Friday News And Views

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 3:

So, to put a nice ribbon on this week's discussion about 1x and multiple chain ring drive train options, I wanted to talk a bit about cassettes. The chain line notwithstanding, there is one other issue with 1X that many don't stop to consider. 

The number of rear cogs in a cassette has steadily climbed upward since 1990 when Shimano introduced 8 speed cassettes. Nowadays, 11 and 12 cogs in a stack are not uncommon. Why? Where did the impetus  for going with more cogs come from? 

Was it to provide a wider range of gearing? No. The overall range for gearing hasn't changed significantly for any bike since that time. Then why do we have more cogs? You have to look in the mirror for the answer. it's because you are the "motor". Humans don't have a lot of power, so what we do have has to be doled out in an efficient manner. We see it in how we analyze our power output to the watt, how we interface with our machines based on that power output, and in how meticulously we set up our bikes in order to eek out the best possible power output. 

So, the move toward more cassette cogs was made to help keep our cadence in a range that is best for our power output. Ideally, in a perfect world, you would have an ideal cadence which produced the best power over a period of time and that would never vary even though you shift gears to different ratios. Therefore, the jumps between gears is critical to maintaining a high level of performance. More cogs can/should mean less change in cadence when shifting from one ratio to the next. That's why we have 11 speed drive trains. But what about 12? 

Well, that was done for 1X where all that mattered was the range of gearing. You saw it in the press releases and initial "reviews" of that system. However; you will note that without a way to shift in front, the only way to cover that range was to add an extra cog and have big jumps between gearing. In terms of jumps between gears, 1X is sub-optimal. Not only that, but the overall range might have to be adjusted up or down, as it were, and the only way to do that is with a front chain ring swap. You know.......basically manually shifting gears, only by doing it the hardest way possible. 

I just wanted to conclude this little series by once again stating that I do not "hate" 1X, nor do I wish for it to go away. It has its places. But that said, please keep it away from my gravel bike. 

 Signed Up:

Well, I alluded to something going on with me in a cryptic manner a few days ago. Now you know......I signed up for a gravel event. This time it is the ICGravel event which is being held on October 27th in River Junction, Iowa.

This will be year 2 for this event and they have two course length options of 100 miles or 100 kilometers (63 miles for you non-metric folk). I signed up for maximum punishment, of course, so I will be out for the hundy that day.

This is kind of an interesting event in that it happens at a time when you don't think about a gravel event, but doing one makes so much sense this time of the year. Yes......it could be wet, and in their inaugural year, it was, and it looked pretty sucky. But Fall riding rules if it is dry, and I like that time of year to put in big rides, so this makes sense to me. 

They have registration open, so if you'd like to join me, please do, and I bet it will be a rousing good time. No matter what the weather. I'm hoping that I will actually live up to that previous statement and really have a good time. But to do that, I have a lot of work to get going on. I need miles now, and I need to work consistently. 

Fortunately the weather has straightened out and the next ten days look great, so I look forward to getting on the right track and getting good and ready for this day on gravel in late October. 

I just might be running these tires at ICGravel

Michelin Power Gravel 40's:

Gravel this, gravel that. You can hardly keep up anymore these days. I remember when WTB was going to make the Nano 40 tubeless ready and that was the very first gravel specific tire you could get tubeless. Seems like eons ago, but it wasn't but maybe five years ago (?). Crazy. 

All that to say that if you weren't aware that Michelin had a gravel tire, well, you could easily be forgiven. Why would you know? These things pop up on a daily basis anymore. But in reality, these have been out for a while. I waited until the 40's came out as they first were out in a 35 or 38, I can't recall right now, but that wasn't what I wanted. 

So, I waited for these and we'll see how they go. Michelin tires always impressed me when I tried their 29"er tires, so I am expecting big things here. I will say that the tread pattern looks susceptible to being a "gravel flinger" type tread, but time will tell. They could be the bee's knees for all I know. Tubeless ready, of course. What tire shouldn't be tubeless ready for gravel? As far as I am concerned, all bicycle tires should be tubeless ready. At least higher end ones. 

I plan on sticking these on the Raleigh Tamland Two for the time being, but maybe they will be going on a different wheel set. This will depend upon how tight they fit. My Irwin wheels fit tires really tightly, so the Michelin may be a "no-go" there. If so, I think they will end up on my White Industries/WTB wheels. 

Stay tuned for more on the Power Gravel tires, which I purchased myself, by the way, just to be up front about that.

That's all for this week. Have a great weekend and get out and ride!

Friday News And Views

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 3:

So, to put a nice ribbon on this week's discussion about 1x and multiple chain ring drive train options, I wanted to talk a bit about cassettes. The chain line notwithstanding, there is one other issue with 1X that many don't stop to consider. 

The number of rear cogs in a cassette has steadily climbed upward since 1990 when Shimano introduced 8 speed cassettes. Nowadays, 11 and 12 cogs in a stack are not uncommon. Why? Where did the impetus  for going with more cogs come from? 

Was it to provide a wider range of gearing? No. The overall range for gearing hasn't changed significantly for any bike since that time. Then why do we have more cogs? You have to look in the mirror for the answer. it's because you are the "motor". Humans don't have a lot of power, so what we do have has to be doled out in an efficient manner. We see it in how we analyze our power output to the watt, how we interface with our machines based on that power output, and in how meticulously we set up our bikes in order to eek out the best possible power output. 

So, the move toward more cassette cogs was made to help keep our cadence in a range that is best for our power output. Ideally, in a perfect world, you would have an ideal cadence which produced the best power over a period of time and that would never vary even though you shift gears to different ratios. Therefore, the jumps between gears is critical to maintaining a high level of performance. More cogs can/should mean less change in cadence when shifting from one ratio to the next. That's why we have 11 speed drive trains. But what about 12? 

Well, that was done for 1X where all that mattered was the range of gearing. You saw it in the press releases and initial "reviews" of that system. However; you will note that without a way to shift in front, the only way to cover that range was to add an extra cog and have big jumps between gearing. In terms of jumps between gears, 1X is sub-optimal. Not only that, but the overall range might have to be adjusted up or down, as it were, and the only way to do that is with a front chain ring swap. You know.......basically manually shifting gears, only by doing it the hardest way possible. 

I just wanted to conclude this little series by once again stating that I do not "hate" 1X, nor do I wish for it to go away. It has its places. But that said, please keep it away from my gravel bike. 

 Signed Up:

Well, I alluded to something going on with me in a cryptic manner a few days ago. Now you know......I signed up for a gravel event. This time it is the ICGravel event which is being held on October 27th in River Junction, Iowa.

This will be year 2 for this event and they have two course length options of 100 miles or 100 kilometers (63 miles for you non-metric folk). I signed up for maximum punishment, of course, so I will be out for the hundy that day.

This is kind of an interesting event in that it happens at a time when you don't think about a gravel event, but doing one makes so much sense this time of the year. Yes......it could be wet, and in their inaugural year, it was, and it looked pretty sucky. But Fall riding rules if it is dry, and I like that time of year to put in big rides, so this makes sense to me. 

They have registration open, so if you'd like to join me, please do, and I bet it will be a rousing good time. No matter what the weather. I'm hoping that I will actually live up to that previous statement and really have a good time. But to do that, I have a lot of work to get going on. I need miles now, and I need to work consistently. 

Fortunately the weather has straightened out and the next ten days look great, so I look forward to getting on the right track and getting good and ready for this day on gravel in late October. 

I just might be running these tires at ICGravel

Michelin Power Gravel 40's:

Gravel this, gravel that. You can hardly keep up anymore these days. I remember when WTB was going to make the Nano 40 tubeless ready and that was the very first gravel specific tire you could get tubeless. Seems like eons ago, but it wasn't but maybe five years ago (?). Crazy. 

All that to say that if you weren't aware that Michelin had a gravel tire, well, you could easily be forgiven. Why would you know? These things pop up on a daily basis anymore. But in reality, these have been out for a while. I waited until the 40's came out as they first were out in a 35 or 38, I can't recall right now, but that wasn't what I wanted. 

So, I waited for these and we'll see how they go. Michelin tires always impressed me when I tried their 29"er tires, so I am expecting big things here. I will say that the tread pattern looks susceptible to being a "gravel flinger" type tread, but time will tell. They could be the bee's knees for all I know. Tubeless ready, of course. What tire shouldn't be tubeless ready for gravel? As far as I am concerned, all bicycle tires should be tubeless ready. At least higher end ones. 

I plan on sticking these on the Raleigh Tamland Two for the time being, but maybe they will be going on a different wheel set. This will depend upon how tight they fit. My Irwin wheels fit tires really tightly, so the Michelin may be a "no-go" there. If so, I think they will end up on my White Industries/WTB wheels. 

Stay tuned for more on the Power Gravel tires, which I purchased myself, by the way, just to be up front about that.

That's all for this week. Have a great weekend and get out and ride!

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 2

A misunderstood component of a multiple speed drive train.

Today I wanted to continue the discussion of multiple speed drive trains for bicycles, specifically derailleur based drive trains and the 1X and multiple chain ring set ups which are popular nowadays.

Misunderstandings and misconceptions mixed in with a lack of education make this area of bicycle components and usage a murky water which in turn yields lots of conclusions which are not correct. First and foremost of these misunderstandings is how the multi-front chain ring system was meant to be used versus how many folks actually use the multi-ring front derailleur set up.

The first rule to understand is that your chain should always be kept as straight as possible. There are many reasons this is advantageous, but the one you will want to focus on is that it makes the rider more efficient. I talked about this yesterday in terms of chain line, which is what it sounds like- The "line" the chain makes between the front and rear cogs. This "line" should be as straight as possible. When it gets diagonal, or "cross chained", it is time to shift to a straighter combination. Poor choices in chain line make the rider less efficient and cause higher wear on parts. In case you haven't caught on to what I am saying- this is bad. Don't do it! (Unless you have 1X, then you are stuck, sorry!)

Keith Bontrager had a great set of 4 rules for derailleur drive trains which was published in a "Dirt Rag" back in the 90's which succinctly explained the way you should use a triple front crank set, but I've not been able to dig that up. So, I am going by memory here on what it was that Mr. Bontrager was pointing out. The principles are the same whether I get it exactly as Keith put it or not. That was one of the "rules" above, by the way.

1X set ups have inherent cross chaining issues that cannot be avoided.

 The second issue people generally have a hard time wrapping their minds around is that not all the gear combinations are good, should be used, or are meant to be used at all. 

That may come as a shock to many of you, but this is something that can squarely be blamed on marketing, public perception, and lack of understanding. Derailleur drive trains with multiple front chain rings have what is termed as overlapping gears. Now, the gears do not literally overlap one another, of course, but what is meant is that the final "gain ratio" of any given combination of front sprocket and rear cog may end up being very close to, or exactly the same as, another combination found on the same system. In other words, you may have certain gear combinations that are, effectively, the same thing on your bicycle. Your 2X 11 set up may not actually have 22 , different, sequential gears. In fact- it doesn't. Thinking that you go from "1" in the front, then shift from 11 to 1 in back, then go to "2" in the front, and shift sequentially from 11-1 again is not how it works at all. 

You would be surprised to know how many folks think it is that way though. Getting your mind off of a numerical (mis)understanding of the drive train is critical to making the system work efficiently and how it was designed to work by the manufacturer. Can you cross chain your bike? Yes. Should you? Absolutely not, and many times you can find technical documents from Shimano and SRAM pointing this out. Trouble is, these documents are not often shared with the riding public, if at all. Why? Because is complicates the selling process at bicycle shops. Bicycles are very technical machines that require a high degree of skill and understanding to operate if they are equipped with multiple gear drive trains, not to mention suspension, or electronics, or the like. You simply just do not "get on and ride" these machines, although the bike industry basically says that is how it works through sales and marketing.

1X road didn't work out very well in the Pro ranks.

This is one reason why 1X appeals to many riders. It simplifies their experience. I get that. But it also introduces things that, if understood properly, may change some folks minds about eschewing multiple front chain ring set ups. On the other hand, 1X has its places- fat bikes, which when equipped with front derailleurs, just collect debris on the front derailleur mount and mechanism. Mountain bikes which feature complex suspension systems and/or short chain stays work with 1X where they wouldn't be possible with a front derailleur. 1X is great for cyclo cross and MTB due to cyclo crosser's and MTB's having to do more shifting under extreme pressure and where quick momentum changes happen. So, again- I am not advocating for 1X to go away. I actually like it on my fat bike. Not so much on a gravel bike.

Finally, for this post, I wanted to cover the point Bontrager made in his original rules for gearing which stated  that you should always use the biggest cog/chain ring combination if you have the choice, and you are not cross chaining. This is easier to figure out with a 2X system, but if you think hard enough, it can become a natural thing on a 3X crank set as well. The thinking is that a bigger cog/chain ring combo is more efficient since the power is being applied to a wider area (less wear) and the chain isn't being bent around in a tighter radius, which is less efficient. Minor, nit-picking, perhaps, but my observations agree with this. I would also add that bigger cogs/chain rings have less pressure on the shift ramps/pins/pick-up teeth enabling faster, more efficient shifting, so that would be another reason to use this philosophy.

Tomorrow I will cover why 1X may not be preferred in terms of cassettes.

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 2

A misunderstood component of a multiple speed drive train.

Today I wanted to continue the discussion of multiple speed drive trains for bicycles, specifically derailleur based drive trains and the 1X and multiple chain ring set ups which are popular nowadays.

Misunderstandings and misconceptions mixed in with a lack of education make this area of bicycle components and usage a murky water which in turn yields lots of conclusions which are not correct. First and foremost of these misunderstandings is how the multi-front chain ring system was meant to be used versus how many folks actually use the multi-ring front derailleur set up.

The first rule to understand is that your chain should always be kept as straight as possible. There are many reasons this is advantageous, but the one you will want to focus on is that it makes the rider more efficient. I talked about this yesterday in terms of chain line, which is what it sounds like- The "line" the chain makes between the front and rear cogs. This "line" should be as straight as possible. When it gets diagonal, or "cross chained", it is time to shift to a straighter combination. Poor choices in chain line make the rider less efficient and cause higher wear on parts. In case you haven't caught on to what I am saying- this is bad. Don't do it! (Unless you have 1X, then you are stuck, sorry!)

Keith Bontrager had a great set of 4 rules for derailleur drive trains which was published in a "Dirt Rag" back in the 90's which succinctly explained the way you should use a triple front crank set, but I've not been able to dig that up. So, I am going by memory here on what it was that Mr. Bontrager was pointing out. The principles are the same whether I get it exactly as Keith put it or not. That was one of the "rules" above, by the way.

1X set ups have inherent cross chaining issues that cannot be avoided.

 The second issue people generally have a hard time wrapping their minds around is that not all the gear combinations are good, should be used, or are meant to be used at all. 

That may come as a shock to many of you, but this is something that can squarely be blamed on marketing, public perception, and lack of understanding. Derailleur drive trains with multiple front chain rings have what is termed as overlapping gears. Now, the gears do not literally overlap one another, of course, but what is meant is that the final "gain ratio" of any given combination of front sprocket and rear cog may end up being very close to, or exactly the same as, another combination found on the same system. In other words, you may have certain gear combinations that are, effectively, the same thing on your bicycle. Your 2X 11 set up may not actually have 22 , different, sequential gears. In fact- it doesn't. Thinking that you go from "1" in the front, then shift from 11 to 1 in back, then go to "2" in the front, and shift sequentially from 11-1 again is not how it works at all. 

You would be surprised to know how many folks think it is that way though. Getting your mind off of a numerical (mis)understanding of the drive train is critical to making the system work efficiently and how it was designed to work by the manufacturer. Can you cross chain your bike? Yes. Should you? Absolutely not, and many times you can find technical documents from Shimano and SRAM pointing this out. Trouble is, these documents are not often shared with the riding public, if at all. Why? Because is complicates the selling process at bicycle shops. Bicycles are very technical machines that require a high degree of skill and understanding to operate if they are equipped with multiple gear drive trains, not to mention suspension, or electronics, or the like. You simply just do not "get on and ride" these machines, although the bike industry basically says that is how it works through sales and marketing.

1X road didn't work out very well in the Pro ranks.

This is one reason why 1X appeals to many riders. It simplifies their experience. I get that. But it also introduces things that, if understood properly, may change some folks minds about eschewing multiple front chain ring set ups. On the other hand, 1X has its places- fat bikes, which when equipped with front derailleurs, just collect debris on the front derailleur mount and mechanism. Mountain bikes which feature complex suspension systems and/or short chain stays work with 1X where they wouldn't be possible with a front derailleur. 1X is great for cyclo cross and MTB due to cyclo crosser's and MTB's having to do more shifting under extreme pressure and where quick momentum changes happen. So, again- I am not advocating for 1X to go away. I actually like it on my fat bike. Not so much on a gravel bike.

Finally, for this post, I wanted to cover the point Bontrager made in his original rules for gearing which stated  that you should always use the biggest cog/chain ring combination if you have the choice, and you are not cross chaining. This is easier to figure out with a 2X system, but if you think hard enough, it can become a natural thing on a 3X crank set as well. The thinking is that a bigger cog/chain ring combo is more efficient since the power is being applied to a wider area (less wear) and the chain isn't being bent around in a tighter radius, which is less efficient. Minor, nit-picking, perhaps, but my observations agree with this. I would also add that bigger cogs/chain rings have less pressure on the shift ramps/pins/pick-up teeth enabling faster, more efficient shifting, so that would be another reason to use this philosophy.

Tomorrow I will cover why 1X may not be preferred in terms of cassettes.

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

Misunderstood Doesn't Mean "Bad"- Part 1

Shimano variable chain line patent for 1X drive trains.

The double and triple chain ring drive train set ups that many are eschewing these days are, in my opinion, misunderstood, unfairly maligned, and have benefits for certain applications that outweigh their negatives. To be sure, I have tried and use 1X set ups. So, please do not read this as a "1x's are a bad thing and should go away" post. It isn't that at all. But on the other hand, 2X and 3X have a place, and they shouldn't go away either. 

A little over a year ago now I wrote this post about some new ideas Shimano and SRAM patented which would address some inefficiencies inherent in 1X drive train set ups. That points up the fact that whenever you move to innovate in one area of bicycle design, you will in turn compromise something else. There is never any free lunch, it seems, no "win-win" situations. Something gets presented as a benefit but some other area suffers.

In my opinion, this is due mostly to the fact that in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the bicycle's mechanical properties were honed to a point where the efficiencies and mechanical properties, at least on paper, were optimized to their furthest extent. Consider the lowly chain. Nothing- not even belt driven drive trains- in real world use have been proven to be more efficient. There are many more examples of this which I could share. So, when we tweak out one area of the system, some other part suffers. We are tinkering with a device that was honed to its zenith over a 100 years ago.

SRAM's solution involves an articulating chain ring system.

So, 1X has inefficiencies having to do with chain line. The most efficient chain line is "dead straight" from one cog to another, front to back. In other words, think "single speed" chain line. Derailleurs, by their very nature, introduce an inefficiency merely by the fact that the chain line has to deflect from straight to accommodate using multiple cogs out back. The more the chain goes sideways, the less efficient the mechanism becomes. This was a compromise introduced in the early 20th Century and has reached its zenith now with 1X 12 systems and their sibling 11 and 10 speed variations.

The public perception is that "front derailleurs are bad", so marketing has asked R&D to solve the inefficiency issues with these patented ideas being shown again today on the blog. Now, I want you to consider, if you will, what this would look like: Imagine there had never been a front derailleur before. Let's say one was introduced tomorrow. I guarantee we would all be ditching 1X in a heart beat. Why? Because with a front derailleur, we could keep our chain lines more straight, and thus- more efficient use of our energy would result. But that isn't what happened.

Instead, we have forgotten that 2X and 3X drive trains require skill and understanding to operate efficiently. To be sure, we have the very best front derailleurs we've ever been able to get now days. We have the very best chain rings to allow for front shifting to happen. We have the best chains we've ever been able to get for front shifting. That doesn't matter. We still see 1X road and gravel set ups being touted as "better". 1X MTB for everyone is thought to be "better". I'm saying it isn't always better, and it is mostly due to marketing and that people don't understand multiple front ring drive trains.  

Hubba

Paul WORD hub- Now with Boost

Its no secret that I like hubs, spokes, and rims for bicycles. I enjoy building my own wheels and I like riding them when I do build them up. There is just something really amazing about taking a bunch of wires, brass nuts, a hub with nice bearings, and a nice rim and making all of that in to a wheel.

So Paul Component Engineering just released news about a new version of their WORD hub. This is a hub that claims to be the very first production single speed mountain bike hub. If it wasn't, then it is close to being that. I know it has been around a long time. I bought a set of the first version of the Disc WORD for mt Karate Monkey back in 2003. Those hubs are still around although I need to re-lace them to new rims.

While I don't have a Boost spaced, single speed device around, it may happen someday. Who knows? It's good to know that a hub option exists that will work for a dedicated single speed set up. And even in polished silver! That's even sweeter.

While I am on the subject of Boost spacing, I've heard a rumor that it is coming to road bikes. Gravel road bikes, actually. It seems that a "certain component manufacturer" that doesn't have a great front derailleur design and is pushing 1X wants to introduce this so they can get you to buy a 1 X12 system for your next gravel bike. This is not all that surprising, and it will be touted as a solution for the gravel people who race in the earlier Spring events with mud and what not. But here's the thing......

DK200 2015- The infamous 3 mile mud march. Image by A Andonopoulous

Front derailleurs are not the problem. It is the rear derailleurs that stop folks from finishing these muddy, wet gravel events. The Land Run 100, the 2015 version of the DK200, Trans Iowa, and various other events have seen their fare share of rear derailleur carnage due to mud and bad conditions. Maybe a clutch style rear derailleur will be more mud resilient, but then again, maybe not.

At least it will be easier to set up a damaged bike single speed with a narrow-wide chain ring......possibly....maybe.

But why Boost? Well, it seems that many manufacturers are looking to stuff 2.1" 29"er tires into these "adventure/gravel" bikes. But you might say that many mountain bikes are using the "old" dimensions and are doing fine. You would be correct. So, again- why? Well, we are going to hear all the "stiffer, stronger. lighter" arguments, of course, but that isn't really why either. Think about it- If you already have tooling for Boost 1X12 why develop it in any other format than Boost? So, you are going to see a split in gravel/adventure. More "Cutthroat-ish" bikes with Boost and the more narrow Q factor bikes we have now with compatibility with road components. Then again- I could be all wrong about that.

In the meantime, I'm thinking those Boost WORD hubs and a nice, simple steel gravel rig, set up single speed would be the ticket. Hubba-hubba!

Hubba

Paul WORD hub- Now with Boost

Its no secret that I like hubs, spokes, and rims for bicycles. I enjoy building my own wheels and I like riding them when I do build them up. There is just something really amazing about taking a bunch of wires, brass nuts, a hub with nice bearings, and a nice rim and making all of that in to a wheel.

So Paul Component Engineering just released news about a new version of their WORD hub. This is a hub that claims to be the very first production single speed mountain bike hub. If it wasn't, then it is close to being that. I know it has been around a long time. I bought a set of the first version of the Disc WORD for mt Karate Monkey back in 2003. Those hubs are still around although I need to re-lace them to new rims.

While I don't have a Boost spaced, single speed device around, it may happen someday. Who knows? It's good to know that a hub option exists that will work for a dedicated single speed set up. And even in polished silver! That's even sweeter.

While I am on the subject of Boost spacing, I've heard a rumor that it is coming to road bikes. Gravel road bikes, actually. It seems that a "certain component manufacturer" that doesn't have a great front derailleur design and is pushing 1X wants to introduce this so they can get you to buy a 1 X12 system for your next gravel bike. This is not all that surprising, and it will be touted as a solution for the gravel people who race in the earlier Spring events with mud and what not. But here's the thing......

DK200 2015- The infamous 3 mile mud march. Image by A Andonopoulous

Front derailleurs are not the problem. It is the rear derailleurs that stop folks from finishing these muddy, wet gravel events. The Land Run 100, the 2015 version of the DK200, Trans Iowa, and various other events have seen their fare share of rear derailleur carnage due to mud and bad conditions. Maybe a clutch style rear derailleur will be more mud resilient, but then again, maybe not.

At least it will be easier to set up a damaged bike single speed with a narrow-wide chain ring......possibly....maybe.

But why Boost? Well, it seems that many manufacturers are looking to stuff 2.1" 29"er tires into these "adventure/gravel" bikes. But you might say that many mountain bikes are using the "old" dimensions and are doing fine. You would be correct. So, again- why? Well, we are going to hear all the "stiffer, stronger. lighter" arguments, of course, but that isn't really why either. Think about it- If you already have tooling for Boost 1X12 why develop it in any other format than Boost? So, you are going to see a split in gravel/adventure. More "Cutthroat-ish" bikes with Boost and the more narrow Q factor bikes we have now with compatibility with road components. Then again- I could be all wrong about that.

In the meantime, I'm thinking those Boost WORD hubs and a nice, simple steel gravel rig, set up single speed would be the ticket. Hubba-hubba!

SRAM Goes Egg Shaped

No, you aren't seeing things- It is a SRAM 38T ovalized 1X ring

The "little guys" must have finally gotten to SRAM. Saturday I saw where the component giant is now offering ovalized, direct mount chain wheels for 1X usage.

This category was something smaller companies were doing business in and were making some inroads, apparently, in to aftermarket sales such that SRAM finally did something about it. SRAM, who vehemently defend 1X chain tooth patents, actually pushed out a couple OE suppliers and now have their own offering to OE manufacturers and the aftermarket. These rings will cost approximately $140.00 each (Based off what I saw they sell for in Euros) and are going to be available in  32T, 34T, 36T, and a monster sized 38T.

I imagine that the 38T one, and for some folks, the 36T, will be seen mostly on the 1X road stuff SRAM is sure to be putting out for gravel/adventure rigs. I also suspect that these will be paired, along with traditional round rings, with the obvious e-Tap for mountain biking, which is sure to be in the pipeline.

I'm still not a big fan of the 1X deal, but I did try ovalized rings, and I felt that there was something to it all. In my opinion, Rotor really has the concept down correctly because the way the ovalization works is adaptable to you and your fitness. These are not adaptable as they go on in one position only.

I'm seeing that these ovalized black, toothy devils are out for anyone to buy now, so there ya go.

SRAM Goes Egg Shaped

No, you aren't seeing things- It is a SRAM 38T ovalized 1X ring

The "little guys" must have finally gotten to SRAM. Saturday I saw where the component giant is now offering ovalized, direct mount chain wheels for 1X usage.

This category was something smaller companies were doing business in and were making some inroads, apparently, in to aftermarket sales such that SRAM finally did something about it. SRAM, who vehemently defend 1X chain tooth patents, actually pushed out a couple OE suppliers and now have their own offering to OE manufacturers and the aftermarket. These rings will cost approximately $140.00 each (Based off what I saw they sell for in Euros) and are going to be available in  32T, 34T, 36T, and a monster sized 38T.

I imagine that the 38T one, and for some folks, the 36T, will be seen mostly on the 1X road stuff SRAM is sure to be putting out for gravel/adventure rigs. I also suspect that these will be paired, along with traditional round rings, with the obvious e-Tap for mountain biking, which is sure to be in the pipeline.

I'm still not a big fan of the 1X deal, but I did try ovalized rings, and I felt that there was something to it all. In my opinion, Rotor really has the concept down correctly because the way the ovalization works is adaptable to you and your fitness. These are not adaptable as they go on in one position only.

I'm seeing that these ovalized black, toothy devils are out for anyone to buy now, so there ya go.

Simplified Drive Trains Complicated By Proposed New Developments

Getting rid of that front derailleur and adding wide range cassettes has its pitfalls.

Just the other day I mentioned in a post about how I wasn't necessarily a fan of the 1X drive train craze sweeping the mountain bike world of late. I do really like the idea for fat bikes, but there are issues when you try to make the chain do the physical gymnastics required of it to make a 1X drive train work. Especially if you want a wide range of gears.

Riders are finding this out now. New 2017 bikes with different lower end spec have been plagued by issues such as dropped chains, chains that derail when pedaled backward, and by noises and excessive wear. SRAM and Shimano have responded by making further tweaks to tooth profiles on chain rings and cassette cogs to allow chains to engage and release the teeth more efficiently, especially when coming off those big, 42T-50T rear cogs.

Basically, what has happened is that we've removed our front shifting issues and found them again on the back end.

Think about it- Big chain rings up front didn't want to release the chain or pick it up easily because there was so much more chain to teeth contact by virtue of the chain ring sizes. Now those sized cogs and bigger are found out back on many mountain bikes and the chain release issues have cropped up again.

This Shimano patent applied for design shows an axially movable chain line. Courtesy of Cycling Industry News.

Now Shimano and SRAM are applying for patents to address this issue. The ideas are different, but the results sought for are the same. Shimano suggests a bottom bracket spindle that telescopes in and out to straighten chain line, which would make the drive train more efficient and discourage chain drop. This solution does what we used to do with our triple chain rings and front derailleurs- straighten our chain lines out. Obviously it would make sense that Shimano would require the bottom bracket to telescope in a way somehow synchronized to the shifter. Di2 would make sense here.

It complicates the bottom bracket, for sure, and it puts a mechanism in a place where moisture could wreak havoc on the device. However; if anyone can engineer this to work right, I would place my bets on Shimano. Still, I am not convinced something this complex can survive the rigors of mountain biking. But we may or may not see............

SRAM's solution also alters the chain line but does it by a floating chain ring mount. Image courtesy of Cycling Industry News

 SRAM seems to have taken a different approach which seems to involve canting the chain ring in the direction of how the chain wants to flow back toward the cassette, depending upon the gear chosen. This option seems to not be tied directly to how the shifter operates and would appear to be simpler and effective. However, any time I've seen any chain ring allowed to move, (granted, it wasn't designed to move), it is not a good thing. This solution leaves me with a lot of questions and concerns. Also, the SRAM solution requires a special chain ring carrier, which would suggest that it only would work with removable spider designed cranks, perhaps. More places for creaks to happen, in my opinion, here with this design.

But what really strikes me here, and actually made me laugh out loud when I first saw this, was how all this getting rid of the front derailleur was going to simplify our drive trains. 

Apparently "simple" isn't working out as well as they hoped it would! But making it more complicated is the answer? I don't see this working out well...........

Simplified Drive Trains Complicated By Proposed New Developments

Getting rid of that front derailleur and adding wide range cassettes has its pitfalls.

Just the other day I mentioned in a post about how I wasn't necessarily a fan of the 1X drive train craze sweeping the mountain bike world of late. I do really like the idea for fat bikes, but there are issues when you try to make the chain do the physical gymnastics required of it to make a 1X drive train work. Especially if you want a wide range of gears.

Riders are finding this out now. New 2017 bikes with different lower end spec have been plagued by issues such as dropped chains, chains that derail when pedaled backward, and by noises and excessive wear. SRAM and Shimano have responded by making further tweaks to tooth profiles on chain rings and cassette cogs to allow chains to engage and release the teeth more efficiently, especially when coming off those big, 42T-50T rear cogs.

Basically, what has happened is that we've removed our front shifting issues and found them again on the back end.

Think about it- Big chain rings up front didn't want to release the chain or pick it up easily because there was so much more chain to teeth contact by virtue of the chain ring sizes. Now those sized cogs and bigger are found out back on many mountain bikes and the chain release issues have cropped up again.

This Shimano patent applied for design shows an axially movable chain line. Courtesy of Cycling Industry News.

Now Shimano and SRAM are applying for patents to address this issue. The ideas are different, but the results sought for are the same. Shimano suggests a bottom bracket spindle that telescopes in and out to straighten chain line, which would make the drive train more efficient and discourage chain drop. This solution does what we used to do with our triple chain rings and front derailleurs- straighten our chain lines out. Obviously it would make sense that Shimano would require the bottom bracket to telescope in a way somehow synchronized to the shifter. Di2 would make sense here.

It complicates the bottom bracket, for sure, and it puts a mechanism in a place where moisture could wreak havoc on the device. However; if anyone can engineer this to work right, I would place my bets on Shimano. Still, I am not convinced something this complex can survive the rigors of mountain biking. But we may or may not see............

SRAM's solution also alters the chain line but does it by a floating chain ring mount. Image courtesy of Cycling Industry News

 SRAM seems to have taken a different approach which seems to involve canting the chain ring in the direction of how the chain wants to flow back toward the cassette, depending upon the gear chosen. This option seems to not be tied directly to how the shifter operates and would appear to be simpler and effective. However, any time I've seen any chain ring allowed to move, (granted, it wasn't designed to move), it is not a good thing. This solution leaves me with a lot of questions and concerns. Also, the SRAM solution requires a special chain ring carrier, which would suggest that it only would work with removable spider designed cranks, perhaps. More places for creaks to happen, in my opinion, here with this design.

But what really strikes me here, and actually made me laugh out loud when I first saw this, was how all this getting rid of the front derailleur was going to simplify our drive trains. 

Apparently "simple" isn't working out as well as they hoped it would! But making it more complicated is the answer? I don't see this working out well...........

Friday News And Views

Less expensive, 1 X 12, will be seen everywhere

New Bike Season: It is that time of year when new stuff for the new bike year, (2018 in this case), starts to trickle out. We've seen a few things already, like the new Ultegra and Niner's new SIR 9 model. Another recent intro that I haven't mentioned is SRAM's new, more wallet friendly version of 1 X 12 Eagle in the GX level. Said to be a direct competitor to XT, GX Eagle will be seen on a ton of new 2018 bicycles.

SRAM made sure you'll know it is GX Eagle because the new GX crank arms are flat and wide. Perfect for a huge "GX" logo. One of the other GX Eagle components is a grip shifter. I know that seems odd ball to many of you, but to my mind, a grip shift 1X 12 is a perfect fat bike set up. Think gloved hands, cold air, and keeping your digits warm by ganging them together in an overmitt, or under a pogie. Triggers can be a bit much in those situations whereas a grip shifter is much easier to operate under those circumstances.

Of course, the big expense in the flagship Eagle component group is the (almost) one piece, carved out of a block of steel, cassette. GX gets a pinned together set of 12 cogs. I've used a similar 11 speed cassette on my fat bike and it worked fine. So, it isn't marvelously light, but it certainly isn't heavy by any stretch of the imagination.

An entire Eagle GX groupset can be had for under $500.00, so it isn't a bad upgrade for anyone running an 11 speed SRAM 1X group. Again, I'm not necessarily a fan on all fronts. I totally get 1X for fat bikes, due to the nature of how a front derailleur ends up becoming a focal point for muck collection. (I use a fat bike for wet, muddy, slushy excursions.) I don't necessarily agree with 1X from the standpoint of chain efficiency. I still think there are times when a 2X is a better choice. I like Shimano's thinking in this regard.

The Otso Cycles, Lithic brand, "Hiili" model carbon gravel bike fork.

More Clearance:

The move to make a gravel bike, (read "fat road bike") your "One Bike to Rule Them All" bike, lately has spawned all sorts of oddball stuff that no one was dreaming of 5 years ago. In fact, had anyone introduced a 400mm axle to crown fork that fit a 29" X 2.1" tire, they would have been considered nuts. At least there would have been a lot of "WTF" going on.

But then again, maybe there still is a lot of that thought going on! 

Anyway, there it is. Otso Cycles has this very fork. It can be stuffed with all sorts of fat tired, different diameter wheels, and it could be just the thing for cyclo crossers looking for the maximum mud clearing front wheel holding device. That said, I would think a strut would be better then. Probably would look too weird, eh? But then again, there is the Lauf fork......... Who knows?!! 

Okay, so I am older, I like classic parts, and so this fork doesn't bother me so much since that huge arch looks more like a sloping investment cast crown than a uni-crown fork. Uni-crown forks are obviously a very structurally sound way to make a fork out of metal, but carbon is supposed to be able to be formed into certain shapes and retain strength. Why not approximate a sloping crown steel fork in carbon? Now that would keep some folks hair raised, I am sure, but how cool would that be?

Anyway..... My main beef with carbon forks is that they typically are brutal to ride. I sure hope this fork is not one of those forks, if ya know what I mean. Hopefully more like the TRP CX fork I got to try, or the 3T fork I heard was nice. But that isn't all Otso had to tell of......

They now are a component brand to the consumer and industry. They will be selling this fork and a handle bar, and wheels, and fat bike rims under the "Lithic"brand label.

Fatty hasn't been the same since.......

 Guitar Ted Death Ride Invitational News:

I have been pretty quiet about this so far this year, but now it is getting closer and I've got plans to share. The next GTDRI happens on July 29th. (YES, I know that is the last day of RAGBRAI. That's on purpose....) That Saturday we will be going on a "tour of dirt roads" Iowa style in Tama County.

The inspiration for this route is from my friends in the Pirate Cycling League who do their own "Tour Of Dirt Roads". I thought it might be fun to try that up here.

It's a huge risk, because if it rains it will be a re-route fest and it could become a wild, weird day of wandering instead of cruising cool dirt roads, but whatever happens happens. I'm going for it.

So, as of now I am planning on the following for the route:

• Distance- At least 100 miles, but not more than 120.
• Starting Point- Traer Iowa. We will loop back to here to end the ride as well.
• Pass Through Towns. (Subject to change) Toledo, Garwin, Reinbeck
• Ride happens rain or shine with or without anyone showing up.
• This is a free to attend ride. Anyone that thinks they can hack it can show up. 

More soon...... Stay tuned.

Have a great weekend! Ride your bicycles and stay safe!

Friday News And Views

Less expensive, 1 X 12, will be seen everywhere

New Bike Season: It is that time of year when new stuff for the new bike year, (2018 in this case), starts to trickle out. We've seen a few things already, like the new Ultegra and Niner's new SIR 9 model. Another recent intro that I haven't mentioned is SRAM's new, more wallet friendly version of 1 X 12 Eagle in the GX level. Said to be a direct competitor to XT, GX Eagle will be seen on a ton of new 2018 bicycles.

SRAM made sure you'll know it is GX Eagle because the new GX crank arms are flat and wide. Perfect for a huge "GX" logo. One of the other GX Eagle components is a grip shifter. I know that seems odd ball to many of you, but to my mind, a grip shift 1X 12 is a perfect fat bike set up. Think gloved hands, cold air, and keeping your digits warm by ganging them together in an overmitt, or under a pogie. Triggers can be a bit much in those situations whereas a grip shifter is much easier to operate under those circumstances.

Of course, the big expense in the flagship Eagle component group is the (almost) one piece, carved out of a block of steel, cassette. GX gets a pinned together set of 12 cogs. I've used a similar 11 speed cassette on my fat bike and it worked fine. So, it isn't marvelously light, but it certainly isn't heavy by any stretch of the imagination.

An entire Eagle GX groupset can be had for under $500.00, so it isn't a bad upgrade for anyone running an 11 speed SRAM 1X group. Again, I'm not necessarily a fan on all fronts. I totally get 1X for fat bikes, due to the nature of how a front derailleur ends up becoming a focal point for muck collection. (I use a fat bike for wet, muddy, slushy excursions.) I don't necessarily agree with 1X from the standpoint of chain efficiency. I still think there are times when a 2X is a better choice. I like Shimano's thinking in this regard.

The Otso Cycles, Lithic brand, "Hiili" model carbon gravel bike fork.

More Clearance:

The move to make a gravel bike, (read "fat road bike") your "One Bike to Rule Them All" bike, lately has spawned all sorts of oddball stuff that no one was dreaming of 5 years ago. In fact, had anyone introduced a 400mm axle to crown fork that fit a 29" X 2.1" tire, they would have been considered nuts. At least there would have been a lot of "WTF" going on.

But then again, maybe there still is a lot of that thought going on! 

Anyway, there it is. Otso Cycles has this very fork. It can be stuffed with all sorts of fat tired, different diameter wheels, and it could be just the thing for cyclo crossers looking for the maximum mud clearing front wheel holding device. That said, I would think a strut would be better then. Probably would look too weird, eh? But then again, there is the Lauf fork......... Who knows?!! 

Okay, so I am older, I like classic parts, and so this fork doesn't bother me so much since that huge arch looks more like a sloping investment cast crown than a uni-crown fork. Uni-crown forks are obviously a very structurally sound way to make a fork out of metal, but carbon is supposed to be able to be formed into certain shapes and retain strength. Why not approximate a sloping crown steel fork in carbon? Now that would keep some folks hair raised, I am sure, but how cool would that be?

Anyway..... My main beef with carbon forks is that they typically are brutal to ride. I sure hope this fork is not one of those forks, if ya know what I mean. Hopefully more like the TRP CX fork I got to try, or the 3T fork I heard was nice. But that isn't all Otso had to tell of......

They now are a component brand to the consumer and industry. They will be selling this fork and a handle bar, and wheels, and fat bike rims under the "Lithic"brand label.

Fatty hasn't been the same since.......

 Guitar Ted Death Ride Invitational News:

I have been pretty quiet about this so far this year, but now it is getting closer and I've got plans to share. The next GTDRI happens on July 29th. (YES, I know that is the last day of RAGBRAI. That's on purpose....) That Saturday we will be going on a "tour of dirt roads" Iowa style in Tama County.

The inspiration for this route is from my friends in the Pirate Cycling League who do their own "Tour Of Dirt Roads". I thought it might be fun to try that up here.

It's a huge risk, because if it rains it will be a re-route fest and it could become a wild, weird day of wandering instead of cruising cool dirt roads, but whatever happens happens. I'm going for it.

So, as of now I am planning on the following for the route:

• Distance- At least 100 miles, but not more than 120.
• Starting Point- Traer Iowa. We will loop back to here to end the ride as well.
• Pass Through Towns. (Subject to change) Toledo, Garwin, Reinbeck
• Ride happens rain or shine with or without anyone showing up.
• This is a free to attend ride. Anyone that thinks they can hack it can show up. 

More soon...... Stay tuned.

Have a great weekend! Ride your bicycles and stay safe!

Friday News And Views

SRAM Eagle 12spd 1X XX-1

Yes, It Is Real:

Remember those leaked images of a SRAM Eagle 12 speed 1X group I had on here a while back? Well, as you may know now, it was a real thing. SRAM introduced the "improved" group yesterday in XX1 and X01 flavors. Yes......they are way expensive. $1417.00 and $1193.00 respectively for all the parts. Which, if you think about that, are only the cassette, shifter, derailleur, crank set, and chain. You can bet that a big chunk of that expense is in the XDome cassette, just like it is for 1 X 11 stuff. And yes....the derailleur, chain, cassette, and chain ring are all proprietary and specific to 12 speed. So, barriers are there for sure.

I had a long chat online about the merits of this system with a friend yesterday. Here are my main thoughts on 1X in general: First of all, try thinking of any vehicle/powertrain combination that is seeking engineering and technology to find ways to make its powertrain have bigger steps between ratios. Yeah...... That would make the powertrain less efficient. So, why do we, as humans, think bigger jumps between gear ratios is a better way to do mountain bike drive trains? By the way, Shimano does not buy into this way of doing things, (bigger gear ratio jumps), and that is why they have resisted the whole 1X drivetrain thing from the beginning. It is not because they couldn't do this.

Secondly, the entire reason for going to the 50T low gear was to erase the complaints against 1 X 11's lack of a low enough gear to compete with 2X10 drive trains, and of course, now 2X11 drive trains. This makes the suite of parts more marketable, but again, not more efficient for "the motor" that drives it all. Other reasons for 1X drive trains are mostly about aesthetics and fashion. "Cleaner" looking, no front derailleur to "mess up" the looks of the bottom bracket area, and an "uncluttered handle bar". Shorter chain stays and suspension designs not possible with front derailleurs can also be touted as "benefits". None of that makes you go faster. Some claim weight benefits, but with a 50T cassette cog spinning back there, can we now start looking at rotational weight as being a negative for this idea? Maybe.... But the big deal here is the jumps between gears and that isn't the best thing for the rider, nor does it promote keeping your momentum up, since your cadence gets jacked with those bigger gear jumps.

The Renegade Gent's Race 6.0 flyer

Renegade Gent's Race:

It is happening again, and so the reboot of the Careless Whispers is going to happen again as well. The sixth running of the Renegade Gent's Race, which has been such a great event for me so far. It is responsible for new friendships and such great times that I never would have had if I had not been invited to ride with three strangers and a Trans Iowa vet back in 2011.

The Gent's Race has been a growing deal since the beginning. I'm not sure this year that it will be bigger than last year, but at about 300 folks, maybe it's big enough! That's not a concern for me though. It's kind of funny how you end up riding with your team, seemingly all alone out in the country, at least a few times during the afternoon. So, no matter how many teams do end up coming, I think that will still be the case again this year. Then there are the times when you are in a bigger group, and that seems to be okay as well. It's a weird dynamic, but it is fun.

So, as I alluded to the other day, I have to pick a rig to go with that day. I am sentimental, so the Black Mountain Cycles rig is high on the list of bikes I will choose. Maybe the Tamland with those big ol' Gravel King 40's. That's the only other bike I've ridden there, I think. Nope! I just checked, and I rode my Vaya one year down there. Oh well...... It isn't like it will matter a whole lot, so whatever I choose will be fine, I am sure.

Nothing "new" to see here..... Move along!

Capitalizing......

Have you noticed more chatter about "gravel this" and "gravel that"? Bigger magazines and websites are all over the "gravel bike" scene now. They are saying things like"do we need these new bikes", and "how to prepare for your first gravel race", like these sorts of things are so unknown and new that they need explanation.

Well, if you've been a long time reader here, you already know all about this stuff. Heck, just look above at my Renegade Gent's Race mention. Notice that it's version six? Trans Iowa is in year 12!! The Dirty Kanza is going on 11 years. I could go on. My Black Mountain Cycles rig is six years old now. My Tamland, a gravel specific rig, is going on four years old now. These things aren't new.

Plus, if you are really paying attention, you'll know that gravel roads were being ridden since gravel roads existed, and gravel events are not all that different from something like a long, 100 mile mountain bike race, or any other cycling competition. Bikes that work on gravel roads have been around a long time. What happened was that the industry forgot about those bikes and chased after the "F-1" style road bikes that the Pro roadies use. Those bikes pretty much suck for gravel roads. Well.....the thousands of miles of gravel roads in the middle of the country, and elsewhere. They just weren't the best idea, and still are not, unless you, well.....you know, do criteriums and actual paved, fully supported road races on closed courses. Nothing wrong with doing that, but bikes drilled in sharp focus for that pursuit flat out suck on gravel. No way to sugar coat that.

So, in those terms, we don't need a "new genre" of bike to do this "all roads" cycling, we need to get back to where we were a long time ago, and we are. This is good. But.......it isn't anything new. Neither are the events. Just keep that in mind when you see all these articles about gravel this and that pop up in the big media productions. I say....Welcome to the party! And...calm down! It's not that big of a deal, y'all. We've been here for years. 

That's all for this week! Get out there and turn some pedals, and have a meaningful and enjoyable Easter for those that observe that.