Gears, Pedals and Seats, Oh My!

Welcome back to Part 2 of "Bikes for Beginners." Or "The Completely Non-Mechanical, Non-Scientific and Non-Expert Description of Road Bikes and Mountain Bikes." (Catchy title, right?)

Today, we'll talk about some personal preference items ... gears, pedals and seats.

GEARS: Gears mess me up.

Not because I don't know how to make them work but because I'm not great at knowing when the right time to shift is. Also, I have this caveman spot in my brain that says I should pedal for as long as possible in the hardest gear I can stand, because then I'm getting a good workout. Sweat = good. Of course that's not true. But my skull is also thick ... you know, like a caveman.

I think bikes just come with the number of gears they come with. (You're riveted by this expert commentary, aren't you?) I suppose you can modify them to be something different, but why? That being said, there is a difference between our two bikes.

The sole purpose of gears in the first place is that they allow you to keep a steady pedaling pace as you move up hills, down hills, all around town. A steady cadence helps you go farther with less effort. If you're a good shifter, you gear though inclines with ease.

I have a potential for 16 gear combinations ... my chain can move between two sprockets on the front and eight on the back. Jim has 21 total gear combinations ... three sprockets on the front and seven on the rear. In my opinion, neither one is better or worse. I'm guessing the more varied the terrain, the more gear combinations you may want to keep that effortless, steady pace going.

All I know is that I need the easy gears to get me up steep, long hills. And I'll find them wherever they are. Advice from my expert brother-in-law? Shift before you think you need to and never under strain.

When you change gears, your left hand directs the chain where to sit
on the sprockets by the pedals. I have two rings there, and Jim has
three. Your right hand moves the chain between a set of rings (sprockets)
on the rear. I have eight stacked up there and Jim has seven. 

PEDALS
This is a basic pedal, much like the one on Jim's bike and just like the one you remember on your banana-seat one speed from 1973. It's functional. It works. You already understand it.You push it down, the bike moves forward. Period.

This is a pedal with a "cage" on it It's what I have on my bike:

It's a bit smaller than the first pedal and the toe of your shoe slides into the basket-like part. What this allows is you to use some "pull" in addition to "push" when you pedal, thereby giving you a bit more umph. (That's the technical term.) On the normal pedal above, one leg is always relaxing and one is working. With the cage, both legs can be working to move you down the road.

Then there's this contraption:



They're known as "clips" because your specially-purchased-and-sort-of-expensive bike shoe literally clips ON to the pedal. Yes, your feet are attached to the bike.

They strike fear in me. I am too scared to try them. I picture myself approaching a stop sign and suddenly unable to unhook my feet from the pedals, ass over applecart as the bike falls over with me on it. I also find the noise the shoe makes when you walk into a gas station to use the bathroom a little silly. Think tap shoes.

The clip set-up gives you even MORE pull than the cage, which is why people like it. It makes you faster and gives you more bang for your pedaling buck.

Full disclosure: If you ever sign up for a bike riding event, all the cool kids will have bike shoes and clips. Some may even look at you and your pedal cages or naked pedals with little smirks. Let it roll right off of you. The amount of benefit you get from either is absolutely negligible to the average Sunday driver. If you plan on long routes, and want to work on decreasing your time, look into them. If you want to enjoy 7 or 8 miles on the bike trail, don't worry.

SEATS: And now perhaps the most important thing ... the seat. Officially it's called a saddle, so consider yourself forewarned should you get into a conversation with a purist.

My seat is on the left, Jim's on the right. Mine has essentially no padding and is flatter, narrower and overall smaller.

Prior to this week, I would have told you that all seats are so similar, it would be hard to tell the difference ... and as long as you have good padding in your shorts, it just doesn't matter that much. That's truly what I thought, in all my worldly expertise.

I stand corrected.

And I'm standing because my mommy parts still hurt from riding Jim's bike for one ass-numbing day.

So here's what I know about seats:

1. They're adjustable three ways on a good bike. Up and down (height) is the obvious way. They also adjust forward and back (front tire to rear tire) and angle (nose to heel).

2. More padding isn't better. I liken it to a pillow top mattress, which I hate. The padding can get worn from the way your but fits the seat, causing weird pockets of pouf. What seems like a little thing  at the beginning of a ride is a very big thing after an hour.

3. It's completely personal. Your butt is shaped different than mine. Our sit bones are in different places. We weigh different amounts. Our height is different. Our rides are different. And what's comfortable to you may not feel good to me.

4. The goal is to sit light, not heavy. When you get tired or when you're not in biking shape, you tend to sit heavy in the seat. You hunker down and push your pedals. The heavier you sit, the more your butt hurts. Riding light, if that makes sense, is just easier on your butt. Put your weight in your feet. Stand up and stretch every now and then. Gear properly so you're not forced to push so hard. The seat isn't there to "ride on." It's there to support you.

5. Seats have different scoop outs, contours, some even have holes in the middle and are marketed as more comfortable for men. As you can imagine, daddy parts don't logically line up with the whole bike seat concept. Since I don't have daddy parts, I can't speak to the benefit of any of these. But I can say, with complete certainty, that Jim's seat is a torture device for mommy parts, so I can only imagine what it does to him. We're shopping for a new one this week.

Tomorrow we finish with gear. (And don't lie. You secretly laugh when you see someone on the bike trail all duded up like Lance Freaking Armstrong when you know he's only going 4 miles. It's OK. You can laugh. But I'm still going to dress that way and I'll tell you why.)

The Difference Between a Road Bike and a Mountain Bike

I am not a bike expert. As with most things mechanical, I could honestly care less about the gears and sprockets and spokes and carbon fiber this and derailleur that.

I could not tell you a single thing about the latest Trek models or why Bike A is better than Bike B. I also don't believe that someone who rides like I do really notices much of a difference between a bike that weighs 2 lbs. 2 oz. and one that weighs 2 lbs. 6 oz. ... or whatever. Can elite athletes tell when their performance is aided by a smoother gear shift or carbon fiber? Yes, probably. But I'm not that athlete.

I am a bike rider, thought, so by default I have a bit of working knowledge. And, I also have access to two bikes (three, really, but one never leaves my basement) and there are distinct differences that I thought you might be interested in ... should you be shopping for a basic bike.

I'm going to show you my road bike, a Trek Lexa S, and Jim's sport mountain bike, a Trek 3 Series 3500 ... that's been modified a little from factory stock to make it a bit more road-friendly.
---------------------------------------------------------

TIRES: First, notice the difference in tires:



A road bike has skinny tires, inflated to 100-120 psi. They're smooth (no nubby stuff) and they ride "hard" ... not a lot of give when you're rolling over uneven surfaces. My driveway is long, hilly and gravel. I always feel sorry for my tires on it, because they just don't handle it well. They almost skid across the loose rocks and ping a few out sideways every once in a while. They're made for pavement. Period.

Jim's tires are much wider. The original tires on his bike were very nubby. Nubby is good for mountain biking. There's give and grip for uneven terrain. But nubby is not as good for road/bike trail riding. So we've traded for smooth-and-wide tires, which require inflation of 40-80 psi.

Jim's bike will handle an off-road trail and the pavement ... well enough for me to get back and forth to work or for a 20-30 mile ride comfortably. To the contrary, my bike would SUCK on an off-road trail.

If the two bikes started at the top of the same hill together, with a rider of equal weight and proportion, my bike would go down the hill faster. How do I know? I've been the rider on the slower bike. In my unscientific brain, it's because the wider tires mean more contact with the road. More contact with the road equals more "drag" ... and if I'm wrong, don't tell Mr. Raasoch. He'd be as unimpressed with my grasp of high school physics now as he was then.

HANDLEBARS: The second most obvious difference between the two bikes is the handlebars.

Mine: Curled down, like the 10-speed of your youth. They sit lower, forcing your hands a bit more forward and lower. You have the option of holding onto the curly part, too, causing a tighter tuck. You must hold them on the curly part to brake. Your brakes are on the front, meaning your hands are palms-in when you brake. Since road riding doesn't generally require a lot of braking, sharp turns or precision control, this position is OK ... it allows you to stay in that tuck.

 

Jim's: Straight out, hands a bit further apart.They are also a bit higher, allowing your body to sit more upright. Because your hands are wider and your brakes are on the ends, you brake palms down, with downward pressure on the front fork. That means more control and power when you twist and turn on an off-road trail. Your more upright body position can also mean a more comfortable ride.



Now, I'm sure that there is some aerodynamic benefit to the tuck vs. non-tuck position. A wind tunnel would certainly prove that. However, the way I ride, this measurement is completely pointless. If I'm a twentieth or a tenth of a mile per hour slower because I'm riding more upright, who the hell would notice and, more importantly, who the hell would care?

FRONT FORKS: Next up, the front fork.

Mine is rigid, skinny, flat, and not all that exciting to look at. There's no give. Remember when I said my tires rode "hard?" So does the fork.

Jim's has suspension ... like a shock in your car. It's two beefy cylinders, one inside the other, to absorb bumps a bit when you go over them. When you combine this "give" with the wider, lower psi tires, you get a smoother ride on that pesky gravel in my driveway. And over the railroad tracks. Or bridges made out of old railroad ties. However, it also makes the bike heavier.

BRAKES: The other main difference between our bikes is the brakes themselves.

I have rim brakes.

Rim brakes work by simply applying pressure to the rim of the tire. The harder I squeeze my hand, the more brake I get ... it's not terribly complicated. The pads come down and apply pressure to the rim, and, voila! ... slower rotation.

Jim has a disc brake on the front.

A disc brake uses hydraulic assist to apply pressure to the rotar ... the little silver ring in the center of the tire. The benefits of a disc brake are these:

1. In wet conditions, the holes in that ring "dry" the surface out as it's turning, allowing the pressure to work faster/better. Compare that to the squeezing of the rim on my bike ... if the rim is wet, the pads just don't work as well. Or at all.

2. The hydraulic assist allows for a smoother, more controlled/constant pressure ... not dependent on how hard I am squeezing. More controlled/constant/smoother equals faster stopping.

3. In muddy conditions, like an off-road trail, that little silver ring with holes in it is farther away from the gunk on the ground and less likely to get mucked up ... allowing better, more reliable braking. If the rim on my road bike gets muddy, the brake just can't work as well because the pads can't get to the rim, perhaps.

4. A rim brake CAN cause wear on the actual rim, which can affect tires.

So if disc brakes are so awesome, why does my fancier road bike not have them? It doesn't need them. Road bikes don't ride in mud. Road bikes don't need to brake that much ... their job is to go fast in a straight line, not twist and turn through fancy obstacles.

(Kind of the way a good Thoroughbred race horse is different from a reliable, sure-footed trail horse. One is built to go forward fast and has very little skill in anything else, no fancy footwork, no back-up or sideways walking. The other will never win a race, but will take you over streams and rocks and up and down mountains safely.)

Disc brakes also add some weight, though, again, for the kind of riding I do, that doesn't really matter.

Tomorrow, gears, pedals and seats!

Just One Stinking Tank Top

I ran this morning. A quick 4 miles in the basement, because I'm convinced that if I run outside I will get attacked by the neighborhood cougar. 

(And I don't mean Courtney Cox, HRGirl.)

When I was done, I came upstairs and headed to my bathroom for a shower. And I caught a whiff of myself. 

O.M.G. 

Rank doesn't begin to describe it. 

I smelled like a locker room full of teenage boys after a night of hard boiled eggs and beer. With Limburger cologne. 

As I peeled off my running top, I knew what the problem was. 

It wasn't me, so much as it was the 2 years worth of me that has accumulated in this particular running top. 

Peeeeeeeeeeee-yeeeeewwwwwwwww! 

Now, just in case you're thinking, "Doesn't she WASH her workout gear?" Yes, of course I do. I generally hang it to dry before I shower and wash it at night when I get home. But my two favorites are more that two years old and they've been worn and sweated in a LOT. 

They are Energy Zone brand from Shopko. Tanks with built-in shelf bras. And I love them with all my heart. I bought them at half price or about $14.99 ... not because I remember, but because I only buy them at half price. Shopko seems to have a sale every month or so. I used to have a whole rainbow of colors. But over the years, I've had to toss them out, one at a time, as they got stinky. I'm down to my last three (my two favorites and one other one). 

So obviously, your next question is, "Why have you been wearing the same, stinky shirts for two years?"

I've been wearing the same, stinky ones for two years because apparently, they don't make tank tops with built-in shelf bras anymore. Well, at least the folks at Shopko's Energy Zone brand do not. 

I look. I look every time I go there. I even make special trips to look on occasion. I have bought the separate jogging bra and loose-fit tank and I just don't like running in that. I don't want to put two things on, take two things off and wash two things when ONE will do. I like the tight fit of the bra-included tank. So sue me. 

So tonight I took to the web to find something similar. How hard can it be? 

Apparently, It's almost flippin' impossible. 

A search for Energy Zone confirmed they no longer make my favorite kind of shirts. Next step, searches on self-bra tank, sHelf-bra tanks, running tanks with bra, running singlet. All return a few things from Sierra Trading post for brands that I've never heard of, items not in my size or brands built for yoga (read: not enough support for running), things with bad reviews or this: 

This is a cute tank, in my size, with a bra, for $84.99. Yes, I said $84.99!
It had better run FOR me for $100 after shipping! See for yourself here.

Yes, I have checked Athleta and Reebok and Brooks. (Ordered two pair of shoes there, but no tops.) Yes, I have looked at Kohl's ... I own a couple of the FILA brand they carry and don't like them. The seams under the arms are killer chafers. And they're $30+. 

Guess more than one thing about this whole scenario stinks.