Why cycling?

Every few months, car manufacturers announce new models, with new features and more powerful engines. What’s not to like about a 400 hp power plant? It is a stunning piece of engineering, makes the most satisfying rumble, leaves the competition in the dust, recalls a time of empty roads and wind-swept hair, and says something about what you are—right?

Well, not so fast. For years advertisers have been behind these clichés, the public has fallen for them, a whole environment has been built around them, together with politics, the economy, and a way of living. It’s a vicious cycle, and it’s time to get away from it. What’s so special about squeezing the pedal to the floor, leaving tyre marks on the road, and glaring at other drivers through tinted windows? What’s the use of driving in spasmodic leaps between red signals? Why waste so much energy?

It's a cool street, Elm Street by Mikael. Photo: © Copenhagen CycleChic 

Why cycling? Many good reasons, that’s why. At the risk of wagging a figurative finger, let’s point out the health benefits that go with cycling, such as cardio-vascular fitness, muscular flexibility, and mental acuity. Needless to say, bicycles are cheaper than cars, emit no pollution, and require less energy to build.

You’ll like riding a bicycle, because cyclists are a friendly group. There are no barriers between us and the world, and we cannot retract hostility, anger, or disappointment into a steel shell. We are still a minority, and we acknowledge with a nod every fellow cyclist we happen upon the road. Any business with a bike rack on the sidewalk looks welcoming. Any time we want, we stop on the side of the road and appreciate the view, admire the sunset, or smell the roses. If you do so in your car, a line of fellow drivers behind you will make you aware of their gratitude.

Fall fell into Fell Street by Meligrosa. Photo: ©Bikes and the City

Personally, I like bikes also as objects and appreciate their essential qualities—everything is visible, nothing is superfluous, and where the shape of components is a consequence of the function they are destined to perform.

We live in exciting times, when people in communities of every scale are beginning to admit that something must be done about sedentary lives, traffic congestion, and pollution. Politicians, quick to listen to polls but timid when it comes to exploring unfamiliar territory, are taking notice of the shifting winds.

We have a high regard for cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen, with their unhurried pace and orderly traffic, where bicycles are the norm rather than the exception. They seem friendlier and even more livable places than our own, its spectacular setting and architecture notwithstanding. That they’ve become so is no simple fluke of history; they’ve been engineered to facilitate ease of traffic and social harmony, giving preference to cycling and pedestrian pathways rather than the usual car and truck multi-lane highways. They weren’t always so but have changed their ways during the past four o five decades, adding 1 or 2 percent every year to their bicycle use.

Planners such as Jan Gehl have visited San Francisco from Denmark, met with public officials, and illustrated the advantages of policies that do not rely exclusively on motor vehicles for transportation. They’ve left us wanting for more. Even some of the members of the San Francisco Board of the Supervisors, such as David Chiu, its chair, are in favor of increasing bicycle use. We certainly own a debt of gratitude to non-profit organizations such as the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition or on-line publications, such as Streetsblog, for their vigorous campaigning in favor of  bicycle culture, road safety, and number of bike paths and lanes in our streets. It is thanks to their efforts that our longed-for San Francisco bicycle plan is being carried out—chapeau!

Various ways to pass the time on a city square by Mikael. Photo: © Copenhagen CycleChic

Even bloggers are in this mix. Daily postings by Mikael in Copenhagenize.com and Cycle Chic™ or Meligrosa in Bike and the City in San Francisco (bike equal sex, get it?) illustrate cycling in an urban context as safe, energetic, and fun. The message is, anybody can do it, anytime. These are ordinary people on ordinary bikes, not athletes. Retailers, such as Public Bikes, are not far behind this populist drive.

With all this good will, how united are we, as a society, in our appreciation of cycling? Not very, judging from sketchy evidence. Cars, trucks, and tourist buses—completely sealed from the outside with dark, tinted windows—still dominate the roads. Public parks such as the Golden Gate Park and the Presidio are intersected by so many roads—so tempting for motorists to use as a speedy short cut—that it is difficult to find in them a place where we can feel secluded by nature. For some drivers, a bike lane is simply an parking space.

Some object to the presence of cyclists and express their resentment with occasional acts of insanity, as when, a few days ago, the woman at the wheel of an SUV tried to push me off the road. Drivers still think of cycling as exercise, something people do in their spare time, less significant than the serious work they perform at the wheel of their vehicle. Some see cyclists as an effete minority, out of touch with the main stream of American society. In the minds of such people, anything with an engine takes precedence over a bicycle.

One also questions how far cycling has penetrated the awareness of the administrators of public projects, who routinely place signs on bike lanes. In any infrastructure project, they still assign priority to—you guessed it—cars, trucks, and buses. Such is the case, for example, of The Marin Headlands and Fort Baker Transportation Infrastructure and Management Plan, a project of modest scope, despite the grandeur of its name, aiming at making the road wider and placing a parking lot at the top of Conzelman Road at the Marin Headlands. Cars can drive through roads in construction, but bikes are not permitted.

The view from the top of Conzelman Road, before its closure.

There you have it, there are roadblocks ahead of us. They shouldn’t deter us from indulging in our favorite mode of transportation.

Why cycling, indeed? Because it accomplishes so many things for us, it takes wherever we want, at the pace we like. While riding a bicycle, we are entirely responsible for our own actions, we must be constantly aware of our direction as well as of the other cyclists, pedestrians, other traffic, the condition of road in front of us, the sudden obstacles, and the puffs of wind that can easily push us to the side. Cycling is a lot more demanding than driving but, on the whole, requires little effort, in exchange for which it bestows a great deal of benefits. At the end of each ride, we enjoy a minute of contentment, not quite nirvana, yet, but a sensible alternate to the rush of time.

Light bikes: cranksets

A bicycle could be described as an economical means of transportation and sport, not because it’s cheap—it isn’t—but because it’s condensed to its basic components. It would be impossible to take one of them out without changing the nature of the entire machine. Without wheels, a bicycle wouldn’t be a bicycle. Handlebar? No, without the handlebar, we might as well lock the front wheel and go straight to…where? What about pedals? Crankset? Same thing. Saddle? In theory, we could do without a saddle, but it’d be inefficient and kind of uncomfortable, at least to my way of thinking.

Only a few years old, the SRAM Red group of components is one of the

most reliable and problem free. Its crankset, shown above, is not one of the lightest.

The latest, 2010 version for a BB30, however, is. Very much worth considering, 

if your frame can accommodate a BB30.

Of all these components, cranksets are especially susceptible to experimentation and upgrading, to take advantage of new materials and methods of construction. There are many choices available, responding to different sets of priorities. What are the criteria of choice? They are mainly two, one is stiffness, perhaps the more important, and the other is lightness.
It’s obvious that the crankset should be stiff; all of its smaller parts, from the bottom bracket to the cranks, should be working as one. When they don’t, because there is some slack, or because one of them bends just a little under the thrust of acceleration or the push of a climb, some of the energy conveyed by the legs gets lost on its way to the chain. It is also important that the crankset be as light as possible, as it contributes to the overall lightness of the bike; we all know how important it is for a bike to be light, don’t we? But, stiff and light at the same time? 

A couple of years ago, Shimano produced a version of their DuraAce crankset made of a
combination of aluminum and carbon. In a typical Shimano fashion, it received a very
uninspired name, FC-7800C. The cranks consisted of an aluminum core wrapped by a layer
of carbon. The chainrings are also made of aluminum and are milled exquisetely. Compared to
their production model, the weight saving was minimal. Overall the sculptural quality
of this crankset is undeniable: this is a beautiful component.

No compromise is needed. In recent years, the tendency of bicycle components has been to employ the lightest possible materials, accompanied by construction techniques that maintain the desired stiffness, without falling apart at the least suitable moment.

The eeCrank, by eeCycleWorks. This is an early prototype of their upcoming crankset.
It is very light and exceptionally strong. One can see the designer's mind at work,
extracting all material that is not strictly necessary to its performance.
Photo: © BikeRumor.com

One of the most recent products, the eeCrank, by the same designer who makes the eeBrakes, about which I wrote so enthusiastically a couple of weeks ago, is on the verge of unveiling his latest prototype. According to one reviewer, it provides the best balance of lightness and stiffness. Craig Edwards, the designer and mastermind at eecycle Works, its manufacturer, challenges the general trend, that of using carbon everywhere, in favor of aluminum alloy. When in production and available to customers, sometime in 2011, that’s the crankset I would be seriously interested in setting up on my own bike.

The major manufacturers of bicycle components, Shimano, SRAM, and Campagnolo, all offer excellent products of this kind.  They perform flawlessly, shift smoothly, are designed to last longer than the bicycle frame, look good, and are stiffer than a telephone pole, but they have a fatal flaw in common, in my opinion: they are not the lightest of their species.

The Zipp VumaQuad crankset: very well made and good looking. To save weight, its

designers have reduced the spider's legs to four, rather than the traditional five.

I am looking for that magic balance between weight, performance, and looks that makes my heart sing. I think I’ve found it for my bike: the Zipp VumaQuad crankset is light and stiff. I like the way it shifts. It’s not perfect, I know that, but with time and miles, I’ve learned to live with its quirks. For example, to save weight, its designers have made it impossible to use anything but their own chainrings—they are not the cheapest available. I’m not crazy about the graphics, either. 

The Clavicula crankset: I'm not sure how far the designer has pushed the analogy
with the human bones. One can, however, easily visualize the distribution of forces
from its design. Photo: ©THM Carbones.

Of course, there are lighter cranksets available. Some of them are made by German companies, which have a talent for taking carbon-fiber manufacture to the extreme. Perhaps one of the lightest available is the Clavicula, made by THM Carbones. Another one, also made in Germany, is the Morpheus, made by Ax Lightness. Naturally, Storck bicycles also belongs in this group, with their own PowerArms. 

The chainrings themselves contribute to the crankset overall weight. It’s probably a good idea to read the fine print in the manufacturers’ descriptions to see if the chainrings are included in their measurements or not. There isn’t a great deal of variation in the weight of chainrings. There are, however some that are entirely made of carbon fiber. They are very light. Are they road worthy? Honestly, I’ve never tested them, but I have received conflicting reports about their reliability.

I am sure it’s possible to find cranksets that are even lighter than the ones mentioned above—by a few grams. These grams come with a large price tag. It’s all a question of priorities.   

Great deals and nano particles

This is the BikeNüt Umlaut. I’ve talked about it, described its attributes, and discussed its exceptional value a few times. It comes fully equipped with a Shimano Ultegra gruppo and Easton Circuit wheels. It has white tape wrapped around the handlebar and a white saddle. This assembly, of course, is the standard. If you wanted, or needed, different components on the same frame, no problem—it could be done.

The Shimano Ultegra components have long established a standard for reliability. There are few things that go wrong with it. Shimano, the company, is a bit like Porsche; they make gradual improvements on their products, preferring to work on what they have rather than rely on sudden innovation. As a result, things work a little better than they did in their previous manifestation. 

Shifting is smooth with Ultegra, and it is for a reason that Shimano had named its cassette Hyperglide. Shifting under load, when for example we are beginning to climb and realize that we are on the wrong gear, can be a tricky operation at best, but Ultegra increases the chances of its  success. 

Of course, if you want unerring precision, you should go with the Shimano DuraAce Di2 electronic group, and you should be prepared to pay for it.

The Umlaut is light and stiff, with its monocoque frame design, handles beautifully, accelerates quickly, and its slender seat stays make it comfortable to ride over long distances. It could be yours for $2,650 USD.

There are bikes that are heavier than this and lighter than this. Weight is a relative measure, and what is considered lightweight today will be thought of as positively burdensome tomorrow. Already there are road-racing machines that are attempting to break the 6 lbs. barrier. Soon, with new technology, even this boundary will be a thing of the past. All we need is a quantum leap--literally.

We hear the term nanotechnology used in combination with bicycles with increasing frequency. In part, this name calling is the result of marketing tactics. Since the current technology (monocoque design carbon frames) has leveled the field, companies look for marginal advantages. The promising field of nanotechnology may offer such advantages. We are told that it makes bikes lighter and stronger, but we don’t know exactly why or how should be so. One Italian manufacturer claims that nano-alloys, tiny amounts of metal integrated into the fibers of carbon, help absorbing impact more efficiently and prevent the sudden failure of its frames. I’m sure that there is an advantage in their use, but we are not quite at the point in the development of nanotechnology, that we are able to employ structures such as nanotubes and buckyballs. Still, there is progress.

On October 5, 2010, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the team of Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov the prize for physics for their work on graphene, a relatively new material that promises a revolutionary—not just evolutionary—range of new applications. Why am I bringing this up? Because, when this material is produced industrially together with appropriately light bonding agents, it’s going to make carbon fiber disappear as a choice material for bicycle frames and accessories very quickly.

Graphene consists of a sheet of  atoms of carbon, arranged in a lattice-like fashion, the thickness of a single atom—as two dimensional as you can get. To repeat an example that has already been reiterated innumerable times, a sheet of graphene, resting on a support no larger than a pencil point, could support an entire truck. This is no hyperbole: graphene is 200 times stronger than steel, stronger than Kevlar, stronger even than the nanotubes, also made of carbon atoms, that haven’t yet made it to the market. It’s also the lightest: a sheet as large as a football field would weigh about 1 gram.

Applications will vary from new, faster, cheaper, and lighter semiconductors, extremely efficient batteries than last a long time and require little time to be recharged (bye, gasoline), solar cells that can be part of the surface of buildings, rather than “things” on the roofs, and of course the stuff of which cars and, yes, bikes are made. How about a bike, made of graphene, that weighs less than a pound? How about a new kind of bearings, consisting of two graphene tubes, one inside the other, and producing no friction at all? Can you imagine the potential? A pair of sneakers would be heavier than that, your bicycle gloves, your sunglasses, or whatever. It would be just like cycling on a cloud.

eeBrakes. Wow!

When, some time ago, I wrote down a few notes about the eeBrakes in this blog, I was captivated by their design. But I wrote about them relying only on hearsay, talking to the people in the shop and getting their impressions about them. Once or twice, Huseyin, the BikeNüt Master, attempted to make me try them, but I hesitated, saying that the brakes that I had purchased a couple of years earlier, a set of KCNC cB1, although not big on stopping power, were far too expensive to be disposed of lightly and were more than good enough for me.

I had bought the KCNCs for two reasons, their craftsmanship and their weight. Because of background and long habit of mind, I can appreciate design; because of my self-inflicted grammomania, I insist in making my bike as light as possible. The brakes were beautifully milled out of light-weight alloy, the kind used on high-tech fighter jets, and weighted just about 146 grams. At the time, there was no lighter set on the market.

Now I’ve finally broken down and have installed a pair of eeBrakes. I can admit that I’ve been riding my bike practically without brakes for the past couple of years. Well, I’m exaggerating of course, to make a point. My old brakes were light, and their stopping power wasn’t their strongest attribute. I used to scan the horizon, anticipate sudden moves ahead of me, and plan ahead. I was tempted to use my foot more than once and try braking with the heel, when a car would stop suddenly in front of me for no apparent reason. I would squeeze the brakes all the way against the drops with white knuckles, the pads would hiccup along the rims, and the bike would come slowly to a halt—just.

By comparison, the modulation of the new eeBrakes is exceptional—no hyperbole here. How many times, during the past few days, have I waited until the last possible minute to use the brakes and feel the bike stopping under me. Actually this became almost literally true last Monday, when I left BikeNüt after the installation. I touched the brakes at a crossroad for the first time, applying the same pressure as I did with my old set, and almost flew over the handlebar. I learned very quickly to do better. A little pressure, feathering the brake lever with my finger tips, is sufficient to slow down, just enough to restore confidence but not to lose any speed. And the brakes are smooth, without the rough grabbing that I felt before.

Photo: © eeCycleworks

A word about the design: as the images show, these are caliper brakes. Front and rear brakes are identical. They have a dual-pivot system, which ensures that the brake pads exert the same amount of pressure on both sides of the wheel rims. There is almost a third pivot on top of the first two, that also supports the release lever, that accentuates the smoothness of the operation. It also sports an adjustment barrel that is easy to operate, albeit not while riding, as one reviewer pointed out. The release lever is the best there is, easy to grasp and quick to operate.

Perhaps their most important feature is the shape of the two brake arms. They are designed like two small struts, the kind you might see in a large scale crane or on top of a battleship, employing the least amount of material to resist any bending while braking. Bending would reduce the braking power unpredictably. This is exactly what plagued my old brakes.

Every part of this complex mechanism is milled to perfection. All the levers are connected to one another by means of liners and require no additional lubrication. The designer, Craig Edwards, has even given a second look at the pad holders, adding a small indentation to retain the brake pads.

They may look like a piece of Swiss watch-making, but they’re small and very compact and weigh—listen to this—about 190 grams. This makes them 40 grams heavier than my old set. Believe me, I’ve tried to feel the difference, and I couldn’t. On the positive side, now I can stop whenever I want.