Foot Loose

Back in the late 1970s I became what I thought of as a “serious cyclist”. Serious cyclists back then rode handmade bikes with drop bars and fancy Italian components. They wore wool shorts and jerseys. Their shoes were handmade in Italy and they always rode with toe clips and straps. Platform pedals were definitely not serious and were best left for children and your grandmother.

During the 1980s “clipless” pedals became de rigueur and I made the obligatory switch. Some of those early clipless models were awful, with zero flotation and humongous cleats. They eventually improved and most of today’s clipless pedals are well-engineered and relatively easy to use.

In recent years, as I started using my bicycles more regularly for transportation, I became awfully tired of always wearing special shoes (waddling around like a duck in the grocery store is terribly undignified.)

In recent years, as I started using my bicycles more regularly for transportation, I became awfully tired of always wearing special shoes (waddling around like a duck in the grocery store is terribly undignified.) Initially, I searched for comfortable riding shoes and cleat systems that presented a low profile for better walkability, but in the end I was never really satisfied, so a little over a year ago I switched all of my bikes over to platform pedals. Now I ride in whatever shoes I happen to have on and I’m able to switch from being a bicyclist to a pedestrian without changing costumes.

Another plus to “pedaling free” is that your feet are able to move around on the pedals, which I believe reduces the chance for repetitive injuries, something that is a concern for many bicyclists (especially old farts like me with tired knees). Many of today’s clipless pedals have plenty of lateral float and probably won’t cause problems for most people, but it’s the ability to move my foot fore-and-aft on platforms that has proven to be a big plus for me.

Grant Petersen of Rivendell wrote a somewhat controversial article on this subject titled “The Shoes Ruse“. Here’s an excerpt:

The biggest myth in bicycle riding is the need for special cycling shoes and the benefits of stiff ones. The argument in favor of Special Shoes is this: With a firm connection to the pedal, you will be able to apply power for the full 360-degrees of a pedal revolution.

That’s one of the biggest, fattest lies of all time on any topic, but experts, riders, and the media repeat this over and over again, year after year. Coaches, trainers, people we’re supposed to listen to. Statesmen and Pillars of the Community. Even the Girl Next Door says it over and over.

And this:

When elite pedalers and lousy rookie pedalers have been hooked up to machines that measure muscle activity during pedaling, the machines tell us this:

—During normal pedaling at normal cadences, nobody pulls UP on the backstroke.
—The elite/efficient pedalers push down less on the upward moving pedal than the rookies do.

Think about that until it sinks in and you’re bored. The good pedalers — the guys in the logo costumes and the white sunglasses and shaved legs — minimize the downward force on the upward-moving pedal more. They don’t pull up on it or even unweight it. They just minimize the downward pressure on it, so one leg isn’t fighting the other as much.

That is a far cry from the 360-degrees of power the clickers and media and experts promise you.

There’s a lot more where that came from, and even if you don’t agree, it’s a fun read, so you may want to check it out.

Mostly I agree with Mr. Petersen in that the average non-racer is not gaining much (if anything) in efficiency by riding clipped-in. It may feel more efficient to be clipped-in, and if a person likes the feeling and doesn’t mind the drawbacks presented by special cycling shoes, that’s great. But in reality, being clipped to our pedals is probably not going to shorten our commute times by a significant amount.

Switching back to platforms has been one of the best bike-related decisions I’ve made in a very long time. Maybe I’ve lost a little efficiency, maybe I haven’t; honestly, I couldn’t care less. What really matters is that I no longer have to “dress up” to ride my bikes, which in turn, makes bike riding that much more integrated into my daily routine.

Gallery: Andy’s Globe Major

Here is my 2005 Globe Major. I use this bike for daily commuting and touring/camping all over Europe.

Set up with these components:

  • 26″ Mavic XM 719 rims / XT hubs / Conti Sport Contact 26×1.4 tires
  • XT cranks 48/38/26 t
  • XT derailleur
  • Ultegra cassette 12-27
  • XT v brakes
  • Cane Creek brake levers
  • Cane Creek headset
  • Dura Ace bar end shifter
  • Brooks B17 saddle
  • Ritchey handlebar,stem and seatpost
  • Tubus racks

The actual weight is 13.5 kg. Greetings from Germany. —Andy

Extreme Panda III

Civia Hyland Drop-Bar Build

Civia is now offering a drop-bar build of their flagship commuter, the Hyland. Way cool.

Specs as follows:

  • MSRP: $1,575
  • Bottom Bracket: Tiagra 4500/4503/4550 English Bottom Bracket
  • Brake Caliper, Frt & Rr: Avid 09 BB5 Disc BrkRoad Frt/Rear 160mm Rotor
  • Brake Rotor: Avid 160mm OE, included with caliper
  • Cassette: Tiagra HG-50 9sp 12-25 cassette
  • Chain: Shimano HG 53
  • Chainguard: Civia Chainguard 42.7 chainline
  • Crank: Shimano Tiagra 175mm 50-34
  • Derailleur, Ft: Shimano Tiagra 9sp 31.8 clamp
  • Derailleur, Rr: Shimano Tiagra 9sp SS cage
  • Dropouts: Civia Hyland Derailleur Sliding Dropout Set OE
  • Fenders: Civia Hyland Fenders 700×35
  • Fork: Civia 700c 1 1/8 carbon, disc, post mount
  • Handlebar: Ritchey Pro OEM
  • Headset: Ritchey Comp Logic V2 Black
  • Hub, Ft & Rr: Shimano Deore 6 bolt Black 32h
  • QR Skewer, Ft & Rr: Shimano Deore
  • Rack, Rr: Civia rear rack black OEM
  • Rim, Ft & Rr: WTB SPeedDisc 32h black
  • Saddle: Civia Hyland Saddle
  • Seatpost: Ritchey Comp 27.2 x 400 OEM
  • Shift Lever, Ft & Rr: Shimano Tiagra STI
  • Sliding Dropout: Civia Hyland Derailleur Sliding Dropout Set OE
  • Stem: Stem Comp 84/6D
  • Tire, Ft: Continental Sport Contact 700×28
  • Tire, Rr: Continental Sport Contact 700×29
  • Wheel, Ft: DIM Deore 6-blt WTB SpeedDisc 32 blk
  • Wheel, Rr: DIM 29″ Deore 6-blt WTB SpeedDisc 32 blk

‘Bents

Recenty, a number of people have asked about my old recumbents, what I used to ride, why I quit riding ‘bents, etc.

I rode a number of different bikes, ranging from a Bacchetta Ti Aero to various SWBs, LWBs, and finally a custom Easy Racers Tour Easy (shown above) built for me by Rick Steele at Gold Country Cyclery. Before switching back to riding uprights, I had pretty much settled on long wheelbase, low bottom bracket bikes, with the TE being my favorite. I miss that bike.

Why don’t I ride ‘bents anymore? It’s simple: they don’t play very well with transit and city bike facilities. An important component of my monster commute is a city bike locker. As far as I know, there is no ‘bent currently being manufactured that will fit in either our city bike lockers or on our city bike racks. A friend was fortunate enough to convince the city to give him two lockers and knock out the divider to house his Lightning P-38, but lockers are so in-demand these days that it’s no longer an option. Another less important and very subjective reason I switched, is that I prefer a uprights to recumbents in stop-and-go city traffic. I can’t say with any confidence that I won’t own a recumbent in the future, it’s just that at this particular station in life they don’t fit in very well.

I need to add a caveat. We still own a recumbent – it’s a RANS Screamer tandem. We occasionally take it out for a joy ride, though not often. We’re saving it for our retirement when we hope to take some long tours on that awesome machine.

One Foot in Each Camp

A debate regarding the validity of separated bicycling facilities has raged on non-stop for many years. On one side there is John Forester and the bicyclists and planners who support a strictly vehicular approach to bicycling based upon using our current road system, and on the other side we have John Pucher and the bicyclists and planners who support a system based upon separated bicycling facilities such as those seen in The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.

The vehicular side argues that we currently have a fully functional road network and bicycles are already classified as vehicles, so all we need to do is maintain our rights as road users and educate bicyclists on the techniques of riding a bicycle as a vehicle. One of the main arguments for this approach is that these goals are attainable and realistic.

The separated facilities side argues that until we do more to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles we’ll never see the numbers of bicyclists in the U.S. that we see in some European countries. Numerous studies support this notion, with the fear of cars often being cited as the number one reason people don’t ride their bikes. One of the main arguments against separated facilities is that it’s unlikely we’ll ever have the political will and funding to create such a system.

My thinking falls somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. On the one hand, when I ride on roads, I employ many (though not all) of the principles of vehicular cycling as laid out in Forester’s Effective Cycling. Many of his techniques truly are “effective”, and with proper training and experience, they’ll serve riders well in a wide variety of situations. That said, I like to think of myself as a “pragmatic vehicular cyclist” who rides as a vehicle when it’s appropriate, but then switches to a bike-pedestrian mode when difficult conditions occasionally call for it.

On the other hand, I fully agree that the fear of auto traffic is one of the main obstacles we have to overcome before we’ll see a dramatic increase in bicycle use in the U.S. The studies support this idea, and anecdotal evidence supports it as well. Many casual bicyclists are scared to death of cars; that’s why we see so much sidewalk riding. The statistics tell us that bicycling is an inherently safe activity, and I believe this to be the case, but still, sharing the road with fast moving motor vehicles is frightening to many people on a gut level, regardless of what the studies tell us. I, for one, find riding on a quiet separated path far preferable to riding on a busy roadway just feet from cars traveling at a high rate of speed; I think most people would agree (particularly non-enthusiasts).

Bicycling may be a relatively safe activity, but the perception that bicycling is dangerous is extremely pervasive in the U.S. and it’s unlikely we’ll change that perception through logical arguments or statistics. We must find a way to build more separated facilities to make bicycling less intimidating to beginners and non-enthusiasts. We also need more training in vehicular cycling techniques to build rider skill and confidence for dealing with the realities on the ground as we build those new facilities. This combined approach will give us the best chance of growing bicycling for transportation in the U.S.

Bike Lane Love

One of our readers sent us this great photo today:

As I was biking to work this morning, I ran across the these newly repainted bike line markers that really made me laugh. They reversed the template before repainting the marker and it now looks like two people hugging on a bike (maybe this was paid for with federal “stimulus” money!)  It reminded me of the slightly-contentious discussion on EcoVelo about electric bicycles — maybe this could be developed into a “let’s all get along” bicyclists logo. —Casey

The next time you see this symbol, be sure to stop and give a fellow bike-lane-user a hug.


 
© 2011 EcoVelo™