM uses a bolt on the axis of the rotor (IS was perpendicular to this axis) and oval holes in the caliper to permit some side-to-side movement in the caliper body. To move to a larger rotor is easy with an adaptor that spaces the caliper further from the axle and some longer bolts (some adaptors use 4 bolts and move the caliper backwards as well as upwards to be more compact). I like PM. Early disc road bikes were PM because flat mount hadn't come along yet.
And then flat mount came for road bikes. For the front brake using flat mount, a literally flat adaptor bolts to the threaded holes on the caliper which in turns bolts to the fork via blind threaded holes - very similar to PM, but different in that it sits right on the fork (also worth noting that flat mount works with 140 or 160 mm rotors only - PM works with 140, 160, 180, 200 and 200 and some variations like Shimano's 203 mm rotors). At the rear, however, the mounting bolts pass up through the chainstay and into the caliper. The bolts have to move with the caliper and so tiny adjustments become markedly harder than for PM adjustments. If the bolt head at all sticks to the chainstay because of paint, dirt, a non-flat surface or any reason then the caliper can be pulled into a slight angle that will cause brake rub. Even with everything set well it is easy to get a little brake rub on a flat mount system but easy to avoid this with a PM system.
One tiny issue is that the chainstays of the frame can be thin or thick. The bolts have a short threaded section, so they need to be sized to work with the frame. When I purchased my Campagnolo gruppos, I had to figure out what length bolts to order. I also ordered 2 of each thinking they were sold individually, but I got 4 of each as they are sold in pairs. Campagnolo lists sizes in 5 mm increments and one of the bikes required 49.5 mm bolts according to the brand guidance, which is 0.5 mm from the limits of the 45-50 mm bolts. I ordered them, they worked. I was slightly worried. At only a couple of Euro per bolt, it wouldn't have been the end of the world.
Now some stylish, high-end and race-oriented mountain bikes are using flat mount disc brakes. Great if you don't actually like stopping. I say that because my hardtail now has 180 mm rotors on it, my trail bike 200 mm rotors and my DH bike has 220 mm rotors. Bigger rotors are much better for heat management. Lots of hardtails had 140 mm rotors on them but I'm with Enduro magazine in thinking that the big rotor goes on the back wheel so you can speed control on steep slopes safely.
Zone 1 training
18/10/24 22:58 Filed in: Riding
You should be doing more zone 1 training. If you take a graph of lactate levels against heart rate, there is a gentle increase at first which moves (sometimes with a sharp inflection point, more often without) to a steeper increase. To generate one of these curves for a rider involves a progressive test that begins easily and progresses in steady steps to failure. Lactate levels should be checked at the end of each step. Different coaching methods use different numbers of zones, but all generally recognise the area before the actual or implied inflection point as zone 1. This is where around 90% of your time on the bike should be spent.
Zone 1 time promotes efficiency at a cellular level. Zone 1 can be completely fat-fuelled. Higher zones cannot. The more time you spend where fat is the primary source of energy, the better your body gets at using fat. The more time you spend in zone 1, the more your body is encouraged to produce mitochondria. As the energy source for the cell, more is better.
Zone 1 is the only training zone that impacts all training zones. You can spend lots of time in higher zones, getting really tired and heading towards overtraining. But that training time only really impacts the region it is "in". If you train a lot at 90% (or 75% - or any above 60% which is approximately where the top of zone 1 sits) then you can improve your response at 90% with no impact anywhere else. However, training in zone 1 moves the entire curve to the right. The inflection point goes up to a higher heart rate. Everything improves by shifting to the right.
The classic error in training is to approach the easy days too hard and the hard days too easy. Mostly it produces fatigue. Progress can happen for a while, but a plateau that you can't get off will be reached. Ease up on the easy. Attack the hard.
When you are reflecting on whether your training goal of 90+% at zone 1, you need to include all your time on the bike. So, racing too. Which is difficult or impossible if you race often (and aren't a pro who spends hours in between races in zone 1).
Since I have started making almost all my commutes in zone 1, I have taken around 10% off my commute time at the same, or perhaps even lower, heart rate. Efficiency gains!
Zone 1 time promotes efficiency at a cellular level. Zone 1 can be completely fat-fuelled. Higher zones cannot. The more time you spend where fat is the primary source of energy, the better your body gets at using fat. The more time you spend in zone 1, the more your body is encouraged to produce mitochondria. As the energy source for the cell, more is better.
Zone 1 is the only training zone that impacts all training zones. You can spend lots of time in higher zones, getting really tired and heading towards overtraining. But that training time only really impacts the region it is "in". If you train a lot at 90% (or 75% - or any above 60% which is approximately where the top of zone 1 sits) then you can improve your response at 90% with no impact anywhere else. However, training in zone 1 moves the entire curve to the right. The inflection point goes up to a higher heart rate. Everything improves by shifting to the right.
The classic error in training is to approach the easy days too hard and the hard days too easy. Mostly it produces fatigue. Progress can happen for a while, but a plateau that you can't get off will be reached. Ease up on the easy. Attack the hard.
When you are reflecting on whether your training goal of 90+% at zone 1, you need to include all your time on the bike. So, racing too. Which is difficult or impossible if you race often (and aren't a pro who spends hours in between races in zone 1).
Since I have started making almost all my commutes in zone 1, I have taken around 10% off my commute time at the same, or perhaps even lower, heart rate. Efficiency gains!
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
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