[hozn]

Thanks for clarifying, Steve. The notional bridge certainly makes a lot of sense; it would make that part of the w&od trail make sense. — but I’d certainly choose the Lee Hey bridge if forced to pick (only) one.

[hozn]

@zsionakides 183311 wrote:

This may be a commuter perception vs someone riding through recreationally. For commuters going through at rush hour, US-29 is probably terrible for crossing like other busy roads, whereas for recreational riders, navigating through EFC and Banneker park are a challenge with the trail gap and limited signage.

That is very possible, yeah. I remember my first commute through there being a bit “???”.

[hozn]

I loved my SE Lager as my first real dedicated commuter. I changed the fork for carbon and put on drop bars, replaced the brakes (learned something about caliper reach!) And switched to a WI frreewheel which was *really* nice. Probably a few other mods in there, but other than lacking fender mounts it was pretty sweet.

Now that I don’t pull a trailer anymore, I am considering getting another SS, though probably a SS CX. … If/when I redesign my shed to allow nor n>3 (for me).

[hozn]

@zsionakides 183266 wrote:

I’m not sure why this wasn’t the priority to build with the I-66 funds. It would make sense in conjunction with the I-66 widening and have more impact than crossing over US-29.

Um. I don’t know about you, but I cross 29 2x per day and I would much, much rather have a bridge over 29 than something to skip the EFC neighborhood. I have been almost hit numerous times by northbound drivers turning east onto onto Wash Blvd ignoring the no-turn-on-red sign and then drivers turning off of 66 on to Washington St. with a green light ignoring bikes in the crosswalk. Or a red light ignoring the no-turn-on-red-when-peds-present sign (since the gap in the light often feels like a safer time for bikes to cross).

The neighborhood, on the other hand, has slow traffic, one 4-way stop and nice holiday decorations. Sure, it’d be a little quicker to ride over it, but it’s not an unpleasant part of my commute. And it’s not a scarier place than the W&OD to ride with a preschooler (riding his bike).

[hozn]

Yeah, I have seen a “no bikes” sign there as long as I can remember on that trail (at least on the eastern side, which is the only place I ride by the trail entrance). As to how official it looked, I guess I don’t know what the official country (or FC city) signs look like? But the no-bikes signage/rule isn’t surprising given how narrow that trail is. It would be great if they could extend the paved 4MR MUP through the park. Would make a nice connection to Falls Church City, but riding on the roads just south of there (e.g. Columbia) is easy — and I’ve found relatively comfortable.

[hozn]

@buschwacker 183228 wrote:

I’ve been commuting 16 mi/day on an e-bike for 8 months now, and so have some opinions. It seems reasonable to me that mandating a power cut off at 20mph and max 1000W (1 hp) for e-bikes on trails/MUPs (i.e., only “Class 3” e-bikes allowed) would solve the issue nicely.

Small point, but I think you mean “Class 1 & 2 e-bikes allowed”. As I understand it, (CA) Class 3 can go up to 28mph assisted.

It seems obvious — or at least I’m hopeful — that this is where we’ll end up — i.e. with regulations that match the direction the other states of the USA are taking. I think it’d be just great. It might suck a little for the people that bought class-3 e-bikes with intent to use them on the MUPs, but that’s a pretty high-class problem. I’m fairly confident that those riders don’t care what the regulations say anyway; likely as not they’re already disregarding “no-ebikes” regulations if they’re riding into the city.

[hozn]

@lordofthemark 183200 wrote:

I am very happy that folks who do those kinds of rides are part of our community and all (I mean for god’s sake, our local bike shops could hardly survive on people like me) but really, not doing those limits you a to a tiny percentage of the cycling experience? I have never raced (or done any competition other than BAFS) nor done a hammerfest ride. Even if and when I complement my hybrid with a road bike, I doubt I will be racing or doing hammerfests. I will be commuting, doing errands, recreating/exploring alone, and riding in social rides. For most people an ebike would be fine for 90% to 100% of the riding they do.

Yeah, I think this just illustrates that there are many different worlds of cycling. The vast majority of the cyclists I know participate in one or more of these other activities (no surprise, it’s because that’s who I’m going to connect with to ride bikes), so in my little bubble, I can’t imagine a world of cycling that doesn’t include these things. Or, if I can, but it’s a dreary world. And I’m sure there are at least scores of cyclists out there that can’t imagine how someone could be a cyclist and never have tandem riding or track racing. So, I think the original point that cycling can be more than just running errands is still a valid point. (I also suspect that in the USA the majority of cyclists are recreational riders.)

[hozn]

@cvcalhoun 183196 wrote:

I don’t go on group rides precisely because I can’t keep up. So for me, an e-bike would be the one way I could do them. As for off-road riding and racing, that’s out of the question in any event.

I suspect we have different definitions of “group ride”. I meant the ones where everyone is in lycra hammering up the hill or sprinting to the the city-limit signs. E-bikes are not welcome on those rides and I’d imagine that won’t change; the focus is on the athletics of cycling.

Obviously, e-bikes offer some very practical value, but even though the majority of the miles I put on a bike (commuting) I could do an an e-bike (ignoring the legality of using it on the W&OD), the part of cycling that I really love are all things that I can’t do on an e-bike (those lycra group rides, the racing, the mountain biking). So, my comment was just meant to convey the feeling that cycling has so many facets and an e-bike really only addresses a few of them. Nothing wrong with that, especially if it’s a good gateway drug to “real” cycling.

[hozn]

I love my Defrosters. They are the boots I wear when temps are well below freezing. Compared to their other shoes, I agree with the idea that they are larger — less tight with thicker socks. My S-Works MTB shoes of same nominal size are quite tight with winter-thickness socks but the boots feel fine. I have generally found little correlation between my US shoe size and the claimed equivalent US size. I wear a 13 Asics, Keen (or Clarks 12EE) and 48 (regular) in Specialized shoes.

Specialized makes great shoes.

[hozn]

@VikingMariner 182879 wrote:

Unsecured debts owed to trade suppliers include:

…
Eliptigo: $200,000
….

I’m going to go ahead and mentally blame Eliptigo for this.

In seriousness, this is really too bad. Performance Bike has a reputation for being a “budget” shop and maybe for their sales staff having less expertise than the high-end shops, but their prices were always really great and I always had good experiences with their customer service. And if their sales people may have been less informed they were also not jerks; I’d always choose that over a knowledgeable, condescending jerk.

And honestly, some of their stuff (e.g. their bib shorts and carbon road pedals) are really excellent value. I already have a spare set of pedals (back before I realized these road pedals would be happily humming along 12k miles later). But I’d better go stock up on shorts.

[hozn]

If you don’t expect to use it beyond this tour, I would probably just start the search for a second-hand bike there and selling (or donating) it when you leave.

[hozn]

Yeah, when I was looking at shipping a bike to Switzerland it was $1200 each way (IIRC) for bikeflights … !!! And United would have charged me $250 each way (my bike was less than 50lbs — I wasn’t aware that if it’s > 50lbs they don’t charge extra). So that basically just gave me justification in having a $1500 coupler bike frame built and buying a $400 case. Yeah, I’m not sure the math worked out there for that first trip, but I’ve used that frame + bag again since then with expectations to use it for many more trips, so it makes sense in the long run.

[hozn]

@huskerdont 182708 wrote:

Almost pulled the trigger on some Stans Arch S1s, but appears they’re only with 142 rear hubs and my bike is 135, so haven’t yet decided if I want to shave a few mm off the dropouts or keep looking. There’s certainly no rush since my current wheels are decent enough.

The difference between a 142×12 hub and a 135QR (or 135×10 which also fits in a QR frame) hub is simply the axle diameter. They both are the same OLD/frame spacing (135mm). The Stans hubs are convertible between axle standards, but you’d have to budget another $20-30 for the QR rear endcaps.

[hozn]

Maybe also consider https://velosurance.com/ w/ the “international option” to cover any damage / theft of bike during trip + while you’re there.

[hozn]

@peterw_diy 182581 wrote:

What’s your preferred technique?

I think I use the same technique: accelerate to 15-18mph then brake smoothly back down to walking speed and do that a dozen or so times.

[Author]

Posts