Two Things

This is my photo of Jim Cummings (L) and Joel Dyke, co-founders of the DK200

The Guitar Ted Podcast Episode #66:

The latest podcast dropped last Friday evening. This one was inspired by you, the readers of Guitar Ted Productions. I received a couple comments which were questions and I took them to the podcast to give you all some longer answers. Plus we get N.Y. Roll's perspective as well. 

I also covered the recent news from the Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame. You can refer to the post I made when the news came out by clicking HERE. 

In that post I mentioned the issue I had with Jim Cummings exclusion from the Hall. While some of you may have noticed, some of you may not read the comments to my posts. I received a comment from a GCHoF board member who completely ignored the question of Jim's exclusion and instead restated that the current direction of the GCHoF will be maintained going forward. 

I only bring this up because I reference this in the podcast. So there is some context for my remarks should you choose to listen in. The episode can be accessed HERE on Spotify, or you can find the Guitar Ted Podcast on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts from.

New PCL jersey

New Jersey Day:

The Pirate Cycling League (PCL) is an entity that has been around now for almost 20 years. You could argue that its roots go back further than 2006, but the jersey says 2006, so... I'm going with that. 

One of the latest designs for a jersey from the PCL just arrived here at GT Headquarters and I must say, I like it a lot! This jersey says - to me at least - what it is about gravel cycling that I found attractive in the first place. 

A couple of things come to mind immediately. First, gravel cycling was, at least originally, a rebellion. The act of putting on events, be they competitive or not, on gravel was an act of defiance in several ways. There was the rejection of overly complicated rules, uppity attitudes, and against the licensing/entry fees that seemed to be designed to fleece the rider and enrich....somebody. 

That is reflected in the motorcycle gang-like faux denim look with 'patches' and non-matching fonts. It also is a bit "punk rock" in that way. Knowing the mind(s) behind this, I'm leaning more punk rockish here. 

Then there is the historical aspect. The front features several "patches" which represent notable people and events from the PCL's past. You have "CVO", (Christopher Van Oyen) and the rainbow striped "g" for Randy Gibson. Two "pirates" that we lost far too soon. 

You've got the "TODR" patch (Tour of Dirt Roads), which represents the PCL's first event promoted that took in the area around Lincoln, Nebraska's dirt roads or "MMR's" as they are known as around those parts. 

Then maybe my favorite thing on the jersey is the "Hello" sticker. It hearkens back to a time when events were smaller, less structured, and everyone was interested in everyone else. No pretenses, just humans in honest fellowship. 

I need another jersey like I need a another hole in my head, but this spoke to me and I had to grab one. It will go alongside my other PCL jerseys and I'll likely be wearing this one a bunch during 2024. I know it may not matter to anyone else, but this PCL thing means something - to me, at any rate. 

The PCL's motto, "Ride Free", encapsulates so much of what I like about gravel and some gravel events from the past to the present. It eschews corporatization, barriers to entry, and any attempts to codify the sport by way of rules or a culture driven only by competition. 

Yes, Gravel Worlds was a PCL event until recently. You could say that Gravel Worlds strayed from the molds cast originally by the PCL, and you'd get no argument from me. But now that the PCL has separated itself from Gravel Worlds, I think the ideas behind what the PCL stands for are better represented. That's just my opinion on matters.

The Six String Side: Kittycaster Mohair Fuzztortion Pedal

 When I started this blog nearly 20 years ago, I stated that it was a "Bicycle and guitar oriented elixir....". Well, the "guitar" part sort of got pushed out by the bicycle stuff, but I've always been playing. In an Easter post, several years ago, I mentioned playing my '90 Strat, and someone suggested I detail the fleet,which I have done in the past. (Just search "the Six String Side" in the search box in the upper left of the header to find those older posts) This post is a review of an effects pedal. Enjoy!

While it may seem useless to some to write a review on an effects pedal with no sound samples, that's what I am going to do here. Hey! "Back in the day" all we had were written reviews. Besides, there are a ton of You Tube videos on this pedal out there for you to listen to, if that is your bag. So, here we go...

The Kittycaster Mohair is a fuzz/distortion box that has its roots in the Big Muff from Electro Harmonix. Designer of the circuit in the Mohair, Howard Gee, stated that he did not get on with the Big Muff circuit and he wanted to see if he could make something similar that he did want to play. Okay, this grabbed my attention, as I have had zero luck getting a Big Muff to sound good to my ears. Now before you get all in a huff and hit the comments, I happen to love a lot of players work that used Big Muffs. Gilmore, J. Mascis, and Billy Corgan, who are probably the best known Muff users, are players who have a tone and sound that I do like. It is when I play a Big Muff that I don't like the sound. And I've tried it. With every combination available to me, in two different eras. 

My first Big Muff was bought from the Mandolin Brothers' catalog back in 1980. Back when all I had to go on were magazine articles that stated what people were using. To say I was bitterly disappointed in the sound is an understatement. I sold it in short order. Or did I give it way? Can't remember. I do know I hated the way it sounded. 

Same thing in 2010 when I bought another Big Muff thinking that now I would get it. But.....I didn't. Same hate, different decade. Big Muffs sound cool when other people play them, just not when I do. So, when Howard Gee stated he was going to make a Muff circuit for himself, a person who apparently didn't get on with a Muff, I was intrigued.

Upon opening the box. That's a bandana, by the way.

I followed the Kittycaster social channels and waited to see how this was going to come out. Fuzz is an interesting effect, maybe the most popular form of distortion for guitarists, if what I see being proffered out there by builders is any indication. Fuzz circuits are fairly simple, so getting a fuzz to sound like something interesting probably is pretty hard to do now. This made me even more curious as to just how Howard Gee was going to pull this off.

A typical Big Muff sounds buzzy, with a lot of lower frequencies, and Muff's don't poke out from a mix well due to the lack of midrange. Perhaps this is what makes them hard for me to like when I play the Muff. But I've always been bothered by the graininess and "broken" quality to the sound. The very thing a lot of players say they love about a Muff. Yeah, a Muff just is not for me, right? But this begs the question: How is it that I love the tones these other artists are getting who use a Big Muff? What is the secret? You know, I still don't quite get it. 

I tried eq'ing, using a Rangemaster in front, and other things, but to no avail. Then when I heard that Howard Gee was going to put a Rangemaster circuit into his new pedal I figured it wouldn't work, unless......

Maybe Howard knows what he's on to. Maybe. 

The pedal. The 'case candy'.

Then the official release came out with a long You Tube video of Howard demonstrating the pedal. (The video can be seen on the Mohair page HERE)  And I liked it, but of course I did. I wasn't playing it! Still, the boost circuit seemed like it was the saving grace, and the demonstration showed some really wide-ranging tones. 

Maybe.....

Then Kittycaster ran a sale, and I jumped on and purchased the Mohair back in September of last year (2024) Since then I've played it off and on using it in front of my Roland JC-40 and in front of a Fender Deluxe Reverb RI. 

So..... Was it the same ol' - same ol' or? Well, it was both. The Mohair does a fair interpretation of a Big Muff. Howard Gee wanted the pedal to retain pick attack and clarity, and to some extent, that was successful in my mind. I can hear that when I play just the Mohair side of the pedal. I can dial in a smoother, less raspy/broken distorted tone too. Just the type of thing that maybe some would argue is 'less Big Muff, more something else', and I cannot deny that. But the Muff sound, or a pretty close approximation of the sound, is still in the Mohair. 

Gut shot.

The Boost circuit is based on a Rangemaster, according to Howard Gee, and is accessed via the right foot switch. You can add the Boost to the Fuzz, or not, but you cannot get just the Boost. I feel that is a bit of a miss, but hey..... I did not design the pedal. I wish I could have just the boost though. 

I will say that it is the Boost that makes this pedal something quite different from most Muffs out there. In fact, it 'un-Muffs' the circuit and turns the Mohair into a distortion box that can be mild or gritty and mean. It probably does what a lot of distortion boxes do, but then you can go back to a Muff at the push of a foot switch, so, maybe this is what makes a Mohair a worthwhile pedal. 

It is not a pedal that "cleans up" with a lowering of the volume control on your guitar like a Fuzz Face type circuit. It does clean up a little, and maybe that's enough for you. But if you are looking for a fuzz that does that glassy-clean thing with a tiny bit of hair? This is not that pedal. I happen to have a Reeves Electro 2n2 Face, a silicon based Fuzz Face design, and that does do the clean up thing magnificently, so I know the difference. 

Conclusion: So, did Howard Gee get to the finish line with a design that does Muff but with clarity and definition? Yes, but the Boost circuit makes this something else altogether, and to my ears, the Boost + Fuzz is where I would live. So, it doesn't make me love a Muff based circuit any more than I did, which was not much! I am still exploring ways to use the Mohair, and it is on my board for now. 

From a 'Big Muff family sound' point of view, I think this is more a Muff-adjacent design than something a person who loves a Big Muff would like to hear. Maybe you would like something a hair off center from a true Muff? On the other hand, if you never liked Muffs, but want to? This might work for you. 

It's well made, the presentation of the product is great, and it has Howard Gee pedigree, if that appeals to you. It should be said that Gee left Kittycaster shortly after I bought this pedal and is currently trying to start another company. His first product will be another fuzz design.  Surprise, surprise! Maybe that will be something I'd like, but we'll see. The fuzz quest continues! 

Note: Kittycaster did not pay for this review, nor sponsor me in any way. I paid for the Mohair out of pocket.  Kittycaster were totally unaware that I was going to write this. All opinions are my own.

Clik Valves, Cores, and Pump Head: Review Update 1

 Note: Guitar Ted received a suite of products from Clik Valve for test and review at no charge. Guitar Ted is not being bribed nor paid for this review. All opinions are Guitar Ted's.

Last time I posted on the Clik Valve products I introduced all the range and parts I was sent to test/review. You can check that out HERE in case you missed that or want a refresher. In this post I will cover the installation of the pump head parts, the installation of the valve cores, and then how that all worked in practice when used.

Of course, if I was going to use Clik Valve cores I needed a pump to use with them. I chose my SILCA Pista Plus floor pump and it was an easy swap to use the screw-in Clik Valve pump head converter. However; when I went to use this I discovered that my SILCA pump's gauge was not working. So.... Plan B!

This meant I needed to convert my old Topeak Joe Blow pump. I noted that this pump utilized the press-in barbed nozzle and hose fitment which happened to be what the complete Clik Valve pump head uses. So, I actually got to use both heads from Clik Valve in this operation. 

Then, obviously, I had to swap out valve cores on one of my bikes. With Winter being nearly over and, quite frankly, non-existent with the exception of sub-zero temperatures now and again, I decided that it looked like gravel season might start early. Now wait..... I probably just jinxed it. We'll have three weeks of snow! 

Anyway, I chose the Honeman Flyer I had made by King Fabrications. The single speed gravel bike will see a lot of use in the upcoming early parts of gravel riding for the year. The swap of valve cores was pretty simple, but I did notice one detail that I hadn't considered before. 

While the Clik Valve cores have flats so you can use a tool to tighten them, most "over-the-core" tools will not slip over the lipped opening of a Clik Valve. I was happy that Clik Valve did decide to utilize knurling on the valve core's body so I could get enough purchase on the valve core to tighten it by hand.  I am thinking a small, spanner-like wrench would be what you'd need here if you wanted a tool, but I am not aware of such a tool off the top of my head. In the end, I didn't need a tool, but if I had a problem in the field, and I needed to install a tube? I might wish for that spanner-like core removal tool. 

Maybe.

Since catastrophic tire failures are not a big thing, at least around here, I am not too worried about this detail, but I know that for some folks it is a concern, so you may want to look for an appropriate tool. 

Airing up the tires with Clik Valve parts on my pump and valve stem is definitely easier than using Presta or Schrader valves. Pushing on the pump head couldn't be any easier, and the pump head stayed put on the valve as I pumped up my tires to 40psi, which was done to account for the cold air of January outside. Now, of course, this isn't a big deal for low pressure tires, perhaps. So, I would like to try this on a road bike. I do have one, but I need to check to see if I have any tubes with removable cores to do that test. Once I get that lined up, I'll report back with a finding on how this Clik Valve pump head does going up to 100psi. 

You can see here how the pump head adapter screws into this SILCA fitting.

So Far... A ride or two, and sitting around for a bit shows me that the cores do not leak. That's a good sign. The only thing to do now is to complete many cycles of inflation and do a bunch of riding to determine if these cores are doing a good job. 

I am looking for any clogging of the valve that may cause difficulty with inflation. I will also be inspecting the seals on the cores after some time to see how they hold up against sealant. I'll be looking at the pump head to determine if there is any degradation in use over time. And I'll get around to that high pressure test as well.

Meanwhile I do have the full valves from Clik Valve to evaluate, I just need to figure out which wheels I am going to use with those. Hopefully that will be the next update on the Clik Valve products. So far, I am impressed with the ease of operation.

Gravel Grinder News: Shimano CUES Drop Bar Components

CUES 10/11 speed hydraulic Dual Control Lever. Image courtesy of Shimano

Note: All Images courtesy of Shimano

As expected when Shimano released the CUES flat bar parts, a drop bar lever for CUES has now been revealed. We first got wind of the parts last year, which I talked about in this FN&V.

Featuring hydraulic and mechanical brake Dual Control Lever options, along with "dummy" levers for 1X set ups, this group stands to become one of the more popular, affordable choices for gravel riders. 

These levers will be available for 9,10, and 11 speed set ups, but like their flat bar siblings, CUES has its own cassette spacing and lever pull ratios so these cannot be mixed and matched with any other current Shimano 9,10, or 11 speed components. 

However; you can mix and match within the CUES ecosystem. So, say for instance that you had purchased a 10 speed CUES flat bar bike and then got a sweet deal on a drop bar frame for gravel. One could just buy the Dual Control Levers, use the rest of the CUES flat bar parts, and save a little coin. 

CUES mechanical Dual Control Lever

CUES drop bar will also have 1X and 2X options for crank sets. In 2X they will offer 50/34 and 46/32 options using HollowTech, two piece design. In 1X there will be a 42T and a 40T option in HollowTech along with a heavier, hot forged two piece model with the same chain ring options. 

Brakes, cassettes, and rear and front derailleurs are all similar to the current CUES offerings with the addition of a braze-on style mount option. Both new front derailleurs are optimized for their companion crank sets. 

Essa 8spd: It should also be noted that a drop bar lever set for Shimano Essa has also been introduced, albeit in just a 1X configuration. Essa is compatible with previous Shimano 8spd parts. 

Comments: This is great news for those who want lesser expensive alternatives to 11 and 12 speed groups and should satisfy many folks in terms of look and feel. 

There have been some reports that I have seen with issues with  CUES rear derailleurs not operating correctly. This may be due to some manufacturing issues, so it is hoped that those things can, or have been addressed. It is also notable here that CUES uses LinkGlide cogs and chains which prioritize shifting precision, and not speed, so instantaneous shifts are not going to happen within the CUES range.

CUES as a concept is valid, but in its implementation it finds some push-back from those in the cycling community. It would appear that the incompatibility with anything else Shimano has out is part of this. But when you think about things, Shimano had to make some kind of call on spacing/shifter ratio. They either had to use nine, or ten, or eleven standard, and then in terms of 10 and 11 you have the difference between MTB and road ratios, which are different as well. 

So, what did you think Shimano should have done? They decided to circumvent all the choices and made a call to make one that fit their intentions. I totally get it, and it does make sense. The wish for a "backward compatible 9/10/11 groupset" is a pipe dream. 

What concerns me more are the reports of rear derailleurs that are not up to snuff in terms of precision or durability. One would hope that Shimano will, or has, addressed this. 

If the rear derailleur issues are behind Shimano with regard to CUES, then this is an exciting development.

Some Things Didn't Stick

 In celebration of the twentieth year of this blog, I have a few tales to tell. This post is one of them. This series will occur off and on throughout this anniversary year, I hope to illuminate some behind-the-scenes stories and highlights from the blog during this time. Enjoy!

In the nearly 20 years of blogging here I have had the privilege to share a lot of really cool things that most riders may not ever get the chance to try out. Some stuff like full suspension 29"ers, carbon wheels, and "gravel bikes" that I was afforded early access to have become rather standard items now. Most of you readers have likely tried all of those. 

But I have also tried a few things that I would characterize as "fringe" in terms of desirable products. Heated flat bar grips come to mind there. I have also tried some stuff that didn't stick, not in a mainstream sense, but are things you could still try. Take for instance Gates Center Track Belt Drive.

Gates Center Track Carbon Belt Drive on a Trek (Gary Fisher) Sawyer.

"The Belt", as I called it then. Back around the late 2000's and early twenty-teens, Gates was trying hard to make their "Carbon" Center Track belts a mainstay of cycling. One way they tried doing this was to get me, a belt critic, to be convinced of The Belt's "magic powers". I tried these belts out at Interbike at first and this was before Center Track. That was, quite frankly, an abject failure and Gates quickly pivoted to the vastly superior Center Track version of The Belt which was reinforced with carbon strands. 

I ran this for an extended period of time. I had some hiccups along the way. Sizing The Belt was not quite figured out at this point, and there were limitations to The Belt which made it a sort of niche, at best, application for most cyclists. 

I really liked this Raleigh XXIX with The Belt.

The worst parts of The Belt is that, although the claim is that these are quiet, The Belt can and will squeak. Very dry or very wet conditions will bring this out. In the dry, silicone spray will take care of the noise, for a while, but it comes back again, and again, and.....

The Belt can and will break. I've seen it (at Trans Iowa back in the day) and have heard about this before from riders. You cannot fix that. You must be carrying a complete belt to replace the broken one with. And there are strict rules as to how a belt can be stowed so as not to cause it to fail. 

The Belt, and its required cogs, are expensive. Far more so than with a chain and alloy or steel cogs are. You need a belt compatible frame, which is another barrier. And finally, you have to run an internally geared hub or gear box to use The Belt. No lighter, more efficient external drive trains (past single speed) here. 

Of course, now belts are being promoted as a solution for down hill racing, since that discipline often now uses gear box drive trains. Still, that's not going to be quite the mainstream goal Gates had back in the late 2000's. 

That was a multi-year try with a product which, in the right applications, works, but isn't anywhere close to "mainstream". I was proud to be able to bring this to the blog when it all was very new. Just one of the really cool things I was able to be a part of because of this platform.