Breakdown: The Repair

Last week I had my crank arm come loose on me. This was on the fixed gear set up I am using on my Twin Six Standard Rando v2. You can go back and read my post about this occurrence HERE in case you missed this. 

Since those plastic pre-load bolts are scarce in my world, I had to order a new one and I got it in on Tuesday of this past week. I also somehow misplaced my Park tool "wing-nut looking" installation tool for this special bolt. So, I ordered a new tool, but this time I got a Unior tool for the install of the plastic pre-load bolt which cost a lot less than the Park Tool one. 

While I was at it I also bought two of those excellent Lezyne side-loader cages I've purchased and used before. I'll likely do a separate post on water bottle cages soon, and I'll hold off on my comments on the Lezyne cages until I post that article here. 

Ordering a plastic pre-load bolt for a Shimano crank was not as easy as I thought it could have been. I ordered from Jenson USA, and their descriptions were sorely lacking for such a part. Without my background in bicycle repair, I may have missed a choice which - as it turned out - worked for me. I can easily imagine an average rider being very disappointed in the information, or lack thereof, for such parts. 

But Jenson has a huge inventory and who cares about a part that costs a couple of bucks? Well....you cannot run a Shimano two-piece crank set without that stupid plastic bolt, so it is kind of imperative for there to be clear information for consumers. That's my take. 

Making sure the bolts are torqued properly.

Installation is pretty straightforward. I did put a thread locking compound on the plastic threads of the pre-load bolt this time, just for a little extra insurance. We will see how this goes. 

Then I torqued the pinch bolts, using an alternating tightening pattern, to 14nm. It is important to note here that HollowTech crank arms are very intolerant to loosening or tightening one bolt all at once. That is a recipe for crank failure as the uneven loading will crack the arm. It is best practice to alternate when tightening or loosening these bolts, or with other similar set ups such as stems and some other components which use pinch bolt clamping force to stay attached. 

So far, so good. I rode the bike for a good half an hour to test the parts and see if anything loosened up. Next I'll do several short rides, test everything again, and only then will I be satisfied this is good to go. 

Which brings me to another point. Testing. Shop mechanics generally do not get to test a repair, and long term, multi-situation testing? Forget about it! So, most retail bicycle mechanics have to do their repairs not only quickly, but without any real assurance the repair will hold up, in some cases. 

Obviously most mundane repairs are not part of this discussion, but there are some things which only will be proven out, or diagnosed, with time and trials. Consumers are not very tolerant of this, but the reality is that if you want a very secure and trustworthy repair, you have to pay in time and in money. 

Don't blame your mechanic if you are in a hurry, or won't pay him/her what they are worth. 

The Bottom Bracket That Was Too Good

When I built up this bike in '03 I used a UN series BB

A while back, a reader here asked a question in the comments which has inspired this post. It is about one of my favorite bicycle components of all time - the UN series of bottom brackets by Shimano. 

The Background:

First of all, it may be a good thing to consider the context of the times before Shimano created the cartridge bottom bracket. This was when all bicycles in bike shops generally had some sort of square taper spindle bottom bracket which was "fully serviceable". 

What I mean by the term "fully serviceable" is that the component could be torn apart, inspected, have parts replaced, re-lubricated, and reassembled making the potential for the component to last a long time fairly high.

Diagram showing a cup & cone serviceable bottom bracket

While there were variants on the theme, a serviceable bottom bracket was typically made up of a hardened steel spindle, loose ball bearings, also in steel, two "cups", and usually some sort of lock ring. 

In this sort of arrangement it was absolutely critical for the frame to have clean, straight threads inside the bottom bracket shell and that the faces where the bottom bracket tube faced outward on either side be 100% parallel to each other. If these things weren't true, the bottom bracket would wear prematurely, or be unusable due to poor adjustment capabilities. 

The cup and cone set up of this type of bottom bracket required skill to set correctly or the bearings would wear out, along with the cups and spindle, before they should. This adjustment required various different spanners, specific to certain types of bottom brackets. Additionally, this sort of bottom bracket was prone to contamination from wet weather riding, dust, and dirt. 

Take these things and add the dozens of variants (differing spindle lengths and thread types) and a repair shop could quite literally have a machinist's cabinet full of spares to service these bottom brackets. Not to mention the time required to install and adjust these bottom brackets.

The Cartridge Bottom Bracket: 

Along about 1992 Shimano introduced a new bottom bracket which was sealed up inside a metal tube so you could not see the bearings. They called it a "cartridge" type bottom bracket. While the first cartridge style bottom brackets looked very similar to what you can still buy today, there were a couple of weird quirks regarding the originals.  

Originally the plastic cup was on the drive side.

Oddly enough, the plastic non-driveside cup you might be familiar with on a cartridge style Shimano bottom bracket was actually on the driveside originally. Obviously these are left-hand thread and are exceedingly rare. Because the plastic wasn't quite up to the rigors of drive side pressure, Shimano quickly switched the arrangement to what is currently available today. 

Another oddity was the original cartridge style bottom brackets were serviceable. You could take the bearings out, re-grease the unit, and the cones were adjustable via a specialized tool sold by Shimano. I happen to have the tool, oddly enough! 

Additionally, the cartridges were not specific to bottom bracket shell length originally. This difference between 68mm and 73mm shells was accounted for by the shoulder in the inside diameter of the plastic cup. A wider shoulder was for 73mm shells and a narrow shoulder was for the 68mm shells. You could use a cartridge unit in either shell as long as you had the proper non-driveside cup. This reduced the number of variants Shimano had to make since every cartridge worked with both bottom bracket shell widths.

Finally, and most importantly for mechanics, the Shimano cartridge system reduced the number of bottom bracket variants by a very significant amount. There were less spindle length variants and you didn't have to worry about bearing race variations between similar width spindles either. This made stocking bottom brackets easier for shops and easier for manufacturers as well, since Shimano only offered certain spindle lengths. In fact, now you pretty much only have three spindle lengths which cover almost every application.

The original UN series was split up into three levels matching the old DX/LX/XT hierarchy for MTB and the 105/Ultegra/Dura Ace on the road side. XT, and eventually XTR, along with Dura Ace had metal non-driveside cups instead of plastic and were UN-90 series. The mid-level was UN-70 series, and the original entry level cartridges were UN-50 series. Later on lower series cartridge bottom bracket variants were offered to accommodate entry level MTB/Hybrid applications, and some road bike/touring bike applications as well. 

Image from a recent eBay listing for a UN-71 cartridge bottom bracket

Just Too Good!

As I said, these were made so well they were too good! Shimano sealed the units so well they resisted contamination to a great degree, making the units last far longer. While the UN-70 and 90 series were lighter and had better machining, the UN-50 series was so much better than previous serviceable bottom brackets, and went for such ridiculously low prices, everyone used these when they could. Of course, Shimano eventually made less expensive, lower-tier cartridge bottom brackets and those - while possessing the long-wearing traits of the upper end units - were far less quality in terms of bearings and free-movement. 

Eventually Shimano moved on to pipe spindle type bottom brackets around the year 2000. The square taper bottom brackets fell out of favor as crank sets became two-piece with spindles and bearings were housed in separate cups. This was when I started hoarding square taper UN-50 series bottom brackets. 

I've run the same UN-52 BB in this bike since it was built in '07

I ended up with several since I was a mechanic and when folks upgraded, or thought these were bad, I had first crack at owning them. I used a few on bikes I still ride today like my Karate Monkey, my OS Bikes Blackbuck, and my Pofahl Signature. 

I had to replace the one in the Karate Monkey after 4 Winters of abuse, That one was frozen in the frame! I had to remove it piecemeal. 

I maybe have had to replace one other of my used bottom brackets due to it being worn out. 

So, you perhaps can see why Shimano moved on to stiffer pipe spindle bottom brackets and different designs, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a square taper crank and a Shimano cartridge style bottom bracket. You can purchase brand new UN-55's yet, and used UN-70 series bottom brackets are out there for right around $35.00 - $40.00 each. 

If you have any further questions about these or other components, let me know in the comments. Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions!

Friday News And Views

US Patent Office image of SRAM UBM

SRAM Universal Brake Mount:

SRAM, who promoted the UDH derailleur mount, which is being widely adopted now, has patented a new MTB brake mount called Universal Brake Mount. 

The patent was granted last year, and the idea was discussed a bit in certain circles of the bike industry, but now it is seemingly gaining some traction in mentions of a near future adoption by the industry. 

The mount centers the brake mount from the axle, and everything references off this point instead of being a jig for each frame, or a different set of parameters to be used. This does make the mount dependent on an attachment point on the seat stay. 

Obviously, this idea would be a bit more difficult if we were still in a quick release world. However; since through axles are ubiquitous on MTB, road, and gravel bikes now, this idea makes sense. Obviously, this is a post mount brake standard, but perhaps a flat mount standard could be developed as well. 

I can see how the design would require extra beef on seat stays and how it might limit some full suspension designs, or designs which employ seat stays as flexing members for comfort. So, I do not believe this is a "universal" solution for everyone, but I also see how manufacturing frames would be easier and more streamlined by using this standard. Saving factories and brands more money will be the motivation for adopting this. 

Image courtesy of Zirbel Bike social media

Zirbel Bike Offers "Electronic Grip Shift" Type Shifters

Grip Shift - Remember that? It was largely forgotten after SRAM moved off of doing mechanical flat bar shifters with the introduction of AXS. 

But a company called Zirbel Bike  has adapted a wireless twist ring style shifter reminiscent of Grip Shift to operate a SRAM AXS/Transmission rear derailleur.  

They also make a trigger style ring which has minimal mass and takes up little handlebar space. The trigger can be easily operated by a thumb.  

Some riders preferred a twist style shifter due to hand issues which make using triggers painful or difficult. This Zirbel product could be a solution then for such individuals. 

Prices look to be reasonable and the shifters can be purchased as a unit complete with flat bar and stem for a mountain bike.  

Comments: Now that I've seen this, it seems odd SRAM did not attempt to go in a similar direction with AXS for MTB/flat bars. The product Zirbel offers takes up little space which is a big deal now with MTB cockpits having dropper levers and shock lockouts competing with brake levers and shifters for space on handlebars.  

Image courtesy of Jay Petervary's social media.

IDITAROD Trail Race Sunday:

One of the older ultra-distance bicycle events in North America is set to occur this Sunday. The IDITAROD Trail Invitational will send off its riders on Sunday. 

I grabbed this image of Jay Petervary's fat bike set up from his social media to show just how far things have come in bicycle design for this event. It seems a longer wheel base, slacker front end, and different width rims are the hot set-up in 2026. 

Obviously a credit to materials technology and its application to fat bike components has to be recognized here. Without carbon rims, carbon components, and lighter weight, titanium tubing a machine like this would have weighed a silly amount 20 years ago. 

I would also think recent developments in tire set ups are making machines like this even more capable. I asked Jay about the wheels here. The tires are the same but the rims are different. I find it interesting that Jay is using differing rim sizes. The rear is 105mm wide and the front is a whopping 128mm wide. This gives the tires a truly different shape and, I would imagine, a different type of performance on snowy trails.  I don't know what the thinking he has is on this is, but I would be interested to hear is take on this idea. 

What do you think of Jay's bike set-up? Let me know in the comments. 

Image courtesy of fizik

The Arione Is Back!

Almost 20 years ago fizik introduced a very long, flat, kind of tear-dropped shaped saddle which was so different you could identify the model from a distance easily. It was the fizik Arione, a saddle which pushed the limits of UCI regulations, and which many riders grew to love for its allowance for several comfortable positions across its length. 

Now the Arione is back, and it has some features which are unique. The length has been trimmed back from the original's nearly aircraft carrier deck length to a more modern length. Not surprising there. However; the flat profile remains, as does the "boat-tail" rear extension. 

Of course, there are 3D printed covers, (shown) and there are more traditional covers available as well. The range features  rail choices, from carbon to fizik's "Kium" hollow alloy rails, and the S-Alloy rails. . Top range models get the Adaptive padding while there are EVA and PU foam padded models when you move down the range, which is reflected in the price. 

Image courtesy of fizik

Interestingly, fizik addresses how many racers want there saddles positioned as forward as possible in relation to the bottom bracket by attaching the rear of the rails to the saddle base in a unique way. This allows for a very forward saddle placement which is not available in any other saddle model I am aware of currently. 

Times have certainly changed! I recall a day when we could not get our saddles far enough back on a seat post. So, this is an interesting development in saddles and rider fit. 

Arione R 5 (Image courtesy of fziik)

The Arione is available in available in five models. The top of the range features the Arione R1 Adaptive with carbon rails. The Arione Adaptive R1 Light has EVA padding instead of a 3D printed cover. This model also features an ergonomic cutaway central channel for pressure relief. Next we have the Arione R3 Adaptive which has the same 3D printed cover as the R1 but has Kium alloy hollow rails. 

Then we move to the Arione R3 and R5 models which have the PU foam padding and differ mostly in the rail choice with the R3 having the hollow Kium alloy and the R5 having the S-Alloy rail. 

Prices range from $399.00 for the range topping Arione R1 Adaptive to $99.99 for the Arione R5. All saddles come in two widths - 145mm or a narrower 135mm. 

For more details see fizik's site HERE

Life Time Announces Wildcard Rosters

Last year the Life Time Grand prix announced a "wildcard" category which allowed racers who qualified to enter into the opener for the series, and any man or woman in the top three placings for either category would get on the Wildcard chance at Unbound to possibly race their way into the Grand Prix series. In fact, the Grand Prix Men's overall winner, Cameron Jones, came out of the Wildcard category. 

A press release received Thursday here at Guitar Ted Productions lines out the rosters for possible Wildcard entrants. There are 27 women on that side of the roster. Notably in this roster I see Haley Smith, former Canadian Olympian and Grand Prix rider. 

On the Men's side there are 59 individuals listed with several notable names in the running. Russel Finsterwald, Dylan Johnson, and Adam Roberge being but a few of the names listed . 

My reading of the press release may be off, but as I understand this, the rosters listed must race Sea Otter where the top three in Men's and Women's categories from the WildCard rosters can then compete in Unbound and then whomever is the best of the three in each category there will be added to the Grand Prix riders. 

Again- apologies if I have this wrong but the press release wasn't 100% clear to me on these points. 

So, the bigger question is, does any of this matter to you? (I already know what N.Y. Roll will say!)

Image courtesy of Surly Bikes

 

 Disc Trucker Update:

Surly released an updated Disc Trucker complete and frame set available now through your Surly dealer. As before, smaller sizes are available in 26" wheels and 56cm and up is 700c. 

The Disc Trucker is an amalgamation of old touring bikes and new technology/components. You've got that steel frame, a spoke holder, rack mounts galore, fender mounts, and good ol' touring bike geometry. 

Modernization come in the form of tubeless ready tires, disc brakes, and through axles. Honestly, all good things. 

Gotta give a shout out to the externally routed cables and dynamo routed fork. There is a nice, upright seated position here also, which is great for long, all-day riding. 

Touring nerds will probably sniff at the 2X crank set with 46T/30T gearing. Not that it doesn't provide a low enough gear with a 39T low gear in the cassette, but because you don't get that nice "transition" range with, say a 36T middle ring. Ah! ..............But triples are too confusing. Hmm..... Okay. I believe cycling is a skill set. This stuff can be learned. But I digress.... 

And did you notice you could put a set of down tube shifters on this frame? Now that is old school right there! Ha ha! Also of note: 36 spoke wheels. Nice! 

That is going to wrap things up for this week here at Guitar Ted Productions. Thank you for reading here and please, get outside and ride a bicycle this weekend!

Road Bike Trends Toward "All-Road" Territory

GP5000's now available in 700 x 35mm (Inage courtesy of Continental Tires)

 Maybe you are a reader here who does not pay attention much to the latest trends in road bikes. That would be understandable if you are a regular here because I do not cover road bikes much, or at all during many months. I may make a mention here or there, but by no means do I tend to bring a lot to the table in regard to this category of bicycle. 

However; I feel this is going to be changing soon now due to where road bikes trends are heading. Just this week Continental announced a 700 x 35mm GP5000 tire. A tire which, just not that long ago was only available in up to a 28mm width. Pirelli has already breached the mid-40mm barrier with one of the their road bike tire models. Vittoria just announced a 700 x 32mm road tire this week as well. 

Trek Madone (Image courtesy of Trek Bikes)

It is also rumored now Trek is considering opening up tire clearances for the next generation of their Madone aero bike. If, say, one could put a 700 x 40mm+ tire in a Madone with confidence, well, does this make a Madone a gravel bike? 

It is a fair question. Take as an example what my parameters for a gravel bike were when I was talking about building a custom gravel bike in 2010. 

I wanted, amongst other things, 700 X 42mm tire clearance. With fenders. Now, since some road tires are being released in nearly this width, and in the case of Pirelli, beyond, how does a road bike from 2026 measure up as a possibility for what I wanted in an "all-roads" bike back in 2010? 

Well, frankly the Madone sucks as an all-road choice from the standpoint of geometry. Another Trek bike is much, much better, and it is the Domane. Current maximum tire size on a Domane is 700 x 38mm. So, I'll use this model as my cross-reference to what I was looking for in an all-roads bike back in 2010. 

The Domane features two of my critical geometry desires well. The bottom bracket drop is listed as being a healthy 78mm in my size 58cm. The head tube angle is listed at 72°. The chain stays are listed at 425mm.

In 2010 I was hoping for a 71.5° head tube angle, something in the realm of 72mm - 75mm bottom bracket drop, and 435mm chain stays. So, the Domane is tantalizingly close. Very close. And if Trek also opens up the tire clearances on the Domane, well.....that's a viable all roads bike right there. 

I'm sure other brands are looking into this trend or the tire makers would not be making such big road tires. It kinda blows my mind when I think about all the customers who balked at 700 x 25mm road tires in the 2010's. Wow..... What a sea change! 

So, yeah. You might start seeing "road bikes" showing up on this page in the near future if this trend continues as I am seeing things go. 

Current Carbon Gravel Bike Design - What I Would Change

Today I thought it would be a fun thought exercise to take each part of a carbon bike design for gravel and critique it with my take on what could be different. My thoughts are going to be constrained to keeping things optimized for what I believe is in the best interest of the average rider, not necessarily for racing.

My opinion being that most brands make bicycles their racers want, or the bike a designer would race, and these designs are not focused on the everyday rider. Racing many times eschews comfort, practicality, and value. Media focuses on these "halo bikes" as being the thing which is "most interesting" to the reader. It would be as if every bicycle rider only rode what the equivalent automobile in racing is for a daily driver. An unaffordable, expensive to maintain, impractical car. Why do we do this in the bicycle industry? It's stupid. 

Anyway....

Image courtesy of Factor Bikes' social media.

I'm going to use this image grab from a Factor Bikes' social media post showing a racing bike from the recent Traka gravel event in Spain which shows a reportedly new Factor gravel bike model. This will serve as a model for the misguided racing focus on gravel bike design. 

Let me first say I am not against having racing bikes. What I am saying is the influence these designs have on everyday gravel rider's bicycle choices is far too great. In fact, it should have little if any impact on gravel bike design. Why? Because the vast majority of riders don't race, and do not need racing bikes. 

My thoughts will correspond to the numbers I have placed on the image starting with the seat post at #1 and going in a clockwise rotation from there to number 7 which will end my thoughts on current design for gravel bikes. 

#1 - Seat Post: This is easy, but any design using an aero seat post generally is adding more discomfort to the rider. This is because most aero seat posts are not designed to flex along their length, like a good carbon seat post does.  

#2 - Integration: The fad these days is to tuck away all the cables out of the wind. This is easier with today's penchant for wireless shifting, but those pesky brake cables still need to be hidden, apparently. This seems fine until you want to change your handlebar/stem combo for reasons of fit, comfort, choice, or all of the above. Integrated bars and stems take away all those choices. Fine for racers. Dumb for everyone else. Let those cables be free! Losing a few watts to air drag is nothing for the average rider, but they will gain choices, and less expensive maintenance costs down the road.  

#3 - Carbon Forks: For the sake of this exercise, metal forks will be excluded. Carbon is wonderfully light, strong, and supposedly "tunable" for ride qualities.  However; no carbon fork manufacturer has decided to take advantage of the tunability of carbon for rider comfort when it comes to forks. Either it cannot be done at all, or it cannot be done without assurance of avoiding failures and thus, liability for injuries, or designers just don't care about comfort in fork designs. I'm choosing the liability fears here, but that is purely speculation on my part. Whatever the case may be, carbon forks are overly-stiff and this is especially true on race designs. 

#4 - MTB Sized Tires: My theory on this is in relation to the point above concerning forks. These big, poofy MTB tires are being employed because forks are too stiff and stems with any built-in forgiveness are not possible due to integration and weight concerns. Ditch the heavier tires, use a commonsense approach to cable management, and maybe make the fork nicer to ride for we who are not the less than 1% of riders who are top-tier racers.  

#5 - Front Derailleurs and 1X: Chain management for a 2X system is now programmable on wireless drive trains. You don't even need to think about "when to shift" anymore, and so, why do we stick to the thought that a massively out of whack chain line on 1X is okay? It isn't. Racers feel 1X is more aero. This is laughable to the ordinary cyclist.  Even if aero is a thing with front derailleurs, and even if a mechanical system relies on the rider to make shifts, a 2X system is more efficient, does not rely on huge jumps in rear cog spacing, and can be made so the parts are less expensive, especially in regard to the cassette. 

#6 - Chain Stay Length: Racers want the rear tire tucked right up underneath their rear ends. Fine for racing, perhaps. It certainly will make you feel faster because, well......you'll feel every bump. Where is the seat on a bus with the roughest ride? Right over the rear axle. Average riders do not need short chain stays. I'm not saying we need really long chain stays either. Just don't put me on a bike with a rear wheel tucked right underneath me. 

#7 - Tire Clearance: Just a thought here on tire clearances. I enjoy my 45mm and 50mm tires, but I also really like lightweight tires. There is a point of diminishing returns with regard to tire width. Especially if you want some kind of tougher casing or puncture protection. I'd rather ride a narrower tire which falls under 600 grams for my do-all roads bike choice. (Note - I did not say "gravel", although that surface is included) If I am mountain biking, I'll choose a proper MTB. I think a distinction is already there and trying to blur those lines is not only unnecessary, but confusing to consumers.  

Okay, those are my takes on current top-end gravel bike design and why I think much of what is being done is the wrong direction for most people.  I know not everyone will agree. I'd love to see what you think about these ideas. Let me know in the comments. 

 Thanks for reading Guitar Ted Productions 

The 32" Watch: Some Background On Those Bigger Big Wheels

Not really a novel concept. (Image courtesy of Baum Cycles)

 The 32"er wheel thing is all the buzz in certain circles of the cycling innerwebs. I decided today to take a cruise through the archives of 20 years of information logged on this platform to see if anything might pop up concerning bigger big wheels. 

Like so many other times I research this blog I found things I had forgotten about. Stories about 36'ers and 32" wheels which might surprise you from the standpoint of how long ago some of this stuff has been percolating in the background.  

My first introduction to anything larger than a 29"er wheel was back in 2006 at Frostbike when Ben Witt had brought his creation to the show to share with the bike nerds in attendance. It was a frame welded up by Mike Pofahl with Ben's 36" wheels attached. It was a raw, unpainted idea, and it was very impressive. 

The first 36"er. I had a chance to buy this thing. 

To my knowledge Ben's bike was the first 36" wheeled bike around. I knew of a 32"er cruiser made with Coker branding, but not a 36"er. The bike was an amazing experience. But a parking lot ride does not tell the complete story. 

Fortunately, I was afforded the chance to try the big 36"er out for a couple of months when Ben was considering selling the bike. By this time it had been painted red. This would have been back in 2009. I used it primarily for commuting, and a lot of what people are saying about 32"ers is very true for 36"ers. Big stability, major roll-over capabilities, lots of steering inertia. I was thinking hard about buying the bike and doing gravel on it, but in the end I passed on the offer. 

Eventually someone did do a proper gravel bike with 36" wheels. I wrote about this in 2021. So, yeah.....big wheels on gravel has been a thing for a while already. And if you click the link and read my post from back then, you'll see reference to the idea dating back to 2006. Right about the same time Ben made his first 36"er, and in fact, the idea was spawned by Ben's bike. 

Even as recently as two years ago, Curve Cycling from Australia was producing a big wheeled gravel bike. I posted about that and made my case for Ben Witt's pioneering influence then. So, I think it is a good perspective to give Ben some props for sparking interest in larger than 29"er wheels. Would it have happened anyway? Yeah.....probably. But it happened the way it did. 

And I think that is worth noting. 

Brown Season: Rare Air

Escape Route: Gates Park

February is a month when I would expect it to snow a lot, be not so great for cycling out in the country, and a month which would test my patience knowing Spring is just around the corner. I do not expect February to act like Spring! 

But ever since the beginning of the month we've been getting warmer and warmer until at the beginning of this past week it was evident we'd end the week with absolutely no snow on the ground at all. None. Like mid to late March, but a whole month earlier than that. 

With temperatures sneaking above 50 degrees by the end of last week, I decided I had to get out and see what was going on in the country. At the rate things are going the frost will begin to start coming out of the ground. When this happens the roads get messy and gooey. I wanted to get out while the roads were still firm. 

North of Waterloo. The roads were perfect.

Even the ditches were mostly clear of snow in many places. 

I went out on the Singular Peregrine Mk4. A bicycle relatively still new to me and one I am still getting used to. I had the Pirelli Cinturato H tires on this time set at 30psi. I think I could go lower, but during cold weather it isn't a good time for me to experiment with air pressure unless I plan on stopping to check the tire pressures a lot during the ride. I don't plan on this, so I lived with 30psi for the time being. It was okay. 

 

This was probably an impressive snow drift three weeks ago. 

I decided not to try to ride too fast or go too far on this first outing for 2026 in the country. Especially so since I am still dealing with the bruised rib from my crash two weeks ago today. So, I went slower than normal and I did just a minimal loop and went back into Waterloo. 

 

I stopped at the Big Rock. The atmosphere was calm. There was barely a breeze blowing. I could hear the mournful cry of some bird or another a long ways off in the distance. I've come out to this rock many a time before. This was different. It seemed very peaceful. 

 

For a first country ride it was good. Not too long, not over the line to the point of being trashed, and the weather was super rare. I shake my head at this when I think about it being February. You have to wonder, is March going to be awful? 

Hmm..... I don't know, but this is a rare treat and I'll enjoy what I can of it.