In places where they don't have winter--or, at least, not anything anyone living north of the Potomac would call "winter"--there are bike rides of the sort we, in the so-called temperate zones, would have in May or June or September.
One such place is Palm Springs, California. I've never been there, even though I have traveled in that part of California. I guess I believed the rumors that Versace-uniformed agents at the city limits wouldn't let you in unless you showed your Coutts World Silk Card. (If it's good enough for the Queen of England, it's good enough for me!) Then again, I once went to the opera wearing the same clothes I wore while helping to paint a friend's house that day. That's a story for another time.
Anyway, the ride itself sounds interesting. I wonder how many celebrities ride, or just show up.
Actually, I wonder about one celebrity in particular:
If he ever rode in that area (if indeed he rode at all), I assume he didn't have to worry about trees. Now, on the ski slopes....that was another story!
All right. To be fair, I'll point out that he stood by his child, Chastity, when she "came out". Of course, Chastity is now a guy named Chaz. And some folks say he was a good mayor of Palm Springs.
The other day, and in a few previous posts, I mentioned the Rigi frame. It had twin vertical seat stays, like the twin laterals found on the "top tubes" of many classic mixte bikes (and Vera, my green Mercian mixte). The rear wheel actually ran between those tubes.
The reason for it was to shorten the bike's chainstays and, therefore, wheelbase. Shorter wheelbases make for quicker acceleration and response, all other things being equal. Rigi was probably one of the more extreme results of a race, which ran its course during the late 1970s and early 1980s, to create bikes with the shortest possible wheelbases.
That trend resulted in other permutations of bike design, like curved seat tubes. It seemed to run again, if briefly and less widespread, just before the turn of this century, when KHS and other companies made bikes (mainly track and fixed-gear) with curved seat tubes.
Like other fads, it's not new. Within a few years of the invention of the "safety" bicycles, designers and builders had essentially figured out what we now know about bicycle geometry. For the most part, bikes had longer wheelbases and shallower angles than the ones on current bikes because road conditions were worse (when, indeed, there were roads!). Also, few cyclists owned (or even had access) to more than one bike, so their steeds had to be more versatile. And, I would imagine, the materials available then weren't as strong as what we have now (most bikes were still made of iron or mild steel) and could not withstand the pounding a shorter wheelbase and shallower angles--which absorb less shock than longer wheelbases and shallower angles--would deliver.
Still, there were apparent attempts to make bikes with shorter wheelbases at the turn from the 19th to the 20th Century. (I can still remember when "the turn of the century" meant the period from about 1890 until World War I!) This one looks particularly interesting:
If you sneeze on this 1890s "Bronco" bike, you just might go backwards! All right, I'm exaggerating, just a little. What I find intriguing--almost astounding, really--is that the auction house selling the bike listed it as a "cross" bike. Did they mean "cyclo-cross"? If they did, I wonder whether the bike was intended as such when it was made--and, presumably ridden.
The auction house also says the bike has an "axle driven crank". Today, we call that "fixed gear": The wheel and pedals cannot turn independently of each other. High-wheel or "penny farthing" bikes had such a system--on the front wheel.
That is the reason why those bikes had such large front wheels: To get what most of us, today, would consider to be a normal riding gear--let alone anything high enough to allow for any speed--a front wheel of at least 1.5 meters (60 inches) in diameter was necessary.
Hmm...That means the gear on the Bronco must be pretty low!
Low gear and short wheelbase: Could this be a bike intended for uphill time trials?
Today started blustery and cold but ended with drizzle. In between, it seemed that the Koppen climate classification for this area changed a couple of times.
Tonight I listened to Obama's farewell speech. I had mixed emotions: I am less saddened by his impending departure than I am scared of Orange Man ascending the throne, I mean, assuming the Presidency. I am glad for what Barack did in some areas, such as LGBT rights and energy sustainability. On the other hand, the United States has spent more time at war, and more innocent people have been killed, tortured or surveilled, than under any other President in this nation's history.
His speech was followed--at least on the station I had tuned into--by the perfect antidote: a program called "The World of Jazz," hosted by Dwight Brewster, who has become a favorite of mine. Tonight's program featured Sonny Rollins and musicians he mentored (who, incidentally, include Brewster). It was all just right.
And what was I doing while listening?
Yes, my estate-sale find is coming along. The fenders and handlebars (Porteur) are from Velo Orange. And the crankset is the same as what I have on Vera, my green Mercian mixte: a Shimano Deore 110/74 with 46/30 chainrings--a.k.a. Gran Fondo gearing--and a BBG Bashguard in place of the outer chainring. I found the crank on eBay. (The one on Vera came with the bike; I replaced the rings.). As I said in an earlier post, I am not looking to do a strict "original" or even "period" restoration, but I want to do things that are "in the spirit" of the bike. The Deore crank was made a few years later than the bike but it's not unlike some of the 110/74 BCD touring triple cranks--such as the ones made by Sugino--from the bike's era.
I took off the SunTour VGT rear derailleur, which I'm saving in case I ever use the 34t freewheel that came with this bike. I replaced it with a VXs: the "medium cage" version of the Vx. Ironically, the Trek 412's original equipment included that derailleur and I just happened to have one in my parts box!
I still have some other work to do on the bike, of course. But now I'm starting to think of some details that have nothing to do with the function of the bike. To wit:
Do I use this basic black steel-riveted Brooks B17? The original saddle was probably an Avocet, which came on most Treks of that time. And, as far as I know, Avocets were like Model T's: You could have one in any color you wanted, as long as it was black.
With the black saddle, the bike somehow reminds me of a Fuji. As I recall, at least one model was painted a blue,and had a a gray panel, similar to what's on this bike--and came with a black "Belt" saddle that looked a lot like this black B17.
I have another B17 in brown (actually, aged honey):
Of course, it is a more elegant saddle than the black one. I think I like the way it looks on the bike. But I wonder whether it's "too much" or "too good" for this bike.
Also, I am thinking about how each saddle would coordinate with the bar wrap I plan: A "barber pole", "candy cane" or "harlequin" of blue and gray Tressostar tape, which I think I'll coat with clear shellac.
I'm guessing the brown/honey saddle would work with it--and with the bags I'll probably use with the bike: the Ruthworks handlebar bag that's on Vera and a wedge to match it. (The bag will be moved between the bikes as needed.) The black saddle would be OK with those bags, but the brown would echo the leather in the bags.
Hmm... Big decisions, right? I went to my "council" for advice.
