Fickle creature that I am...

Fickle creature that I am, I've decided my new bike is now my favourite. It only took me a fortnight to come to this conclusion and it displays what a shallow empty shell of a person I am. In particular this revelation hit me whilst I was scooting downhill at a little over 40 mph today (yesterday, by the time I got round to finishing and posting this), which is pretty fast by my slowpoke standards. I felt remarkably stable and safe on the bike. Moreso than on other bikes I own. Coupled with the low gears for hill climbing and my adoration of its aesthetics, it must be love.

Continuing on my fickle theme, I have to admit I find the Campagnolo groupset on it preferable to the Shimano versions on my other bikes. That's not to say 'Shimano is evil and Campagnolo is godlike' or anything anywhere near so stupid (as some people seem to get into ridiculous arguments about). It's a higher specification groupset than either the old Shimano RSX or the Tiagra groupsets I've got on my other bikes, so I would have hoped it would be better. Additionally, I would be biased because of having a 'granny wheel' and the enjoyment it provides for me, given my poor hill climbing. Something which I feared may be a problem with a Campagnolo setup, although turned out not to be, was the little thumb button gear levers. I thought they might get in the way when I'm standing on the pedals but they don't whatsoever. I haven't made accidental contact with them once and they're in good position for when my hands are (rarely) on the drops too. That whole 'being able to change more than one gear at a time' aspect of Campagnolo's is great too. It's still something I tend to forget about and find myself clicking through gears but I'm using it more and more and find it quite useful, especially when I've to shift down a load of gears in a hurry because I've to stop at a junction I hadn't realised was there and don't want to be in too big a gear to get started off again.

Aesthetically, I'm fond of having the cables all tucked away neatly with the Campagnolo groupset. That's very appealing. Unless you're going to stick a bar bag on your bike, it probably makes absolutely no practical difference but I like having the cables hidden away.

Something else I liked is how it's good to have brake levers which are purely for use as brake levers, rather than shifters. The STI (or Shimano Total Integration, if you prefer) levers (pictured top-left) never gave me any bother whatsoever with changing gear when I was braking (I'm sure they're well engineered to avoid doing so) but there's something comforting about using a brake lever purely for braking. That's probably just my being anal again and wanting 'everything in its place'. It's certainly not to say one is stronger/weaker than the other comparatively, purely a personal preference.

One thing I would say about the STI versus Ergo (Campagnolo's gear shifters, of this ilk, are called 'Ergo' shifters, in case you're wondering what the hell I'm wittering about) is that the STI levers are probably a bit neater and 'prettier' looking than the Ergo levers (pictured above on the right), which look a bit tacky with their rubber fake 'leather effect' hoods. I don't know if all Ergo levers look like this but mine certainly do. It doesn't offend me but it doesn't please me as much as the aesthetics of the STI levers (although having the cables tucked away more than makes up for it).

Summarising my babble, I'm very impressed with the Campagnolo bits and pieces. It's not as if I think they're any better than Shimano's version, just different. It so happens I like pretty much all the differences and find they suit my cycling and my tastes. Therefore, barring any unforeseen problems, I may well choose Campagnolo setups on any future bicycles (which will be quite some time in the future).

Car doors

Looking at VeloNews today, I thought this was an interesting piece. Obviously the legal elements of it may or may not apply in the country I live in but it's still interesting. I imagine motor insurance companies the world around probably take the stance of trying to get out of paying up for their claims and this article is a fairly typical example of this.

Reading the item reminded me of the times I've had car drivers/passengers fling their doors open right as I'm coming past. So far, I've not made contact with any of them but it's a scary moment I'm sure nigh on anyone who cycles has experienced. I would guess people genuinely don't expect to see cyclists on the road. In the past, I've been out for cycles lasting about five or six hours and not seen a single cyclist (other than myself of course) in that whole time. That being the case, you can understand why other people don't expect cyclists to be passing. It's not as an excuse for their inconsideration. They should still be careful and consider other people. I'm writing that more as a reason behind their stupidity, rather than any form of 'get out clause'.

It's little wonder people into cycling often bemoan the lack of cyclists on the road. Unfortunately, people are frightened to cycle on the roads because they perceive it as dangerous and most road dangers are partly caused by a lack of cyclists. I'm sure our roads wouldn't be getting loose stone sprayed over them and we would have a lot more facilities for cyclists (and I don't mean dangerous cycle lanes) if more people used their bicycles as a form of transport. It really is amazing to think of how lazy people can be, making tiny journeys in cars. It's fair enough to use a car to go and pick up a few bags of coal (although, even then, you could probably have it delivered anyway) but do you need to use it to go and get a paper at the shop half a mile away from you? I'm getting onto a bit of a rant there and it's probably 'preaching to the converted' for anyone who actually reads this.

What can be done to make people more aware of cyclists and get more people using bicycles as a viable form of transport? The recent terrorist attacks on London seem to have increased bicycle usage there (please click here for a news item related to this). As I'm sure anyone but a complete loon would agree, that's hardly the best way to go about increasing cycle usage but what is?

Thoughts for the day

After a few days break from cycling, I was out on my bike again today. Despite my fears (which were covered, to a great degree, in the post below), it wasn't too bad. Gorsebank was with me for the first part of my journey but he didn't want to go as far as I did so we split and went our separate ways. That makes it sound as if we had some sort of big falling out but it was nothing of the sort. Anyway, after heading off alone, I decided I would put in a bit of effort and see how my legs (and all parts of me in general) were performing. Thankfully, I was running pretty well and everything seemed in reasonably good order.
My route of choice wasn't particularly far, so I guess that might have had something to do with my finding it all pretty good going but it bodes well for my little excursion next week and my longer cycle next Saturday.

Something I did today was attempted to be less anal and stuck in my ways than normal. As with so many people (or so I would guess), I find myself sticking to primarily the same routes I always tend to stick to but I thought I would try to go out on a limb today and cycle down a couple of roads I hadn't been on before, without knowing where they led. For someone as stuck in his way as I am, this was a tough thing to do. I'm the sort of person who both hates yet relies upon routine and it is difficult for me to break from it. As such, it's the first in some steps to make my cycling a bit more impromptu. I know enough roads around where I cycle to make it unlikely I would get completely lost and I can always turn back if I find a road leads to a cul de sac or a motorway (or even a particular busy road it's legal for me to cycle on but I don't want to). It's funny but I was thinking about how I should, for example, try to include at least one new road in a cycle every week. That would be making my so-called spontaneity something regimented. Oh dear. I fear there is no hope for me at all.

Something Gorsebank and I witnessed today was a cyclist who passed us in the opposite direction. Whilst seeing another cyclist is a rare enough treat on its own round our roads, this was particularly so as the fellow was carrying an enormous load in his rear panniers (he had lowriders too but they looked fairly empty). My goodness! I've no idea how he was managing to move his bike at all. In the distance, I didn't even think it was a bicycle because the panniers were so enormous. I thought it was some sort of pony and cart. The random picture of some loaded panniers (to our right) doesn't even begin to compare to the amount this guy had loaded up. He had one of the pannier sets with the usual bags at either side and another big bag over the middle (covering over the top of the two side bags). This 'middle bag' was up to about the small of his back. There was me thinking my rack pack was slowing me down. To make matters worse, he was going up a mountain. Now, just to explain, mountains in this country are other people's molehills. To most, it would be a big steep hill. The road is a climb of about one-hundred and thirty metres and it's one of those terrible climbs which starts off steep and keeps getting steeper and steeper as you get into it. Thankfully, it's only about a mile long but it's a tough mile to do (or I found it to be). The thought of doing it with the load on that man's bike would make me wretch. He seemed to be 'twiddling' in a very low gear but I still half wish I had stopped at the roadside to watch and see if he made it all the way up. Afterwards, I thought I might have been a bit of a shit for going on and not stopping to talk to him (even though he didn't seem overly friendly when I said hello to him). There's a road which goes round the side of the mountain and is much flatter than the road he was on. He might not have known about it if he's here on tour and not familiar with the area. Then again, he might have wanted the challenge of taking a loaded bike up the mountain. I know climbing it is something I found difficult when I took an unloaded bike up last year. I wouldn't mind having another stab at it, to see if my bike and fitness are better now, but it's a pretty busy road and has a blind summit. I can go on equally tough hills without having to be on a busy stretch of road.

Bad for your health

Whilst I'm not terribly fit even at my peak, I've noticed a drop off in my abilities from having a bit of a cold and not being able to cycle much in the past couple of weeks. When I have been out, I've normally been with Kirby Girl and/or Gorsebank and keeping at a lower heart rate than when I'm alone. I think I've only been out once on my own in the past fortnight now I come to think about it. How popular I must be!

Attempting to salvage this post by getting at least vaguely to the point; Having been out primarily for shorter cycles recently (including the one time I was out alone), I've not been testing what little fitness I have. As a result, combined with my being a bit ill, I can tell I'm a little 'turdy' (hence the picture) when it comes to cycling. Even at my best, I'm not an especially strong cyclist but I know I'm below my peak now and it's not just because I'm getting older. I'm only thirty-one I will have you know!

What I find surprising is how noticeable the drop off is even given the level I cycle at. I would expect people who race bikes or are particularly strong cyclists to notice the drop in abilities but I'm surprised to notice it over such a short period of decreased activity. In a way, it's kind of flattering that I have noticed it, as it suggests I've got something to drop from, but it's more frustrating than anything. Hopefully I'll be able to claw my way back up from feeble to very poor again in a short space of time. I've got about a one-hundred and forty miles long cycle to do next Saturday and a considerable amount of that (about ninety miles) is over particularly hilly terrain. Whilst I'll be keeping a slow pace for it (I don't have any option as fast isn't a speed I'm familiar with), it may prove to be more than I can manage.

Slowpoke

What a slowpoke of a cyclist I am! I was watching a bit of the Tour de France today and Paolo Savoldelli (the stage winner) came in with an average speed of about twenty-six miles per hour over a course of almost one-hundred and fifty miles. Whilst that would be impressive enough on its own, that was stage seventeen of the twenty-one stage race and they've been cycling enormous distances of that ilk for all but two of the last nineteen days.

It's hard to believe human beings can perform such cycling feats. I do wonder if their being so fit is taking years off their lives. I could get into that whole doping debate but it's ground covered many places elsewhere and I honestly don't know an awful lot about it. Back onto my point about shortened lifespans; Obviously these professionals are super-fit beyond my wildest dreams but pushing one's body to such extremes can't be done without suffering long-term damage, can it? My guess is they are so passionate about their cycling, they think the risk of long-term damage is worthwhile. It's their choice and I hope it doesn't come back to haunt them.

Road racing is a completely foreign world contrasted against the leisurely cycling I do. If I average over sixteen miles per hour over a route of between thirty to sixty miles, I'm pretty happy. If I don't manage even that, it's no big deal to me. Now, I know the professionals have the roads shut off, are cycling on faster all carbon bikes (apart from a couple of teams and that's through choice) with no mudguards, don't have a rack pack on their bike with lunch, a mini-tool, a train timetable, sun cream, a mobile phone, a squished Powerbar which is unlikely ever to get eaten and a couple of spare tubes in it, have team car support, are cycling in a big group etc. but all that would probably only add a couple of miles per hour to my average speeds and I still wouldn't be able to keep that speed up for those sorts of distances and definitely wouldn't stand a chance in hell of scaling the mountains they do. Well, I might manage them in installments, with a number of cafe/lunch/rest stops along the way. The obvious point is that the blanket term of cycling (even just referring to cycling on the road) is pretty vague when it comes to the type of cycling someone does.

My choice is to partake in leisurely cycling, just pottering along at my own pace and making sure to stop off and sample the delights of any nice little cafes (this will lead to much flabbiness) along the way. It doesn't, however, mean I have to be a complete cycle-Nazi and deride the way other people choose to enjoy their cycling. All too often it seems people can't seem to let others enjoy cycling the way they choose. I'm sure we've all been out cycling with people we barely know and one of the first things they say to you is 'You should do...'. I know I've been out cycling with groups before when strangers have told me I should get a new bike, I should get rid of my rack pack, I should train to cycle in this manner (when I'm not interested in training at all) etc. Sometimes I'm told I should do or get things I've already been doing or already have.

To be honest, I do this sometimes with Kirby Girl but it's something I get rather annoyed at and it doesn't make me feel too good if I realise I'm doing it. Partly I should use this as an apology to Kirby Girl and a reminder not to do such things again. Telling people what they should and should not do isn't the greatest way to get them enthused about an activity. It's not wrong to talk to someone and find out what they want to do, then suggest they could make the choice to try something if they wish to but practically barking commands at them is counter-productive. It doesn't matter if you mean well if you're being a complete twat about it. Please (and this is for me as well) try to be respectful of other people and let them enjoy discovering cycling the way you got to. Different people want different things from cycling and can enjoy something equally as much as you without having to do exactly the same activity. Why, some people might even enjoy an activity other than cycling, perish the thought.

Just how dangerous is cycling?

In recent times, I've talked with (ie. bored) a few people about cycling. In particular, we've discussed cycling on the roads and the dangers associated therein. Given the tragic circumstances with the Australian women's road racing team (please see the post below for details), it seems an apt time to make comment about the dangers of cycling on the road as I perceive them. Additionally, the high-ish profile court cases of Simon 'Manimal' MacCorkindale and former NFL linebacker/defensive lineman, Darion Conner, bring thoughts about road safety to the forefront of my mind.

Certainly, I'll admit there are dangers when cycling on the road. I mean, you're going to be in trouble if a motorist collides with you as they're likely to be travelling much faster in a much heavier machine. Having written that, I've been out cycling one-hundred and twenty-four times this year alone (I just checked on BikeJournal so I could be anal about it) and I've not had a car so much as touch me. Some motorists have come a bit closer to me than I would find comfortable but, to date, I've not had anyone make contact with me. I don't think that's because I'm especially lucky but rather because I'm careful about what roads I cycle on, when I cycle, I keep a road position where I can be seen and don't often have to veer out (into the path of traffic) to avoid potholes etc, I wear bright coloured clothing, signal in an obvious and definite fashion after checking around me and generally am very predictable for motorists. Whilst I'm not saying doing these few little things will keep you completely safe on the roads, it certainly goes a long way to helping keep you in one piece.

Looking at the incident involving the Australian road racers, it seems the car swerved onto their side of the road. That is, alas, not something one could avoid very easily. Thankfully, things like that really don't happen very often. Despite the grumblings of some, most motorists don't wish any harm upon cyclists. Sure, some can be inconsiderate and a select few are just arseholes who will shout abuse at you, parp airhorns at you (as I had happen to me a few months ago) or generally attempt to cause you to have an accident. Whilst I feel it would be unreaslistic and dishonest not to mention these types of people, they are in a tiny minority (thankfully) and, for the most part, motorists are pretty good really and don't detract from the enjoyment of cycling.

Getting onto the point I've been meaning to make; Isn't it taking a dangerous risk not to exercise? If you find yourself thinking 'Hmmm, that cycling seems a bit dodgy. I think I'll just sit around on my arse and do nothing instead', don't be surprised if you end up having health problems people who exercise regularly don't. You might even find people partaking in the 'dangerous' activity live longer healthier lives than those who choose the 'safety' of not doing so. I'm not trying to say cycling is the only worthwhile form of exercise for everyone. For me, it's the only form of exercise I've found I really enjoy (the exercise is just a bonus side-effect). If you find you enjoy skipping, jogging, long walks, athletics, football, tennis etc. etc. etc. and it provides the health benefits desired, that's just fine and dandy (how 'big' of me) but don't let the supposed 'danger' of cycling on the road put you off trying something you might just get a huge amount of pleasure out of. Remember, if more people cycled the roads would become even safer to cycle on.

Nerding online, I've read where people have mentioned a book called Cyclecraft. I'll have to admit not having read it for myself (although I should). It appears to be very highly thought of as a guide to safe cycling. Attempting to fill in any holes I've dug myself in my ranting, please don't be frightened to give cycling a go. Just be sensible, think about what you're doing and act accordingly eg. you want to be seen so wear something easily visible and don't cycle in the 'gutter' where motorists can't see you so well. Take care and above all enjoy yourself.

Australian road racing team tragedy

It's not like I knew any of them or had even heard of any of them before and it's no worse than anyone getting killed in any accident. All the same, it was terrible to hear about the Australian women road racers and their accident near Leipzig, when a car crashed into six of them and killed one cyclist (Amy Gillett). I guess, selfishly, it is more prominent in my mind when a cyclist gets killed/injured (as opposed to anyone else) as I think 'That could easily have been me' and it makes me realise, albeit a fairly safe activity, the dangers involved in cycling on roads. Apparently the driver of the car was an eighteen year old learner who veered off completely to the wrong side of the road and ploughed straight into the Australian team members.

You have to wonder how anyone, even learning to drive, could veer off quite so badly as to end up on the wrong side of the road. I don't doubt it was an accident but then you've got to question whether something can truly be referred to as accidental when it could so easily have been avoided. Obviously we don't know the circumstances but it's hard to believe anyone could drive quite so dangerously, even on her first time behind a steering wheel, if she was concentrating. Please let me point out, I'm not being sexist. It states in the report the driver was female. Maybe there was some sort of obstruction and, in her inexperience, the driver thought it would be okay to go out round it rather than wait to make sure it was clear? Who knows and what good would it do to know now? It's very sad whatever the reasons behind it.

You can read Eurosport's report on the incident and its effects here.

Hollyoaks

The other week, on Hollyoaks, they were running a plot with some sort of vague cycling theme. I think it was something to do with their having to get across country from a certain location to another in the shortest time possible. I guess that's the general theme of most cycling competition, now I come to think about it, but it seemed to have something to do with camping for a couple of nights, or something like that. I'm not sure as I only caught a few minutes of it and missed most of the 'complex' plot.

That's all besides the point anyway as the bit I'm going to mention is about how one of the competitors was bragging about his bike (or so Kirby Girl tells me, as I missed this part completely). Apparently he was impressing people with his 21 speed road bike. Presumably that would have to be a seven speed cassette with a triple chainset. If that's the case, I imagine it's a bike which would be a few years old, possibly along the lines of a Shimano RSX groupset. If they had wanted this character bragging, couldn't they have done enough research to say he had some dead fancy groupset and named it? I'm sure neither Campagnolo or Shimano would be terribly offended by a free mention on the TV.

To be honest, it's something I really don't care about but which keeps popping up in my nerdy mind when I'm out cycling. For some reason it kind of amuses me. I don't really know why. I'm certainly not snobby enough to care about the number of gears on a fictional bicycle and I'm not nerdy enough (when it comes to components) to care. I think it's just the general poor quality of Hollyoaks (in so many ways) and the handling of anything ever in it which amuses me. Well, that was worth writing about, now wasn't it...

I'm a wiener!

Whilst out cycling today I was bemoaning the suffering my new found hayfever has been causing me (although enjoying the smells of the plant life at the same time). I got home, checked my e-mail and discovered one of those standardised mails from the CTC. In it, there was mention of some sort of pollen filtering nose-plugs called NasalAir Guard and it said the first twenty people to respond to the e-mail would get a free set of nose-plugs for themselves. Well, I am the lucky one as I was respondent number twenty and am hopeful I shall receive the solution to my hayfever woes in a few days' time. I'll be sure to write what they're like once I get them.

I'm dead chuffed as I rarely win anything and it is linked to something which was on my mind whilst cycling (slowly) today. Here's hoping they're good and I will be able to breathe properly again.

Cyclist guilt

Guilt is seeping into me today as I sit and choose not to go out for a cycle. The weather not only permits cycling but welcomes it (it's overcast but warm with a moderate WSW wind) and I'm still not going out for a spin. Dear dear dear. I'll rue not going out today if we have torrential rain for the next week.

Clean up your damned hedge cuttings yokels!

I shall not rant on too much about this as it's so obvious. However, Kirby Girl's three punctures in her last two cycles are enough to show part of the reason I'm not happy with the ratio of hedge cutting to cutting lifting which goes on.

Rather than wade through my ranting about it, please have a look at this document from the CTC. It contains more relevant information than any of my babbling tirades might.

Maps are lovely

To call me 'slow on the uptake' might be a bit of an understatement.

Within the past couple of months, I've started cycling routes a little longer than I had previously. Through this, I've realised a lot of the little isolated circuits I used to cycle passed within a couple of miles of one another. I some cases, the longer circuits crossed over small runs I would have done. A dull flickering light came on in my head and I caught on to the fact I could forego my usual anal attitude of sticking to exactly the route I always do and incorporate different parts of different circuits as I passed near them. Hoorah for me! Ain't I great!

Since this revelation (by my standards, it is a groundbreaking realisation), I have realised I could have known all this if only I had looked at some maps properly months and months ago. Despite the quality of my writings here, I am capable of reading and could use maps advantageously in my cycling escapades. Therefore, in conclusion, maps are lovely.

Phwoar! What a lovely cadence!

As I mentioned in an earlier post (or two), I've now got a bike computer which measures cadence. This is the first time I've been able to tell my cadence and it leads to me staring at the computer screen when I should be looking at the road. That's not the point though and here is...

As it was, I thought I had a fairly high cadence. Oh, just to explain to anyone not familiar with the term 'cadence', it refers to the speed at which one pedals ie. a cadence of sixty would mean you are rotating your cranks a full circle every second (or sixty times in a minute, if you prefer). Sorry if that sounded a little patronising. If nobody had explained to me what cadence was, I wouldn't have a clue. Now where was I? Oh yes, my cadence. Yes, I had thought I cycled with quite a high cadence and it turns out I do. Most of the time my cadence seemed to be about one-hundred and five to one-hundred and ten and it went up to more like one-hundred and fifteen/one-hundred and twenty when I dropped a lot of gears to spin uphill. Given the recommended cadence (although obviously different people cycle at different cadences as it suits them personally) being about ninety, I'm spinning pretty quickly. This high repetition and low resistance exercise means I'll end up with legs more like a third rate budget version of Lance Armstrong's (top-left, with Jan Ullrich) than Jan Ullrich's (right). Then again, my legs don't resemble anything any discerning cyclist would have hanging out of his/her bib-shorts.

Comedy tanlines

Smashing things those comedy cycling tanlines, aren't they? Here are some of mine for your perusal. I hope you can snigger at them and get the same enjoyment my friends/family do from them. Incidentally, my feet aren't the tiny hooves they look like there. It's some sort of magic they call perspective. I don't understand it and it frightens me.

In the flesh, I'm a bit more of a 'bronzed hunky god' than this ie. I'm a little more tanned and the comedy value is increased as a result, but it might still raise a bit of a snicker.

Just for posterity, that's Kirby Girl in the background of the photo my silly arm tan. She looks like she's either skulking or sulking (possibly both) but she's resting after I dragged her up a steep hill on the hottest day we've had this year to date. There was me thinking that would be terribly romantic.

I tried to use some software to put a bit of a coloured filter over the picture, to demonstrate the true silliness of my tanlines but it didn't workwell at all and the effect was a bit lost. It did end up being a kind of silly looking colourisation, like the colourised version of Night of the Living Dead however.

I then made a little montage (of sorts) of the various different colours, which you should be able to see below. I suppose the big question is, is it art? More like a bit load of pish really but I spent at least a minute doing it and that's more than most of the writings I've done here have had in terms of forethought. For that reason alone, please enjoy my little animated tanline gif thing:

Incidentally, I'm not saying the little animation (above) looks good but it looks a bit better if you left-click on it and look at the proper version of it, rather than the 'snowy' one here.

Before and after

Whoop dee doop dee doop diddly doo! My new bike is now in my possession. I'm so delighted to have it here in the flesh (or steel rather). On the left, is a picture of what it looked like naked, when I bought it and on the bottom-right is a picture of it now I've covered it in all the paraphernalia which ruins the look of an otherwise perfectly pleasant bike.

I'm so delighted to actually have my bike and can't wait to get a go on it. Here's what the bike comprises of:

• Xero Tarmac audax wheels
  
  
• Reynolds 631 steel audax frame
  
  
• Campagnolo Veloce 10 speed groupset with a triple chainring (30/42/52) and sprockets of 13-29 (for the hills I love to loathe)
  
  
• San Marco Rolls saddle

That's pretty much the main stuff covered and I'm sure it's of little enough interest to anyone but me as it is, without wittering further. Plus, you already know fine well about all the other bits I've bunged on it and it probably didn't make for the most riveting reading the first time round.

Here's hoping I enjoy riding it even more than I'm currently enjoying looking at it. It's a bike I plan on being able to use for quite a few years to come (although that doesn't necessarily mean I'll never want another one) and I'm hopeful it will live up to my desires.

Enough of this, I've Tour de France highlights to watch and a cycle to plan for tomorrow.

CycliStats

The other week, I downloaded a free thirty days trial version of a little piece of software called CycliStats. Today, I finally got round to installing it.

Given the fact I've only got thirty trial days of it, I'm not going to get into typing loads of information and end up not being able to continue doing so in a month's time. There is, however, some demonstration information already in software so you can see how it works without having to input anything yourself. Looking at this information and the software in general, it seems reasonably in-depth. If anything, it's more than I could be bothered inputting every time I'm out cycling. I guess it's up to the individual to decide how much he/she wants to record and then to leave the other sections blank. I'm one of those people who would feel he has to input every little field of information possible and that would take quite some time. Putting my stats into BikeJournal is quite enough for me.

I would imagine it's a good resource for someone who is using cycling as training and wants to know how he/she is (hopefully) progressing. It includes information about fat percentages, body mass index, blood pressure, resting heart rates, cycle maintenance etc. etc. but really, you could just put all these into pretty much any database or spreadsheet software for yourselves.

Contained also within the software are links to various websites but this is fairly useless for me as these links almost exclusively relate to America specific shops, organisations and routes.

As it is free, I recommend downloading it (it's 18.2 megabytes in size) here. and making your own mind up. At fifty US dollars in price, it's not particularly expensive but it is more than I'm willing to pay for it.

Don't do it

This is a bit of a worthless space-filler (as one could argue many/all of my writings are) and is more of a reminder to myself than anything...

Don't shave before going out for a cycle

It stings like hell and isn't worth the hassle. I discovered this a few days ago when I had a shave, went out for a cycle and it stung like hell. It doesn't seem to do one's skin much good either as my neck looked like it wasn't happy.

Incidentally, I'm not referring to my legs here as I don't shave them. That's not to say I've anything against people shaving their legs. Mine just look a bit stupid with no hair on them. That's not to say they look amazing with hair on them either but they look better than they do bald. I was referring to shaving my face and head. Just on the subject of head shaving, I hadn't done so for a few days and discovered there is less of a proliferation of hair than I used to have when I started shaving my bonce (about five years ago). I think I should continue to keep it well shaved and not let my slapheadedness look involuntary.

That don't make no sense to me

Presumably anybody cycling on the roads wants cars to be able to notice him/her. This being the case, why do we get cycle jerseys/jackets with really stupid black and grey designs?

This has been brought especially to mind as I bought Kirby Girl a pleasant, women's specific Gill 'Vixen' cycle jersey this week. Unfortunately, when it arrived, we discovered the back of it (other than a couple of inches at the very top of the shoulders, which you wouldn't see from behind anyway) was completely grey (or 'carbon' as they called it). Here's the image (pictured left) we had to go on:

As you can see, there's no way to tell the back of it is grey from the picture and it just looks like an aesthetically pleasing ladies' cycle jersey. In fact, it is aesthetically pleasing and the grey is fine to look at, other than its being almost the same colour as a road surface. Surely making a jersey in such colours/tones is a bit of a faux pas on the part of the manufacturer?

Additionally, Gorsebank bought himself an Altura 'Stream' windproof jacket (pictured right) towards the end of last year. As you can see from the picture, it has a black back. Whilst it's not as bad as the Gill 'Vixen' jersey (at least you can see the collar and half of the arms in red), it beggars belief that any company would deliberately create a cycle top which can't be seen well from the back. One would have thought trying to keep your customer base alive would be a good step for getting return trade.

Both are well enough made tops and completely fine in all other aspects but I just can't understand why anybody would make the back of them as inconspicuous as possible. They're intended as cycle wear for goodness' sake! People tend not to want to be unnoticed and get run over.

It's fair enough making off-road only clothing in whatever colour, or lack thereof, you damn well please but making clothing, to be used by people cycling on the road, in (more or less) the same colour as the road they're cycling on is ludicrous. I just don't get it at all. There's always the argument 'You don't need to buy it then' but I don't always know what the back of a jersey or jacket is like if I'm ordering it online. It's a pain to have to keep returning items because they could prospectively create a dangerous situation.

Fairly decent Tour de France website

ESPN seems to run a fairly decent web area for the Tour de France each year and I thought I may as well stick a link to it here. Be sure to enjoy reading all about today's excitement (although falling over and slipping about on the wet Tarmac probably wasn't that exciting for the riders) and various other bits and pieces there, if you're interested.

That'll do my shameless plugging of their website (which I have to admit I've not really checked out yet for myself this year).

Helmet legislation

Since joining the Cyclists' Touring Club (aka CTC), I (as with any members) keep getting e-mails from them once or twice a week with information about various cycling news. Well, the last e-mail I received mentioned that the British Medical Association (aka BMA) is pushing for legislation to make cycle helmet wearing (obviously just whilst cycling) compulsory. I know this is a great cause for debate and people can argue fairly viciously about it but here's my view on it (and probably the view of a lot of people, I would imagine):

My personal opinion is that I hope the law doesn't come to pass. Mostly, I do wear a cycle helmet when I'm out on my bike but I don't like wearing one in sunny weather. As I'm not going to put anyone (other than myself) at any prospectively greater risk by choosing not to wear a helmet, shouldn't it be my own choice? When it's hot and I'm climbing one of my category one climbs (aka 'a hillock' to most people), I overheat greatly if I've got a helmet on. It's fine for coming down hills as the airflow through the vents keeps me cool enough but it is extremely uncomfortable (and has made me feel rather faint on more than one occasion, which is liable to result in injury for me) when I'm puffing, panting and wheezing uphill.

I would guess it's not likely to be very stringently policed if helmet wearing does become compulsory but I would much rather not have to break the law to be comfortable on my bike. Additionally, if I am breaking the law by not wearing a helmet whilst cycling, I would guess that would bugger up any prospective court cases for me if someone ran over the top of me, even if it wasn't related to head injuries.

Realistically, I can see why helmets could stop certain injuries but I think they find most use with children and people who ride off-road, where lower speed spills are more likely. For most collisions on the road, I can't imagine a helmet is going to make an awful lot of difference. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I'll go on wearing mine when it's not too hot and remove it when it's roasting for the time being and hope this law doesn't come into effect.

My plans are coming to fruition

I'm pleased to say Gorsebank did indeed purchase a Claud Butler Criterium for himself yesterday and, from his first cycle, seems very pleased with it. At £250 it's hard to complain really, especially as it was from a local-ish shop and that means he'll get after care inclusive. It's a particularly customer oriented shop and that means so much when buying anything, as you know.

The 'granny wheel' was used to good effect on molehills which used to be mountains and I'm hoping it (the purchase of a new bike, in addition to its having a 'granny wheel') means I can coax him out cycling more often and for longer journeys. Hopefully I'll be getting my own new bike either tonight or tomorrow, so I've already agreed to lug any required lunch, waterproof jackets etc. about and leave Gorsebank lightweight, fool that I am. Funnily enough, I've got that agreement with Kirby Girl too. I'm really not that quick on the uptake.

Foolishly, we forgot to buy a cycle computer when we were getting the bike. We remembered to get a fairly roomy saddlebag and two bottles and cages but the computer completely slipped our minds. Oh well, we can always get one in the next couple of days. It seems so strange to cycle without a computer on one's bike now. In some ways, it saves that whole obsession of mileage but I find looking at my statistics is part of the fun of cycling. So long as you enjoy them and don't let them control you, cycle computers are wonderful things.

In summary, I'm pleased to see Gorsebank happy with his new bicycle and looking forward to pushing him into getting plenty of mileage on it.

Salt in the wound

'Salt in the wound' is more than a little dramatic but it seemed like a better title than, I dunno, 'My Dad's getting a new bike before me' or something along those lines. As you might have been able to guess by now, my father (aka Gorsebank on BikeJournal) is buying a new bicycle for himself, after a little bit of pushing from me.

The bicycle he will be getting today (see, no month long waiting for him) is a Claud Butler Criterium. Whilst Claud Butler doesn't have the reputation it once did (and isn't really the same company), the Criterium doesn't seem an awful lot different, to me, than the 2004 version of the Trek 1000. Obviously it's a different colour and will have slightly different components but it still incorporates Shimano Sora gearing, has a 7005 aluminium frame (although the Trek 1000 has aluminium forks and steerer whilst the Criterium has hi-tensile steel [which I would personally prefer]). The Trek 1000 also has little bolts on the seat stays which one could, for example, attach a pannier rack to. Then again, it would only be extremely light weights (I imagine) anyone would want to put on such a bike and the little clasps which go round the seat stays (instead of having the bolts) would more than suffice.

The real attraction about the Criterium is the 'granny ring'. Since borrowing Kirby Girl's Fuji Ace, just the once, my Dad (who I'll refer to as Gorsebank from now on here) has rather fallen for the low gearing of a third chainring (as I have myself) and this is the real drive in his getting a new bike (asides from my hounding him about it). Best of all, it's only £250. I think that's a smashing price for a reasonably light (he's never going to be racing) road bike with STI shifters and a triple chainring. It strikes me (especially from some of the colouring they're currently using) Claud Butler is trying to copy and slightly undercut the cheaper end of Trek's bicycle range. Presumably there are some differences in, for example, the Criterium and the Trek 1000 (referring to the 2004 model of the Trek 1000, with the current model having carbon forks and, presumably, other differences) but they seem very minor for the recreational cyclist and I can't see justification for the Trek retailing at about £120 more (the Criterium is normally about £330 and the Trek 1000 retailed about £450 in a lot of places last year). Does the name on a bicycle mean 'that' much or is there more to it?

Moping around

Moping around, feeling sorry for myself. That's what today has in store for me. My cold is worse than it was the past couple of days and I don't suffer any slight illness well at all. If I've to suffer, I'll make the people round me suffer too. I'm very 'giving' that way.

It's not just illness making me a bit miserable though. I'm still waiting for this so-called proposed bike of mine (or at least news of it being ready for collection). As I'm sure I've mentioned elsewhere, I ordered it right at the start of June and am still awaiting news from the shop of it's completion. I know I couldn't get out on it with my current despicable state of health anyway (well, maybe a tiny little run on it) but I just want to have the bloody thing at last. It's like someone pushing Christmas back a month just for badness.

So far, I've already bought various bits and bobs for it (I'll eventually stick some pictures of them here to break up the prose a bit, if I can get this to work):

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Cycle computer (Sigma Sport 'BC 1600', with cadence)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Low-riders (Blackburn 'Custom', silver)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Low-rider bags (Karrimor 'Kalahari 35', black)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mudguards (SKS 'P35', black)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Pedals (Shimano 'PD-A520', SPD)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Rear pannier bags (Karrimor 'Aquator', red)
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Rear pannier rack (TorTec 'Ultralite', silver)
  

Hopefully I've made the right choices in my accoutrements and will not rue buying any of them.

It is rather frustrating not to have a bike to put this collection of attachments onto and sitting moping around the house only makes this more prominent in my thoughts. At least I'll have the Tour de France to watch and take my mind off it later. If I watch enough of it, I may even start to comprehend what's going on and learn the names of more than three riders.

Hooray, it's stinky weather!

Excellent! Today is very wet and completely unsuitable for cycling altogether. Some people might cycle in such weather and think others 'lightweights' for not doing so. I, however, cycle purely for enjoyment and getting soaked is not part of that enjoyment.

Why am I so delighted about the weather being of the 'uncycleable' (did I just make that word up?) variety? The reason is twofold:

• Firstly, it's because I've got a stinking cold, am having bother trying to breathe and would have to take a rest anyway
  
  
• Secondly, it's because I'm a petty small-minded man and don't like missing days of prospective cycling. With the weather being so bad, I wasn't going to go cycling anyway and that means I'm not missing anything due to my stinky bunged up horrible cold
  

Whilst on the subject of the weather, does anyone else feel almost controlled by the weather when it comes to cycling? Obviously we are all controlled to the extent of certain weather being (and I'll use my made up word again) 'uncycleable' but it goes deeper than that for me. For example, I pretty much always (unless I have to do something in a specific location or I'm cycling with a group) select my routes to go into the wind on the way out and with the wind on the way home. In this way, the weather controls where I go. If you liked to romanticise it, you could say 'I cycle wherever the wind takes me'. The truth of the matter is I consult seven or eight weather forecasts, find out what direction the wind is coming from and plan my route accordingly. Not quite so romantic I'm afraid. Even asides from the windage issue, I find myself feeling guilty if it is good weather and I don't get out for a cycle. Well, it's not necessarily guilt par se but I feel I've wasted my day in some manner if it is pleasant outside and I don't get a run out on my bike. You would think I would be a stronger cyclist, given that attitude.

Twisted though it may sound, I'm half pleased to discover I'm bunged up and a bit ill. When I was out for a cycle yesterday my efforts were so pathetic, it pleases me to have an excuse for them. I was putting in more effort than usual (and doing quite a bit of sweating), not going particularly far and still came home with an average speed noticeably slower than normal. I'm not obsessive about average speeds and know I'm much slower than most cyclists but it's still a bit disconcerting to put in more work and get worse results for your effort. I guess my squirty poos should have tipped me off about my illness before I went out yesterday.

It'll do as an excuse for my being generally 'not able to get going' for the past few days' cycling. I thought it was just the muggy weather but it's probably more to do with me and my being a little run down (although thankfully not by a car). Although I don't want to, I should probably rest for the next few days and try to get healthy for the arrival of my new bike (I've been waiting over a month for it but it surely must be ready very soon). Additionally, it gives me a chance to get all the little bits and pieces together before the bike is ready ie. mudguards, pannier racks and all those 'old man' attachments. Here's hoping the framebuilder remembered to put front and rear braze-ons on my bike to be. I don't fancy waiting for the frame to be sent back, have the braze-ons brazed on (I guess) and sent to the local shop again. I hope I'm not that ill.

So, in summary, hooray for bad weather and a stuffy head cold! Now where's that Lemsip...

Cycle snobs and snotters

Ah, how we all know of the 'rude cyclist'. It's not something rarely found but really rather common amongst those who dwell upon the saddle. They are the people who cause you to fall by doing something stupid, then cycle away without stopping to apologise and/or make sure you're okay. They're the people who refuse to acknowledge you when you pass them, look them right in the eyes, wave and say 'Hello'.

The reason I'm writing about this is because one such cyclist, upon meeting me for the first time and as an 'ice-breaker', the first words out of this ignorant type's mouth were 'That'll do you as an old hack bike for the winter'. Now, I know my dear little Peugeot is not a 'dream bicycle' for many people but it has served me well and I think it is more than a little rude to open a conversation with me by saying it's 'an old hack bike which will do me for the winter'. For starters, why on Earth did this person even care what bicycle I was riding? I've got this attitude a few times when I've been on my little Peugeot. Whilst out with clubs, I've had people tell me why I shouldn't have it, why I should have another bike etc. whilst I've been cycling along at the same pace as this cycle snob the entire time and have already expressed no interest in racing whatsoever (even in time-trials).

Can anyone explain why other people do care about what someone else is riding on? If they're enjoying it and it's not a dangerous bike, why does it matter?

There seems to be a lot of division in general within cycling; Cyclists into cycling of one particular type not liking cyclists who enjoy a different form of cycling. Why can't people just enjoy the cycling for themselves, not give a damn what form of cycling someone else does and be happy to have more people out doing something they enjoy and getting healthier doing so? I find it all rather baffling.

The readiness people have to pigeonhole themselves as a 'racer' or a 'tourer' or a 'mountain biker' etc. and cut themselves off from other types of cycling doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's only right for people to do what they want and not do what they don't enjoy but a lot of people seem to use the differences in the activity they enjoy most as an excuse to look down upon what others do. It seems rather daft to me.

More about loose stone

You may have read my earlier loose stone rant. Well, here's another mini-rant about the same subject...

Today, I was out for a cycle and remembered about some of the roads I normally use (in the circuit I was doing) having loose stone over the roads. With this in mind, I deliberately chose other roads and found they were all covered in the bloody stuff too. It's very dicey cycling about on it and I have to say it's not making things easy for me at all. Although I'm not a fast or strong cyclist, I like to think I'm at least reasonably steady and safe on my bike but it takes a hell of a lot of bike control to stop falling over when the road is covered in loose stone.

I shall investigate further and see if there is some means of at least finding out which roads are going to be covered in dangerous gravelly crap. At least I could avoid them for a few weeks if I knew where they were. That way they 'might' have had enough traffic on them to clear the worst of the stone off. Then again, I stick primarily to back roads to avoid motorised traffic and that beloved lack of motorised traffic may be enough to keep the stone sitting right where I don't want it. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

Although I do go out cycling in the winter, I wish they would choose to do all their resurfacing then (there may be a plausible reason why they can't then for all I know). There are probably enough crappy days I would end up not being too inconvenienced by it and everything would be bedded in and 'scooted away' by the summer.

Cycling obsessive?

A couple of days ago, it was raining here and I was moping about the house feeling sorry for myself because I wouldn't get to go out for a cycle. Rather than do absolutely no exercise whatsoever, I decided I would do a few reps of some tricep presses (or whatever they're called) with some free weights we've got.

About four or five years ago, I used to do a couple of hours of weights about four times a week but goodness me how quickly I got bored with two sets of light weighted reps (doing about a dozen presses in each set) and I couldn't bring myself to do the third set I had initially planned. I know this reveals me to be completely fickle but it was amazing just how uninteresting I find trying to do weights nowadays. I think it's partly because I can't help but compare it with cycling. With both activities being exercise (although that's not my main perception of cycling), I probably lump them in together and that makes the thought of doing weights less attractive. Obviously I'm not trying to say 'Cycling is the best form of exercise ever and anything else is boring and a waste of time' but rather that cycling is the most enjoyable form of exercise I've stumbled across in my life to date.

Going back to something I wrote earlier, I think the fact I don't really look at cycling as exercise is a large part of the reason I find it to be so good for me. I know I'm not super-fit by any stretch of the imagination and it would be pushing things rather for me to even fall into the 'reasonably fit' category but I'm healthier than I've ever been and seem to keep feeling better and better. I'm lucky to have found an activity I enjoy so much and which has the side-effect of health enhancing. Long may my love affair with cycling continue.

What a waste

I was just thinking today how I tend only to use one of my two bikes (well, I've got three but I wouldn't count the cheap old mountain bike as it's too heavy to merit road use consideration). Neither of bikes I use would be referred to as a 'good bike' by anyone other than the absolute scabbiest of people but it strikes me as rather a waste how I seem to use my old Reynolds 553 framed Peugeot 5000 Performance ahead of my Fausto Coppi Lombardia and rarely have the Lombardia on the road at all. In fact, it was the 5th of May when I last used the Lombardia and that was only because the Peugeot was having problems and needed a new freehub body.

With further thought, I realised there are a few reasons for my using the Peugeot so much more:

• I don't feel as bad if I don't clean it so well (it doesn't show dirt as readily)
  
  
• It has mudguards and therefore less cleaning to do for both it and myself
  
  
• Albeit a lightweight and cruddy one (with a bend in it from when I got knocked off about a month ago), the Peugeot has a pannier rack on it and this lets me put a rack pack on it, to bring sandwiches etc. with me. I do so love having a snack when I'm out
  
  
• This is certainly among the most vital points: The Peugeot has a bottom gear of around 39/28 (or should that be 28/39? I can never remember) whereas the Lombardia has a bottom gear of 39/23. I'm not a strong cyclist or good on hills, so the thought of having to grind up them is rather unappealling

I know this doesn't make for the most interesting reading but I reckon most blogs are for people to write wittering rubbish as they're thinking it, rather than concentrating on writing interesting and poignant articles.

Moving on a bit, I should be getting a new bike within the next few days. Again, it's not going to be what most people would call a 'good bike' but it'll be the best bike I've ever owned and I'm terribly excited about it. Part of this excitement is because it'll be the first bike I've ever owned with a 'granny wheel'. I'll be looking forward to the 30/29 gear. It may get more use than it should.

Just for the sake of sticking a couple of images here to break up the text, here are the bikes I was referring to (although the Lombardia has different wheels now):

Fausto Coppi Lombardia















Peugeot 5000 Performance