I'M BACK ON MY BIKE!

[Blair P. Houghton]

I got my Holdsworth cleaned and repacked and trued. New
tape, new rubber.

Took it out this morning.

Found my Campy shirt and my shorts right where I left
them, surprisingly clean and supple, like they'd been
washed yesterday. Opened the garage, strapped myself on,
and lit out.

First time I and that bike have been on the road since...
must be... 1992?

Still as sexy as it ever was. Sleek and silky and hungry
to split the wind.

Didn't go too far. I've lost enough weight to do my bike
justice again, but I'm not in any kind of shape. Only rode
about 4 miles, kept up 60-70 strokes except on the climbs,
but the last hill almost clobbered my quads; I couldn't
even get up to mash; I had to gear down and grind. Put a
good sweat on, though; and a little burn, too.

Went home, leaned my bike against the garage cabinets,
rehydrated myself, played with the dog, had fun climbing
the stairs, took a shower.

A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.

Reconnected with the centuries, the rush, the wind, the
turned heads, the crits, the fun-runs, the decade I spent
watching those pedals flash under drops of sweat, my lost
body, my spent optimism, chapters of my life.

A dozen years of being too busy, too heavy, or having the
easy-out of recumbent stationary bikes with the TV and eye
candy at the gym had kept us apart. If that gym hadn't
closed, or the other one hadn't tried to hard-sell me, I
might have taken the easy-out again. But fate has spoken.

I'm back on my bike. With no end of the ride in sight.

--Blair
"Go ahead. I'll catch up."

[S o r n i]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> I got my Holdsworth cleaned and repacked and trued. New
> tape, new rubber.
>
> Took it out this morning.
>
> Found my Campy shirt and my shorts right where I left
> them, surprisingly clean and supple, like they'd been
> washed yesterday. Opened the garage, strapped myself on,
> and lit out.
>
> First time I and that bike have been on the road since...
> must be... 1992?
>
> Still as sexy as it ever was. Sleek and silky and hungry
> to split the wind.
>
> Didn't go too far. I've lost enough weight to do my bike
> justice again, but I'm not in any kind of shape. Only rode
> about 4 miles, kept up 60-70 strokes except on the climbs,
> but the last hill almost clobbered my quads; I couldn't
> even get up to mash; I had to gear down and grind. Put a
> good sweat on, though; and a little burn, too.
>
> Went home, leaned my bike against the garage cabinets,
> rehydrated myself, played with the dog, had fun climbing
> the stairs, took a shower.
>
> A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.
>
> Reconnected with the centuries, the rush, the wind, the
> turned heads, the crits, the fun-runs, the decade I spent
> watching those pedals flash under drops of sweat, my lost
> body, my spent optimism, chapters of my life.
>
> A dozen years of being too busy, too heavy, or having the
> easy-out of recumbent stationary bikes with the TV and eye
> candy at the gym had kept us apart. If that gym hadn't
> closed, or the other one hadn't tried to hard-sell me, I
> might have taken the easy-out again. But fate has spoken.
>
> I'm back on my bike. With no end of the ride in sight.
>
> --Blair
> "Go ahead. I'll catch up."

Very, very nice. Thanks for that.

Bill "between the Tour and /that/ bit of inspiration, ain't no way I ain't
riding tomorrow (today now)" S.

[Claire Petersky]

Blair P. Houghton > wrote in message >...

> I'm back on my bike. With no end of the ride in sight.

Blair, it's probably just hormones on my part, but reading this post
got me all choked up. I'm a sucker for tear-jerking romance stories,
and that is what this is.

I'm glad you've been reunited with your bike. I hope you have a long
and beautiful relationship together.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

[Max]

Blair P. Houghton > wrote:

> Holdsworth

fruit tree orchards loom
blair houghton's big adventure
blossoms up his nose

..max

--
the part of >
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p

[S o r n i]

Max wrote:
> Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
>> Holdsworth
>
> fruit tree orchards loom
> blair houghton's big adventure
> blossoms up his nose

Gessundheit!

Bill "always cover mouth when Haikuing" S.

[the black rose]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
*snip*
> A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.
>
> Reconnected with the centuries, the rush, the wind, the
> turned heads, the crits, the fun-runs, the decade I spent
> watching those pedals flash under drops of sweat, my lost
> body, my spent optimism, chapters of my life.
>
> A dozen years of being too busy, too heavy, or having the
> easy-out of recumbent stationary bikes with the TV and eye
> candy at the gym had kept us apart. If that gym hadn't
> closed, or the other one hadn't tried to hard-sell me, I
> might have taken the easy-out again. But fate has spoken.
>
> I'm back on my bike. With no end of the ride in sight.
>
> --Blair
> "Go ahead. I'll catch up."

What a marvellous story. Thank you for sharing.

--
the black rose
GO LANCE GO!!!
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts

[Automator]

> A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.

No you're not, you're just another sloth justifying your existence by being
another annoying recreation-only cyclist.

Get rid of your car, truck, SUV ... whatever, and start biking to work --
then you'll be "back on [your] bike"

[Mike1]

In article >,
"Automator" > wrote:

>> A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.
>
>No you're not, you're just another sloth justifying your existence by being
>another annoying recreation-only cyclist.
>
>Get rid of your car, truck, SUV ... whatever, and start biking to work --
>then you'll be "back on [your] bike"


May I be a troll too?
What are the qualifications?

--
Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick

[Mike1]

Max > wrote:

>Blair P. Houghton > wrote:
>
>> Holdsworth
>
>fruit tree orchards loom


<paraphrasing The Beatles>

"Mulberry trees forever....!"


Mmmmm. Mulberries.

--
Reply to sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.

Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick

[Dan Chatten]

Great read. Peddle on brother !

[Hotshot]

Maybe he couldn't ride his bicycle 35 miles down an interstate to work.
Maybe it would be unsafe. Maybe you should go for a ride on the interstate.

"Automator" > wrote in message
...
> > A bit later, driving to work, I realized: I'm back on my bike.
>
> No you're not, you're just another sloth justifying your existence by
being
> another annoying recreation-only cyclist.
>
> Get rid of your car, truck, SUV ... whatever, and start biking to work --
> then you'll be "back on [your] bike"
>
>

[Automator]

"Hotshot" wrote:
> Maybe he couldn't ride his bicycle 35 miles down an interstate to work.
> Maybe it would be unsafe. Maybe you should go for a ride on the
interstate.

Uh ... I do? Sometimes there is no alternative, or no quick alternative to
riding the Interstate. It's actually pretty safe when you notice that
interstates have 12+ foot wide shoulders.

[Hotshot]

Its illegal in my state and we don't have twelve foot shoulders. Speed
limit is 70 mph and they run about 80 mph most days. If I had to ride my
bike 35 miles to work and back I'd have to leave in the dark and return in
the dark.(Most days) That isn't safe either. My problem with the OP (if
that was you) is that the guy was just happy to be back riding and the OP
cut him down. People should be encouraging people to ride bikes as much as
possible, not cutting them down.

"Automator" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Hotshot" wrote:
> > Maybe he couldn't ride his bicycle 35 miles down an interstate to work.
> > Maybe it would be unsafe. Maybe you should go for a ride on the
> interstate.
>
> Uh ... I do? Sometimes there is no alternative, or no quick alternative to
> riding the Interstate. It's actually pretty safe when you notice that
> interstates have 12+ foot wide shoulders.
>
>

[Glenn Civello]

Did anyone read CR's July 04 edition on bike helmets? I bought a Bell
*Influx* ($60) about a year ago and not find out that it is not recommended
because it was found to come off in an accident. It came in last-place when
compared to 14 other helmets. Louis Garneau's *Zen* and Trek's *Interval*
were at the top of the list respectively. Third and fourth place went to
Specialized *M1* and Giro *Pheumo* Needless to say, I am concerned about
CR's findings. My *Influx* fits me well and I use it for the summer
months. For the Winter months I use a Garneau *Aki* (which was not one of
the helmets tested by CR.)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:34:16 -0400, "Glenn Civello"
> wrote in message
>:

>Did anyone read CR's July 04 edition on bike helmets? I bought a Bell
>*Influx* ($60) about a year ago and not find out that it is not recommended
>because it was found to come off in an accident. It

If you want a helmet which offers the least negligible amount of
protection, I have been told by someone who tests helmets against the
standards that Specialized is the only major brand he'll recommend.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:34:16 -0400, "Glenn Civello"
> wrote:

>Did anyone read CR's July 04 edition on bike helmets? I bought a Bell
>*Influx* ($60) about a year ago and not find out that it is not recommended
>because it was found to come off in an accident. It came in last-place when
>compared to 14 other helmets. Louis Garneau's *Zen* and Trek's *Interval*
>were at the top of the list respectively. Third and fourth place went to
>Specialized *M1* and Giro *Pheumo* Needless to say, I am concerned about
>CR's findings. My *Influx* fits me well and I use it for the summer
>months. For the Winter months I use a Garneau *Aki* (which was not one of
>the helmets tested by CR.)

I quit listening to Consumer Reports awhile back when they did a
review of bicycles.

Among their criteria for a safer bike was a requirement for those
dorky extended brake levers that went along the bottom of the
handlebar tops, toward the stem, which they referred to as
"center-pull" brakes, and solemnly noted that the usual brake levers
were dangerous because they were too hard to reach.

[foldedpath]

"Glenn Civello" > wrote in
:

> Did anyone read CR's July 04 edition on bike helmets? I bought a Bell
> *Influx* ($60) about a year ago and not find out that it is not
> recommended because it was found to come off in an accident. It came
> in last-place when compared to 14 other helmets. Louis Garneau's
> *Zen* and Trek's *Interval* were at the top of the list respectively.
> Third and fourth place went to Specialized *M1* and Giro *Pheumo*
> Needless to say, I am concerned about CR's findings. My *Influx*
> fits me well and I use it for the summer months. For the Winter
> months I use a Garneau *Aki* (which was not one of the helmets tested
> by CR.)

CR can be a good resource for some things, like the user surveys for
reliability and repair histories. I always take their reviews with a grain
of salt. They could have mis-adjusted the straps on the test helmet, or the
tester's head (or dummy head?) may have been shaped wrong for the helmet
shell and foam padding strips. There is a lot of variation in what helmet
manufacturers think a "normal" head looks like.

If you can't dislodge your helmet with a quick, strong upwards push with
the heel of your hand on the front, back, or side edges, then I wouldn't
worry about it.

--
Mike Barrs

[Glenn Civello]

>> Did anyone read CR's July 04 edition on bike helmets? I bought a Bell
*Influx* ($60) about a year ago and not find out that it is not
recommended because it was found to come off in an accident. <snip>

> CR can be a good resource for some things, like the user surveys for
reliability and repair histories. I always take their reviews with a grain
of salt. They could have mis-adjusted the straps on the test helmet, or the
tester's head (or dummy head?) may have been shaped wrong for the helmet
shell and foam padding strips. There is a lot of variation in what helmet
manufacturers think a "normal" head looks like.

If you can't dislodge your helmet with a quick, strong upwards push with
the heel of your hand on the front, back, or side edges, then I wouldn't
worry about it. (Mike Barrs)
==
Thanks for your input Mike. I bought the Bell Influx because it fit well
and was easy to adjust. I had reasoned that such was a good criteria for my
selection. I had completely overlooked the "buckle-factor, assuming that all
buckles on bike helmets were pretty much alike (that's what failed in the CR
test i.e. buckles broke when force was applied)

[foldedpath]

"Glenn Civello" > wrote in
:

> Thanks for your input Mike. I bought the Bell Influx because it fit
> well and was easy to adjust. I had reasoned that such was a good
> criteria for my selection. I had completely overlooked the
> "buckle-factor, assuming that all buckles on bike helmets were pretty
> much alike (that's what failed in the CR test i.e. buckles broke when
> force was applied)

The buckle failed? That's interesting. It could have been a statistical
fluke, where they got a defective buckle that doesn't show up often in the
production run. But it would probably be smart to test your buckles by
applying fairly strong force to see if they hold. If they fail, I'm sure
Bell would provide a replacement or refund.

--
Mike Barrs
(thinking I should go test my helmet buckles now... I use a Bell KingHead)

[Frank Krygowski]

Glenn Civello wrote:

>>
> Thanks for your input Mike. I bought the Bell Influx because it fit well
> and was easy to adjust. I had reasoned that such was a good criteria for my
> selection. I had completely overlooked the "buckle-factor, assuming that all
> buckles on bike helmets were pretty much alike (that's what failed in the CR
> test i.e. buckles broke when force was applied)

As I (and others) have said before, CR is OK for some things, but not
very competent at others. You simply can't trust everything they say.

I have a research article reporting on tests of forces on bike helmet
straps in simulated crashes. They claim the typical force is about 10
pounds.

Hang a ten pound weight from your helmet straps. If the buckle breaks,
take it back. If it doesn't (and it won't), don't worry about it.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Glenn Civello]

I wrote:
..... I bought the Bell Influx because it fit well and was easy to adjust.
I had reasoned that such was a good criteria for my selection. I had
completely overlooked the "buckle-factor, assuming that all buckles on bike
helmets were pretty much alike (that's what failed in the CR test i.e.
buckles broke when force was applied)

Frank wrote:
> As I (and others) have said before, CR is OK for some things, but not
> very competent at others. You simply can't trust everything they say.
> I have a research article reporting on tests of forces on bike helmet
> straps in simulated crashes. They claim the typical force is about 10
> pounds.

> Hang a ten pound weight from your helmet straps. If the buckle breaks,
> take it back. If it doesn't (and it won't), don't worry about it.
===
With the helmet off of my head I closed the buckle and then pulled the
straps as hard as I could. I repeated this several times. My buckle held
up fine. The CR review said that 3 of 12 samples failed... the force
applied was slightly less that the federal standard (according to CR)

[Frank Krygowski]

Glenn Civello wrote:

>
> Frank wrote:
>
>>As I (and others) have said before, CR is OK for some things, but not
>>very competent at others. You simply can't trust everything they say.
>>I have a research article reporting on tests of forces on bike helmet
>>straps in simulated crashes. They claim the typical force is about 10
>>pounds.
>
>
>>Hang a ten pound weight from your helmet straps. If the buckle breaks,
>>take it back. If it doesn't (and it won't), don't worry about it.
>
> ===
> With the helmet off of my head I closed the buckle and then pulled the
> straps as hard as I could. I repeated this several times. My buckle held
> up fine. The CR review said that 3 of 12 samples failed... the force
> applied was slightly less that the federal standard (according to CR)

What I really meant was that I think the federal standard for buckle
strength is overly stringent. The paper I read indicated 10 pounds
would be sufficient strength. I've certainly never heard of a cyclist
claiming they were head injured because their helmet's buckle broke.

Of course, cycling head injuries are actually extremely rare anyway,
despite all the horror hype. IOW, you could probably replace the buckle
with a piece of thread and be just as safe! But that's another issue.



--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

[Jeff Starr]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:32:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:


>As I (and others) have said before, CR is OK for some things, but not
>very competent at others. You simply can't trust everything they say.
>

Hi, I have heard this said before, about CR. I have never found them
to make the ideal recommendation on any item or device that I had
knowledge of. So, I am afraid to trust them on things I'm not up on.

Life is Good!
Jeff

[Har-VEE]

> I quit listening to Consumer Reports awhile back when they did a
> review of bicycles.
>

You just need to shut the hell up and buy what you are told to buy.
If these people weren't EXTREMELY intelligent and unsusceptable to bribery
they would not be able to test toaster ovens on one day, and be the subject
matter experts on steering tube material the next.

You are being monitored now.