The Latest and Greatest: Plus Size Bikes

It wasn't so very long ago when the term "plus size" referred to people -- usually women -- and most often fashion models with figures and proportions larger than the anorexic waif-like models that so dominate the fashion industry. Almost ironically, many so-called "plus size" models aren't actually so much "plus size" as they are "normal size," so maybe a better term for them would be "life-size."

But I'm digressing.

Because now, the bicycle industry is embracing another new trend -- and yet another narrow marketing segment: "plus size" bicycles.

The Surly Krampus is what some might call a 29+ with its 3-in.
tires on 50-mm wide 29er rims. (photo from Surlybikes)

Not long after fat bikes became so ubiquitous that we can now buy them at Walmart, (and I've even see people using them on pavement!) but some have decided that the 4 - 5-in. tires on fat bikes are a bit too fat for regular use (OF COURSE THEY ARE!). So now the latest trend is to split the difference between the 2.xx-in. of a typical mountain bike, and the 4 - 5-in. of a fat bike. The result is bikes with 3-in. tires, called "mid-fat" by some, or "plus size" by most.

One of the earlier examples has actually been available for a couple years now - the Surly Krampus, which has 3-in. 29er tires on wide 50mm rims. More of the bigger companies are now releasing plus-size bikes and tires built around wider 27.5 wheels (called 27+ which should not be confused with the old 27-in. wheels common to many older "ten-speed" bikes), and around 29er wheels (called 29+).

Of course, one can't just shove wider tires into any old frame, so if someone wants to experience the latest thing in mountain bikes, it most likely means buying yet another new bike. I've read that some of the 27+ tires/wheels might fit into some existing 29er frames, but don't count on it.

The new Trek Stache 29+ manages to fit plus-size
tires with short stays and an extra-wide rear
triangle. (photo from Trekbikes)

The other issue is that of incompatible standards (there's that troublesome - and meaningless - word again). Putting such wide tires into a frame often necessitates some frame-geometry gymnastics. Longer wheelbase. Wider-spaced chainstays. Wider hub spacing. Any/all of the above. So for rear wheel spacing, we now have the "old" standard of 135mm, or newer 142mm (for thru-axles), or the still newer "Boost 148" standard, which is wider not only across the axle end caps, but also across the hub flanges.

The latest thing in mountain bikes is getting hyped pretty breathlessly. You know the story. You haven't experienced anything like it. You have to experience it for yourself. It will transform your rides. More specific claims are that the massive tires give more grip and stability, like their fat-bike counterparts, but without the extra weight and truck-like handling (seems kind of obvious). Trek says on their site "The wide 3-in. tires grip relentlessly, amplifying all the benefits of 29ers . . . You'll be amazed at how the capable, unshakable 29+ tires immediately allow you to corner harder and faster without breaking loose." We'll all just have to rush out to buy another bike.

With yet another narrow segment introduced to the bicycle marketplace (and a couple new "standards" to boot), it makes a person wonder whether the industry comes up with things like this out of a desire to innovate, or a sense of desperation.

Original Paint - Galmozzi Update

Last summer, I had a story about an interesting 1960s Galmozzi belonging to an acquaintance, Kevin Kruger. At some point in the bike's long history it had been repainted and re-decalled as something other than what it really was. In preparing the bike for a proper restoration, Kevin discovered that the bike's original paint was still largely intact underneath the repaint. After carefully scraping and stripping that overpaint, and with some careful touch-ups, he ended up with a frame that is very nice, original, and has a patina that suggests a great history -- and a fantastic story.

Before. A few scrapings show the original orange paint peeking through the blue repaint. This is a pretty unusual situation, as most of the time when a bike is repainted (if it's done properly) the original finish will be completely removed.

After. All the blue paint has been removed, and some chips and scratches have been touched up. When we last saw it, the bike was ready for some new decals and components.

When that post ended, the bike was ready for some reproduction decals and waiting for a period-appropriate set of components. Well, last I checked, the bike was completed, and today seemed like a good day to post an update on that original paint Galmozzi.

Complete and ready to ride. 

According to Kevin, the restoration decals came from Greg Softley at Cyclomondo. The bike was built up with early '60s Campagnolo Record components (that's Record -- not Nuovo Record), except for the brakes which are Universal 61 centerpulls. Remember that Campy didn't yet have a brakeset on the market when this bike would have been built originally. The wheels have classic Fiamme red label tubular rims and large flange Campagnolo hubs dated "63" - and made before Campy started engraving the "Record" name on them (usually called "No Record" hubs by collectors). Stem and bars are 3ttt Gran Prix, which seem like a good choice for the time, and the saddle is a drilled-top Cinelli Unicanitor.

I've always liked that rooster head badge.

Hats off to Kevin for a great job on this preservation/restoration. The bike looks great and would be a proud addition to any vintage collection. A full set of photos can be seen on Kevin Kruger's Flickr page.

And a Totally Unrelated Update:

In August, I wrote about bike commuting and weight loss. In that article, I talked about my theory of how two shorter rides in a day might be more advantageous than one longer ride if one were trying to lose weight. That was based on my own experience that when I started commuting to and from work by bicycle, I found myself losing a fair amount of weight, practically without trying to. At the time I was writing that, at the end of my summer break, I was looking forward to getting back to my regular bike commuting, and hoping to lose a few extra pounds.

Now that we're nearing the middle of October, I can report that my bike-to-work average is holding steady at about 75% (in other words, I'm riding to work 3 out of every 4 days). In all practicality, it would be really hard to improve that average much, since there are times that I simply have to drive, regardless of weather -- sometimes I just need to get somewhere quickly after work, and biking is simply unfeasible. In fact, I'm on track so far break any of my previous personal records. Understand that it's still early (and I'm probably jinxing things), and if we have another winter as bad as the last two, it could easily wipe out any advantage I may build up. A couple of years ago, I had nearly as good of a an average in the fall, but a terrible winter killed it. But so far, this fall has been just about perfect for biking. By the way, my goal for the year (winter included) is to keep an average of 50%. I've only managed that feat once since I started bike commuting more than three years ago.

In addition, I've dropped about 7 or 8 pounds since the end of August. I'm right at 150 lbs. today, which is where I was hoping to be. Now, if I could just get better about cutting back on carbs, I might finally be able to get back to 145 lbs, which is what I weighed when I finished college so many years ago. Too bad I love bread and pasta so much.

Hope the fall weather is treating all of you as kindly as it is here in Ohio.

Torch and Lumos LED Helmets

I was just reading about a couple of new helmets with integrated LED lighting that are hitting the market. One is the Torch T2, which was out on Kickstarter a couple of years ago, and is now available for sale through the company's website. More recent is the Lumos, which met its Kickstarter goal in just one day this past summer (and exceeded it many times over before it was through), and I assume it should be ready for sale soon.

The Torch has that skater-helmet look
to it. It also appears to be a bit bulky.

I have a feeling that a lot of readers would expect me to skewer products like these pretty mercilessly, but as a bicycle commuter who rides quite a bit in the pre-dawn darkness, I have to say that I'm at least curious about the things. It seems to me that having a little extra lighting to add to a rider's night-time visibility can't hurt - and if it can be done seamlessly without strapping on more bits and pieces, so much the better.

Between the two, I think I'd be more inclined to try out the Lumos, which looks more like a typical modern road helmet. The light system seems to be pretty well integrated into the design. The Torch T2 has that skater-helmet style, and appears to be a bit bulky, and only has a few small, narrow vents. Of course, it's a matter of preference and taste, but I've never been a big fan of that type of helmet design. In colder weather, the skater-style helmet might be okay, but in most weather, I find that my head generally wants a lighter, more ventilated helmet.

The new Lumos helmet claims to take the light-up helmet idea a little further than the Torch. One of the key features is not just that it has LED lights both front and rear, but that the lights are supposed to function as brake lights and turn signals. Truly necessary? Probably not. But assuming they actually work as claimed, they wouldn't be a deal breaker.

A pair of wireless remote buttons mounted on the handlebar controls the helmet's turn signals.

When braking, the rear lights are supposed to all glow solid red. How does that work? Apparently, the helmet has a built-in accelerometer that senses when the rider slows down. Would that work reliably? I don't know, but again, I'm curious.

Reading more about the helmet on the Lumos site, the helmet's rechargeable battery is built in, and can be recharged with a typical micro-USB cable. One minor worry I'd have is water resistance. The website claims "You shouldn't dunk Lumos into a pool, but Lumos is water resistant so you can take it out with you rain or shine." How resistant is that, should one get caught in a major downpour (where visibility is almost as important as at night), I'd like to know. Also, I'm someone who often rinses out my helmet after a sweaty ride, to clean up the straps and internal pads -- and that doesn't exactly involve dunking my helmet into a pool, but it probably isn't far off. Hmmm. . .

Some thoughts:

While having some extra lighting to add to a rider's visibility is probably a good idea, I don't think people should get the idea that either of these light-up helmets is a substitute for a set of good quality bike-mounted lights (and from what I've read, neither company claims that they are such a substitute).

As far as the turn-signal and brake-light functions of the Lumos, I don't know if those are really necessary. If those features work as they're supposed to, they might be fine -- but if they don't, they'd be a serious annoyance. Also, they add to the cost, and could become just another thing to go on the fritz. On the whole, I'd probably be just as happy ditching the added complexity and simply having static non-flashing lights for visibility.

This morning on my ride to work, in that early morning darkness, I did find myself contemplating my visibility to the drivers on the road. I've looked into some of the helmet-mount lights that are available, and have even tried a couple, but I've never been really happy with the fit or the look of those lights. So, while these light-up helmets might not be for everyone, it seems that - at least for regular commuters - they might be some technology worth looking into.

An Argument Against Anti-Cycling Propaganda

Browsing through some other bike blog articles, I just happened on this article from the the U.K.-based Velomanifesto Blog:

It was originally posted back in April (though it's still perfectly relevant), and deals specifically with the politics of bicycle infrastructure in Britain, but some of the issues brought up would be very familiar to cyclists no matter where they may live.

As a little background and explanation for readers outside the U.K., the article was spurred by a political flier distributed by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) that scapegoats cyclists and attacks the use of public funding for bicycle infrastructure projects.

Not being totally familiar with the political landscape in the U.K., I had to do a little reading on UKIP to find that they call themselves a "libertarian" party, but are characterized by many political scientists as a right-wing Eurosceptic party that aims to pull the nation out of the European Union.

Many of the arguments made in the flier are the same kind of illogical cyclist-baiting drivel I'm sure we all hear all too often, in any country. Some examples:

"Cyclists are the chosen people, motorists are simply a cash cow and have very few rights."

"Surely giving all the rights to cyclists, who are usually young people, is discriminating against the elderly and infirm."

"Try walking across the Town Moor when a cyclist is silently whizzing along at 20 mph, one move to the left or right could cause serious injuries to a pedestrian."

"Cyclists carry no number plate or insurance."

"If the council is so concerned about public safety why don't they get cyclists to put bells on their bikes?"

We've all heard similar arguments -- that spending public money on anything other than automobile-specific infrastructure is a waste of money, or gives "special rights" to cyclists. That cyclists don't pay taxes, and therefore shouldn't be allowed on the roads. That cyclists somehow pose a bigger threat to pedestrians -- especially the very old and very young -- than cars. That putting more mandates on cyclists and their bikes will somehow make the public safer. The list goes on and on.

What particularly made the Velomanifesto article worth reading was the way he rebuts and refutes each one of those arguments.

Here's a sample - a response to the "Cyclists are the chosen people" argument:

"Cyclists are the chosen people? We certainly are. A commute by bicycle on any given day demonstrates this fact. The way motorists cut us up and drive too close . . . the verbal abuse we receive on a daily basis from motorists, the constant danger of dogs not on leads, glass on the side of the road, trip wires put across cycle paths with dog s%*t in bags hanging off them, the constant fear of being "doored," the fact that pedestrians step out without looking, the risk of cars overtaking through traffic islands . . . yes. . . we are indeed the deity of the road. At times it feels as if the roads were put there just for us."

As for the argument we all have heard about cyclists not paying road taxes (or gas taxes, or any taxes at all according to some), he calls it the "usual ill-informed line that motorists bring up on an anti-cyclist rant." He goes on to point out that the majority of adult cyclists DO own cars, and pay all the usual fees and taxes associated with them. But also, that roads are not funded solely through road taxes or gas taxes -- but are paid for by all the various kinds of taxes everyone pays (here in the U.S., that includes federal, state, and local income taxes, local property taxes, and even sales taxes) whether they own a car or not. He concludes on that point, "We're ALL paying for the roads and therefore have an equal right to use them."

Although the article was specifically about a U.K.-based issue, it's worth a read for anyone who's found themselves in the midst of an anti-cyclist argument.

There's an App for That: Derailleur Adjustment

After looking recently at Bluetooth pumps that use a smartphone app for a pressure gauge, I found that there really does seem to be an app for everything now -- even derailleur adjustment.

Clip these little gauges onto the cassette
 and derailleur then use the smartphone
 to fine-tune adjustment. (photo from OTTO)

That's right. The OTTO Tuning System (which sounds almost like "auto-tuning," doesn't it?) uses yet another smartphone app, along with a pair of cassette and derailleur position gauges, to make drivetrain adjustment as mindless as everything else now controlled by smartphone. For people who feel that virtually no task should be undertaken without the assistance of their phone, this must be welcome news.

According to the product introduction video, the system "doesn't require any prior bicycle service experience," and one should be able to achieve "perfect shifting in under 5 minutes." The company touts the precision of the system as being accurate to within +/- 0.125 mm. Holy cow.

They also claim that it can "diagnose bent dropout hangers, worn cables, and poorly adjusted limit screws." I suppose it makes sense that the system can diagnose dropout hangers and limit screws, since both of those things would be picked up by checking the alignment of the gauges. How on earth it can detect worn cables is beyond me. Then again, why would anyone possibly need an app to tell them their cables are worn? Are they frayed? Kinked? Rusty? Those should be clear just from looking.

I wonder if the app can diagnose THIS:

The OTTO website calls this phone screenshot "augmented reality." I'll say it's "augmented." somehow they got the drivetrain on the left side of the bike!

Apparently the phone's camera "reads" the dots on the alignment gauges, then uses some algorithms to determine what adjustments are necessary. Listen to the slightly robotic-sounding woman's voice explain, "Turn your barrel adjuster 4 clicks clockwise." (photo from OTTO)

So far, the app is only made for the Apple iOS operating system, but supposedly an Android version is in the works.

I will say that, at $39, (that's for the gauges - the app is apparently free, but useless without the gauges) the OTTO Tuning System is at least a relatively inexpensive tool. The company says the system is Shimano and SRAM 9-10-11 speed compatible -- but not Campagnolo. I find that partially odd, since I was under the impression that the cog spacing of 11-speed drivetrain systems was the same for all three companies (at least that's what Lennard Zinn says). I guess it doesn't matter, though, since none of my bikes goes to 11. In fact, most of my bikes still use friction shifting. It probably goes without saying, but the OTTO Tuning System is also incompatible with friction -- and mostly unnecessary in any case.

There are demonstration videos on the OTTO website, or you can see their product introduction video right here:

Useful tool? Or another example of smartphone addiction? I wouldn't mind hearing some thoughts.

Standards Schmandards: Roost Carbon

I've ranted lots since starting The Retrogrouch Blog about the lack of standards in the bike industry - or how new so-called standards are constantly being introduced. Well, it seems someone out there, calling themselves Ridiculous Bikes, has created a fun statement on the industry's disregard for standards in video form.

Introducing the Roost Carbon mountain bike - which takes a lack of standards to its ridiculous result.

Some of the bike's features include:

. . . ultra-wide 188 mm rear dropout spacing

. . . 28 inch wheels (to get the best of 27.5 and 29er - without having to choose!)

. . . an 11 - 53 tooth 13-speed cassette

. . . and an extra long 1500 mm wheelbase, for a riding position the company describes as "prone geometry." 

Very telling quotes from the bike's creators:

"188 mm dropout and huge BB spacing are not patented" and "free for use by all drunkards."

"Full geometry will not be released due to the waste of time from measuring."

The creators also explain that the bike and the video were computer-generated by "Grabcad's J. Deschamps," and "heavily modified, setup, textured and remodeled by Patrick Ng." Nice work, guys.

Though the video was originally released on Vimeo (which I can't seem to embed here), I did find another copy on YouTube from Extreme Sports that you can watch right here:

The one main disclaimer the video's creators include says, "This full 3D video was not meant to diss anyone or discourage change in the MTB industry, there are no affiliations to Club Roost products and the video was created for fun in one afternoon after an awesome trail ride! Cheers."

Hell - they may not have wanted to criticize the industry, but there's plenty of ridiculousness out there to serve as fodder for more satire. I say own it - and bring on more.

Flipping the Bird: fUCI Concept Bike

What would a fast road bike look like if it weren't for those wet-blanket retrogrouches at the UCI constantly stifling innovation?

Robert Egger, Creative Director at Specialized, thinks he has the answer to that question in the form of his fUCI concept bike. In case folks don't get the significance of the bike's name, the "f" stands for F#@K the UCI. The name is probably the most subtle thing about the bike. In a number of ways, the bike represents all kinds of design ideas that would never make it through the UCI rulebook.

Take a look (all images from Specialized):

Nothing's classier than a double-bird salute.

The motorcycle-inspired fairing, different-sized wheels, and electric motor are some of the major points on the bike that raise a symbolic middle finger to professional cycling's governing body. Egger points out (correctly) that most bicyclists don't race, and for that reason, the UCI only represents a small portion of the bicycling world. He designed the fUCI concept bike for people who are only interested in going fast, regulations be damned.

It's the "crotch rocket" of bicycles.

The oversized rear wheel (33.3 inches - as it says on the side of the deep-profile rim) is supposed to act like a "flywheel" and help preserve the bike's momentum. Getting that oversized tri-spoke wheel spinning would take a fair amount of extra effort, though - so that's where the electric motor comes in. Hidden in the bottom bracket, with the battery stored in the wheel-hugging lower fairing, the motor is supposed to act like "turbo boost" so that riders "don't need to endure tough energy-intensive starts." Just let the motor do the work.

As for me, I still balk at adding electric motors to bicycles. Sure, the bike may be fast -- but it's not all that impressive when you get that speed with a motor. In this case, the bike reminds me more of a motorcycle than a bicycle. Or at the very least, an electric moped. In fact, why not just go all the way and ditch the crank? Just put on some foot pegs and call it a motorcycle.

Can't have a modern bike without a smartphone dock. Of course, when the next incarnation of your iPhone completely changes the size, shape, and connection ports (again), it probably won't fit anymore. By then it will be time for another new bike.

What everyone wants on a bike: A magnetically latched compartment. I can hear that thing (and all of its contents) rattling away already.

The full-size model -- and another bird salute from Egger. Nice. . . 

Yeah - it's just a concept -- and as such, doesn't have a lot of practicality for actual riding (storage compartment or not). And it's true that if someone doesn't race, then why worry about what the UCI says? But then again, bike companies have always been free to offer whatever technology they want to regular consumers. There really is no limit on what companies like Specialized can offer to the non-racer, which makes the defiant F.U. attitude of the fUCI concept a little puzzling. As it is, there's nothing to prevent them from putting their electric moped into production.

Go ahead, Specialized. Make the bike. Go-fast poseurs will probably love it.

People like me will still think of it as kind of a crude joke, but maybe those bird salutes are meant for us, too.