Wednesday, August 26, 2015

News From EuroBike: SRAM Red Goes Wireless With The New eTap Group.

While not really a Top-Secret project over at SRAM, the new, wireless Red eTap Group has now officially broken cover at EuroBike in Friedrichshafen, Germany.  The big-deal, all-things-bike industry show, which runs from August 26-29, never really disappoints, and this year's really big news was the officially unveiling of SRAM's long in development wireless gruppo.  Yes, gone are the wiring looms and cables, and say "Hello" to batteries.

The quick details are a group pretty darn close to mechanical Red in weight, a one lever shift up, one lever shift down, both levers big-small ring shift, and the ability to run a 28-tooth cassette maximum at present time.  Braking is still via cable-pull rim units, and rumors are swirling of a trickle-down to future wireless Force and Rival groups, as well.

See below for more, in-depth, information.

The Photos (courtesy of VeloNews):

The Video (courtesy of GCN):


Thursday, August 13, 2015

From The "Wish I'd Thought Of That," Department - Sigma Automatic Brakelight For $10 USD.

All photos courtesy of Sigma

Now, here is an idea so simple, it is a wonder no one thought of it, sooner.  An ingenious, mechanically operated, light which automatically illuminates when the rear brake is applied.  It mounts in seconds, runs off a tiny, replaceable CR 1025 button-cell battery, and is cheap at $10 USD.  What's not to like?

The unit itself mounts to the rear brake cable, via a hex clamp, up against the adjustment bolt, and when the brake is applied, it squeezes the unit, triggering the light.  Release the brake, and the light switches off.

While it is being marketed as an aid to motorists, I see the larger service being to other cyclists, and hopefully, it will help to eliminate the rear-ender in pacelines. 

Safety never looked so simple and cost-effective.

Clicky here for the Sigma web site.

Here is the installation video, courtesy of Sigma.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Long Term Wrap Up: Lezyne KTV PRO LED Riding Light

Image courtesy of Lezyne

Lights on bicycles have, especially during daylight hours, thankfully, become a lot more common these days.  However, they are not all created equal.  There are basically two kinds of lighting setups for cyclists: See, and Be Seen.  The “See” kinds are the ones that you can actually see where you are going in the dark.  The “Be Seen” types are the one’s just bright enough to alert your presence to others and are meant purely for daylight use.  The new Lezyne KTV Pro is marketed as a “Safety Light,” which means it is a bona fide “Be Seen” lumen producer.  And, it is not a bad one, at that.   
The KTV PRO has six, different light functions in its tough aluminum body (see “Specs” listed below), and I run it on what I call “787” mode (a flash-rate similar to the anti-collision beacons on Boeing’s wonder-plane), which gives good, distinct, half-second flash bursts.  This particular mode is not only very conspicuous, but it is far easier on battery life, which works out in real-world practice to be about six-seven hours, putting out 30-lumens, before being completely drained.  The battery status light (Lezyne calls it an Intelligent Power Indicator) also tells you how much charge you have left while in use (a handy feature), showing green for “Full,” Amber for “Getting Down There,” and finally Red for “This Suckers Going To Die Soon.”  For the record, “Full-Blast” mode is good for 70-lumens.

The KTV’s Twin-LED’s put out a darn a good light pattern, even off to the side via the “Wide-Screen” lens design (offering 180-degree beam dispersal). The mount is a plastic, swivel affair, fastened via a rubber strap, making fitting to a multitude of bar sizes possible.  The mount/light unit swivels to make putting on and taking off the unit much easier, as you have to remove the unit to plug it into your PC’s USB port to recharge (after removing the back of the light, which is a stout, weather-resistant, rubber end-cap).  Once fully charged, the on-board status light goes from red to green when ready.  It is plenty bright enough to alert people to your presence, even during the day.  And, for the record, since I have begun using a flashing headlight on my day rides, the number of occurrences of vehicles turning left in front of me is down by about 90%. 

                                                        Where the KTV PRO now resides.

In conclusion, it is indeed a pretty cool, little light for the money.  However, it had some big shoes to fill from my previous home-made riding light.  That light was an LED flashlight from Costco, putting out 200-lumens, running on three (3) AAA batteries.  With a homemade mount, the system was blindingly bright, and lasted for up to two-weeks of riding four-to-five days a week.  That’s pretty impressive (and cheap)!  I would indeed recommend the KTV Pro for those wanting a good “See-Me” light at a good price-point, and are not in the mood to make their own lighting set-up.  It is built like a tank, has incredible weather resistance, a smart mounting system, and it just looks completely innocuous on the bike.  For a lot of people, that last one can be a deal breaker.    

So, why then did I buy a light with a lower output?  Well, I was curious to try out the latest crop of LED’s on the market, and I wanted a clean looking, clean mounting, smaller light than the one I was previously using, and being under $20.00 USD, on sale, I was even more curious.  Besides, I reasoned if I did not like the light on my trusty Trek 2.3 Frankenbike, I could always move the light to my Nishiki steel “Fun bike.” 

Well, the KTV PRO is still on my Trek. 

The Specs:
  • Machined Aluminum body
  • Clip-On System via rubber strap
  • Intelligent Power Indicator light
  • USB Rechargeable
  • Side Visibility (180-degrees)
  • Weather Resistant
  • Max Lumens: 70
  • Recharge Time: 3:15 hours (varies, Ed.)
  • Weight: 55g
  • Available in Silver, Black, Red, or Blue body
  • $25.99 USD

Run Times (times may vary, Ed.):

  • Economy: 30 lumens / 2:00 hrs
  • Blast: 70 lumens / 1:00 hrs
  • Flash 1: 30 lumens / 6:00 hrs
  • Flash 2: 30 lumens / 6:00 hrs
  • Flash 3: 30 lumens / 6:00 hrs
  • Pulse: 30 lumens / 4:00 hrs

Monday, July 13, 2015

In the News: Sky Suspects Froome’s Training Data Has Been Hacked

Photo: The Telegraph U.K.

Oh, Dear God!  Has it really come to this now?  The “Dog ate my homework,” defense?  Seriously, peruse the headline, and you begin to get a sense of why I have been deliberately shying away from bicycle racing news, especially the Tour de France.  The whole rolling farce of professional bicycle racing makes Rome’s circuses look legit.

Whist I am not making any real hay of this (yet), the fact Team Sky put this news out there shows the story indeed has traction and they are trying to “Head it off at the pass,” as we Americans say.  Also, why would anyone go to the trouble of “Hacking” Froome’s performance data (no easy feat), when they can just present any PED evidence against him?  It all seems way too fishy.  The best defense is a good offense, perhaps?

Two things are most likely going to be proven in the near future.  One, Team Sky will be found to have used the drugs of Tomorrow, Today, and no Non-American rider will go through what Lance Armstrong is currently experiencing.

Read the story over at The Telegraph.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

It Has Been Awhile.

Activity on the blog has indeed been slow, as of late, however, it has not been for a lack of will, but rather due to a lack of time.  This, acute, lack of time has, most unfortunately, carried over into my cycling regimen.  A major move, a major home renovation, work, family, and there was just not too much time for riding.

Also, I must confess, I was actually a bit apprehensive for awhile to get on the bike and ride.  I had heard other riders mention this phenomenon to me, and I merely dismissed it as pure hogwash and laziness.  However, I have since found this, specific version of “Cycling Cold Feet” to be very real after having the royal crap scared out of me for the umpteenth time by an unskilled motor vehicle operator.  So, for awhile there, I actually had no desire to get on my bicycle, and that should never be!  Why should I have to fear for my life just for exercising?

One, small, benefit of my time off the bike has been the ability to take in a lot more of the cycling related news and blogs.  And you know what?  From doped up racers, to road diets, to the “We hate Cars, so we hate YOU” crowd, to riders flat-out ignoring the vehicle code, a lot of, and thankfully not all, cyclists are actually a bunch of reckless-fools.  No wonder drivers sneer at us (Secret exposed: Drivers sneer at each others, too), even when we have not done anything to them at all. 

Life out on the road seems to be history repeating itself, as when society thought all motorcyclists were “Hell’s Angels,” or “Hooligan’s” leftover from Hollister, California, circa 1947.  Over time, the actions of a few were heaped upon the masses, and it metastasized.  Well, with cycling, we are at that point, again.  “There’s another one of those Car-Hating, law breaking, Hippies, and they’re dressed like Lance Armstrong, too!”  Well, the fact is, a majority of cyclists are also motor vehicle drivers, and no, we don’t think alike, nor are we all alike, period.  Drivers seem to think all of us cyclists hate them, have no respect them, want them out of their cars, love Road Diets, mass transit, and think God’s gift to cycling were “Coalitions,” the Fixie, flip-flops, and independent coffee houses. 

Most cyclists are out purely for the exercise and freedom cycling provides.  They don’t care what people are driving, have no political axe’s to grind, seek only to stay alive, and would be happy to be left alone, thank you.     

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Monday, March 2, 2015

S.B. 192, The Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law: Suddenly Cycling “Advocates” Discover Personal Liberty, And Why Your Local “Bicycle Coalitions” Are Too Little, Too Late.

"Maybe if everyone wore a helmet, I wouldn't look so silly."

Everytime I tell myself to refrain from open politics on this blog, along comes a topic that just screams out for a rebuttal.  And, while my rebuttal to a popular topic at hand may not amount to any kind of world-shattering change, it sure feels good to get it off of my chest.  So, why do I bring this subject up?  Well, in case people were too busy to notice what is going on in the California State Legislature, which is probably 98% of the State’s population, there is a small battle waging, which will eventually escalate into a Public Relations skirmish.  Allow me to explain.

State Senator Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) has introduced S.B. 192, which would mandate helmet use on every bicyclist in the State of California, regardless of age, (under-18 is already mandatory), plus require reflective clothing while riding at night.  Her argument is as follows: “Any responsible bicycle rider should wear a helmet,” said Liu, Chair of the Senate Education Committee. “This law will help protect more people and make sure all riders benefit from the head protection that a helmet provides.”  And, she is right.  However, as for what constitutes “Responsible” and “Reflective,” and who gets to define both terms, has not yet been explained.  Additionally, the bill completely ignores mention of body protection below the neck. 

So, what part of the bill has “Cycling Advocates” spilling their mineral water’s and lattes?  Is it the mandatory helmet portion of the bill?  No.  Is it the high conspicuity clothing provision of the bill?  No.  What put the nail on the saddle of those opposed to S.B. 192 is the State of California has no business mandating how they should live their lives.  And, you know what? Folks opposed to the bill are 100% correct.  The downside of their argument; that horse left the barn a long time ago.  True, in a free society, this kind of Nanny-State thinking should have been killed at the source, however, in State after State, and in case after case, personal liberty and personal choice has lost out to the “It Takes a Village” cabal, everytime.

Meanwhile, the leading opposition to S.B. 192 is coming from an unlikely source; your friendly, neighborhood Bicycle Collation.  Yes, the same people leading the charge to make our roads “Bicycle Safe” are against an actual bicycle safety measure.  While the hypocrisy is plain for all to see, their opposition, as previously stated, does make some sense, even though it is doomed to miserable failure.  And, I personally understand their opposition to this proposed piece of legislation.   However, the arguments against S.B. 192 are as tired, and ineffective, as they are old.  While the intention, and rationality of those opposed are common sense sound, the overwhelming mountain of case precedent overriding their emotional opposition amounts to a hill of nothing in Sacramento.  The extent of over-reaching restrictions of the free exercise of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the State of California has heaped upon its citizens to date is massive.  So, while I am happy to see organized opposition to SB192, I have to question the integrity, and timing, of the various “Bicycle Advocates/Coalitions” leading the campaign to see the bill go down in flames. 

Consider the plea for support on the defeat of S.B. 192 from Ryan Price, Administrative Director, California Bicycle Coalition:

“Please join us in asking the Senator to take the next step: scrap the helmet mandate, and instead focus on measures that protect bicyclists and promote bicycling.”

Talk about nonsense.  Basically, what Mr. Price is advocating is that while he, and his coalition(s), are all for the safety of cyclists in the State of California, he (they) only supports policies he (they) personally agree with.  Not too sound of an argument when you are attempting to sway opinion and rally people to your cause.  But wait, there’s more!  Also from Mr. Price:

“There are proven ways to make our streets safer while encouraging bicycling -- reducing speed limits on key streets, building protected bike lanes and bike paths, and educating motorists and bicyclists on how to drive or ride safely, to name a few. A mandatory helmet law is not one of them.”

Talk about a flim-flam!  If this is the argument being set forth as reasons to defeat S.B. 192, then I actually have a few questions for Mr. Price and the various “Coalitions” supposedly speaking for the cyclist in me:

Where were bicycle coalitions when mandatory seat belt laws were put into effect?  Where were bicycle coalitions when child safety seats were being mandated?  Where were bicycle coalitions when mandatory auto insurance laws were out into effect?  Additionally, where were these very same bicycle coalitions when a tax (fee) was introduced to park on (so one could ride on), and visit, Public Lands?  Not aware of the former?  It’s innocuously known as the “Adventure Pass.”  And, for the Piece de RĂ©sistance; where were bicycle coalitions when mandatory motorcycle helmet laws were put into effect for the very same reasons Ms. Liu puts forth as proof of S.B. 192’s validity?  

All of the above examples were the same type of legislative overreach that Senator Liu is attempting, yet where were the “Advocates” then?  Additionally, all of the above examples had legitimate Pro and Con arguments, yet they were rammed through the Legislature, and forced upon all of us “For Our Own Good,” even though many of us can walk, chew gum, and juggle all at the same time.  When mandatory motorcycle helmet laws were being advocated, the exact same reasons for their passage were used just as they are now in the case of S.B. 192.  However, there was one added twist in the case of motorcyclists, and I am sure it will come up when Senator Liu meets more and more opposition: Injured cyclists will be a burden to hospital emergence rooms, and thus, Taxpayers.  It will be espoused that it is not fair that Public Tax Dollars must be used to pay for the medical care of the “Irresponsible” cyclist.  While the jury is still out how Obama Care will address that concern, that argument is as hollow now as it was in 1994 (when mandatory motorcycle helmet use became law in California).  Interestingly, the costs of government waste, welfare recipients and Illegal Aliens are never factored into the equation of the fiduciary use of “Taxpayer Funds.” 

So, what does this all mean, and what can we, the people of California, do about it?  Well, the first thing we should not do is give up pushing back against the Legislative Overreach of Sacramento.  The next thing we NEED to do is all fight together, no matter what our interests and activities are, to better help each other out to remove Intrusive-Government from our lives.  The legislative abuse against your neighbor today will most certainly become the legislative abuse of yourself tomorrow.  And, as that list of Government usurpations continues to grow, we, the people, unfortunately, barely make a sound of discontent, especially if the abuse does not apply to us, personally.  That is, until the long arm of the Legislature reaches out into our own, personal activities, and once localized, then, and only then, is it all-out war for most people.  I just wish all of us citizens were on the same page at the same time.  The real bottom line is this: Either we all fight together against Government Abuse of Power, or we all fall under its sword.  As Mr. Miyagi in the movie Karate Kid summed up so perfectly: “Choose.”

In totality, I agree safety equipment can help in the event of an accident, and that it is up to the individual to select not only the extent of their involvement in a given activity, but also the amount safety apparatus required.  Taken to the furthest extreme (and Sacramento is just about there), is it really irrational to extrapolate that in the future everyone will be required to wear helmets and padded suits just to walk down the street?  Well, the politicians and bureaucrats seeking to dictate every, single component of our lives certainly think so. 

In summation, while I agree with the Spirit of this legislation (personal safety), I must disagree with the Letter of it (forced behavior), as it is a clear suppression of personal liberty and the right of a person to choose their own, best destiny.  However, ignoring inherent rights has never stopped a Politician from passing “Feel Good” legislation, thus, the arguments against S.B. 192 will not persuade Sacramento, either.   

The horse is already in the barn, save for the tail.