As anyone who has a bike that they ride all winter has discovered, at least anyone for whom winter means rain and snow, grit does a number on the bike: Drivetrain, brakepads, and most expensively, rims. Now, this leads many of us hardy folk to tout the benefits of disc brakes in inclement weather; you get better and more reliable stopping power, and only need replace the pads a couple of times a year, and a rotor every few. BUT, where does that leave those who commute on a cross bike, road bike, or old MTB without disc tabs. Well I'll tell you. It leaves us wearing down our rims and rebuilding wheels every 4 or 5 years. Less if, like me, you ride a fairly light rim (Open Pro) and rarely (never) clean the thing like it deserves.
So, after wearing down the latest set of rims in less than 3 years, I thought it was time to make some forays into higher priced brake pads. The idea here was to find something that retained braking power even in the wet and grit, and was easier on the rim than the standard koolstop/shimano/generic v-brake cartridge. I had used an assortment of KoolStop pads, including the salmons, on previous mountain bikes, and decided to give those a try. My other option was the Swiss Stop yellow kings for v-brakes. I have the road version on a couple of other bikes, and have been impressed with their modulation and rim preserving qualities on alloy and carbon. I was interested to see if they would translate to a cantilever brake and bring sufficient power despite being so easy on the rims. They did.
First off, the cool stops have been great. They stop well, don't tend to shudder despite being a little softer and more grabby than a standard pad, and are practically free compared to the Swiss Stops (10-15 bucks, generally). I'm on my second pair in less than 2000 km, though I have already admitted to neglect when it comes to cleaning the rims and pads every once in a while. The Swiss Stops on the other hand are more like 60 bucks for 4, so about three times the price. But I love them. The power is there, they are even easier on the rims than the KoolStops, and they don't pick up grit and metal shavings any near as much as the Kools, which are already pretty good. I haven't had them long enough to determine whether they will last three times as long, which would justify the price (where that the only measure), but if they are anything like the pads I've used in a caliper brake, they are going to last a long, long time.
There may be some who can't stomach the price, but if you race, commute, or ride in the crap, I think the Yellow Kings are a pretty good investment, particularly if you ride rims you'd rather not replace as often. For the rest, KoolStop is the way to go, I'm going to say 70% of the performance at 30% of the price. That's value.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Gear Review! Rainwear for Vancouver: Sugoi, Gore, MEC, and Planet Bike
It's been pretty wet here now for about 3 months, and no one should be surprised. I know we talk about how crappy the weather is, but really we should talk about how normal it is. "Rainy out today, huh?"
"Yup, I'd say it's about usual."
"Yup."
"Well, see you later."
Talking about the weather being too rainy is like complaining that you can't believe you have to eat dinner again, you just did it yesterday. Guess what: it's going to rain a lot more in the next couple months. So, proper rain gear can make riding in the rain far more enjoyable. I'm here to tell you what worked for me, and what didn't.
First up, the Gore Countdown Glove. I bought these to replace my cheap Planet Bike "water resistant" gloves from MEC. I would have returned them, but I had them for over a year and figured I'd gotten my 25 bucks out of them. They're actually not bad for colder weather, but they soak up water like a sponge, and then take days to dry out, which makes them worse than useless on the left coast. Enter the Gore Countdown. Admittedly far more expensive (close to $100.00) that price thankfully comes with the benefits you'd expect. These are, so far, the only actually water proof cycling gloves I have owned. They also breath fantastically, making them appropriate for warmer temperatures than I expected. One caveat, the wrist closures are snug, and the gloves are quite fitted: If you intend to use them for colder weather (think below 5 C.) make sure you buy a size large enough that the gloves do not restrict circulation, as one user at least that I know of had this problem. Switching to the next size up seems to improve warmth.
Second up, rain jackets. I have three currently, the Sugoi Hydrolite, an old Campy shell, and the Gore Oxygen. All three have their charms. For un-laden riding (ie. no bag) in cold or moderately rainy weather, the Sugoi is my go-to jacket. It breaths fantastically, cuts out most of the wind, and is super light and compact. Highly recommended for higher intensity and shorter riding in cold to mildly rainy weather. The Gore jacket, while slightly more bulky, is more water resistant and wind proof. Where the Sugoi does eventually wet out in heavier downpours, the Gore will keep you dry, and is almost as breathable despite being made of a thicker fabric. This fabric also makes me feel better about commuting in this jacket with a pack on, something that the feel and thickness of the Sugoi jacket makes me avoid. Despite being slightly heavier, the Gore jacket does fit in a jersey pocket. The Campy jacket doesn't breath, leaks at the seams, and is at least as bulky as the Sugoi. I only use it when it's very cold or I think I might crash and tear it (cross or mountain riding). On the plus side, it is less than half the price of the Sugoi and about a quarter the price of the Gore. Over all, if I could only have one it would be the Gore, hands down.
On the lower half, I'm still rocking the MEC gear. It's cheap, it works okay, and it's cheap. I was thinking hard about the Gore tights, but they didn't have anything that fit as closely as the MEC Cyclone that seemed any more water resistant, and less than 3 times the price. The MEC Cyclone is not fantastic, it will eventually start to take on water, but it is sufficient. The day either MEC or Gore makes a seam taped tight with a hardshell face and a softshell back I'll buy it. MEC used to make one, but those days are gone....
And, lastly the booties. I've tried Campy and Sugoi winter booties, which are both constructed very similarly, and been satisfied. My feet get wet after an hour or so in both, faster in a downpour, but both are definitely better than nothing. I have yet to try the Gore Race Power booty, but based on my experience with their jackets and gloves, they seem the like way to go for wet weather.
So there it is, if there's water on the road or in the air, that's what I'm wearing. When I get the Gore booties, I'll get a review up. Until then, stay dry if you can, but keep riding no matter what.
"Yup, I'd say it's about usual."
"Yup."
"Well, see you later."
Talking about the weather being too rainy is like complaining that you can't believe you have to eat dinner again, you just did it yesterday. Guess what: it's going to rain a lot more in the next couple months. So, proper rain gear can make riding in the rain far more enjoyable. I'm here to tell you what worked for me, and what didn't.
First up, the Gore Countdown Glove. I bought these to replace my cheap Planet Bike "water resistant" gloves from MEC. I would have returned them, but I had them for over a year and figured I'd gotten my 25 bucks out of them. They're actually not bad for colder weather, but they soak up water like a sponge, and then take days to dry out, which makes them worse than useless on the left coast. Enter the Gore Countdown. Admittedly far more expensive (close to $100.00) that price thankfully comes with the benefits you'd expect. These are, so far, the only actually water proof cycling gloves I have owned. They also breath fantastically, making them appropriate for warmer temperatures than I expected. One caveat, the wrist closures are snug, and the gloves are quite fitted: If you intend to use them for colder weather (think below 5 C.) make sure you buy a size large enough that the gloves do not restrict circulation, as one user at least that I know of had this problem. Switching to the next size up seems to improve warmth.
Second up, rain jackets. I have three currently, the Sugoi Hydrolite, an old Campy shell, and the Gore Oxygen. All three have their charms. For un-laden riding (ie. no bag) in cold or moderately rainy weather, the Sugoi is my go-to jacket. It breaths fantastically, cuts out most of the wind, and is super light and compact. Highly recommended for higher intensity and shorter riding in cold to mildly rainy weather. The Gore jacket, while slightly more bulky, is more water resistant and wind proof. Where the Sugoi does eventually wet out in heavier downpours, the Gore will keep you dry, and is almost as breathable despite being made of a thicker fabric. This fabric also makes me feel better about commuting in this jacket with a pack on, something that the feel and thickness of the Sugoi jacket makes me avoid. Despite being slightly heavier, the Gore jacket does fit in a jersey pocket. The Campy jacket doesn't breath, leaks at the seams, and is at least as bulky as the Sugoi. I only use it when it's very cold or I think I might crash and tear it (cross or mountain riding). On the plus side, it is less than half the price of the Sugoi and about a quarter the price of the Gore. Over all, if I could only have one it would be the Gore, hands down.
On the lower half, I'm still rocking the MEC gear. It's cheap, it works okay, and it's cheap. I was thinking hard about the Gore tights, but they didn't have anything that fit as closely as the MEC Cyclone that seemed any more water resistant, and less than 3 times the price. The MEC Cyclone is not fantastic, it will eventually start to take on water, but it is sufficient. The day either MEC or Gore makes a seam taped tight with a hardshell face and a softshell back I'll buy it. MEC used to make one, but those days are gone....
And, lastly the booties. I've tried Campy and Sugoi winter booties, which are both constructed very similarly, and been satisfied. My feet get wet after an hour or so in both, faster in a downpour, but both are definitely better than nothing. I have yet to try the Gore Race Power booty, but based on my experience with their jackets and gloves, they seem the like way to go for wet weather.
So there it is, if there's water on the road or in the air, that's what I'm wearing. When I get the Gore booties, I'll get a review up. Until then, stay dry if you can, but keep riding no matter what.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Skewed Views
The (road) cycling season is over north of the 49th, and as such there is a lot more time for a mechanic to sit around and contemplate life. Or at least that's what I ought be doing rather than shopping for parts I don't need and staring at the wall. However, of late I have been thinking about the nature of shops, of the job, of retail, of cycling, of racing and commuting, and how they all connect to form the cycling world out here on the west coast.
More specifically, I've been thinking about some of the problems that seem to come up pretty regularly, and how the way customers and shop staff conceive of and relate to each other shapes these problems.
Par Example:
This past week, we've had several customers balk at their bills when they come to pick up their bikes. Part of this is that some customers don't really know what parts cost, and unless they ask specifically, we tend to assume they have a general idea of what they are getting into, cost wise at least. But a more important factor, I think, is the way we assess repairs and the lack of real communication between the person who is working on the bike and the riders themselves.
As bike shop employees, we are constantly immersed in bicycles. They unavoidably take on a level of importance to us that is grossly disproportionate to how they function in most peoples lives. I'm not talking about the racers and club riders here, or even the enthusiast. I'm talking about the people who come in with bikes they ride three times a year, who have bikes that they leave at the cabin or on the boat for a quick spin every once and a while, or that simply use them as transportation without being invested in their flawless function. Too often our impulse is to hold these sorts of bikes to the same standards as we would our own, or as we would bikes that are pressed into different sorts of service. To do so is to focus only on the bike and not on the rider.
Talking to the rider, and ascertaining exactly what they want the bike to do can be the most important step in providing excellent service. It's easy to tell someone with a 15 year old department store bike that it will cost five times what the bike is worth to make it work well, but it isn't useful, nor is it likely true that the estimate is accurate given what the rider needs from the bike. I think it's time that we began to take in repairs by asking many of the same questions we do when we sell bicycles, all directed at why the rider has brought the bike for repairs. If someone brings in a bike with a brake rubbing and we tell them it will cost 300 dollars to replace the whole drive train plus 60 dollars labour, I think we're ignoring what the rider is telling us. The gears may be skipping, the tires low, the bb loose, but if the rider tells us the brake rubs and that's all, it's likely because they have a very different view of what their bike is supposed to do than we do. We discount this view because the customer lacks the expertise to identify these problems, and as such it is our place to inform them what needs to be done. This usually assumes too much. We may know exactly what is wrong with the bike according to our standards, but we don't know better than the rider what they need from the bike, what they can afford to or are willing to put into it, and if they even care that the wheels wobble and the bars are crooked.
I think it may be time we gave a little more credit to the rider's themselves, particularly the ones that are obviously not as invested in bikes or in cycling as we are. How they see their bikes is just as important as how we see them, and the two views are often perpendicular. To be willing to hear exactly what the rider is trying to tell us without correcting them according to our own cycling-immersion-skewed outlook can be as important as mechanical ability. The perfect service is one with which the rider is satisfied and can feel that they have been listened to and understood, and has participated in the decision making process when it comes to their repair. Sometimes a quick brake adjustment is all a bike really needs - even though to our eyes it may be falling apart - to satisfy the rider.
More specifically, I've been thinking about some of the problems that seem to come up pretty regularly, and how the way customers and shop staff conceive of and relate to each other shapes these problems.
Par Example:
This past week, we've had several customers balk at their bills when they come to pick up their bikes. Part of this is that some customers don't really know what parts cost, and unless they ask specifically, we tend to assume they have a general idea of what they are getting into, cost wise at least. But a more important factor, I think, is the way we assess repairs and the lack of real communication between the person who is working on the bike and the riders themselves.
As bike shop employees, we are constantly immersed in bicycles. They unavoidably take on a level of importance to us that is grossly disproportionate to how they function in most peoples lives. I'm not talking about the racers and club riders here, or even the enthusiast. I'm talking about the people who come in with bikes they ride three times a year, who have bikes that they leave at the cabin or on the boat for a quick spin every once and a while, or that simply use them as transportation without being invested in their flawless function. Too often our impulse is to hold these sorts of bikes to the same standards as we would our own, or as we would bikes that are pressed into different sorts of service. To do so is to focus only on the bike and not on the rider.
Talking to the rider, and ascertaining exactly what they want the bike to do can be the most important step in providing excellent service. It's easy to tell someone with a 15 year old department store bike that it will cost five times what the bike is worth to make it work well, but it isn't useful, nor is it likely true that the estimate is accurate given what the rider needs from the bike. I think it's time that we began to take in repairs by asking many of the same questions we do when we sell bicycles, all directed at why the rider has brought the bike for repairs. If someone brings in a bike with a brake rubbing and we tell them it will cost 300 dollars to replace the whole drive train plus 60 dollars labour, I think we're ignoring what the rider is telling us. The gears may be skipping, the tires low, the bb loose, but if the rider tells us the brake rubs and that's all, it's likely because they have a very different view of what their bike is supposed to do than we do. We discount this view because the customer lacks the expertise to identify these problems, and as such it is our place to inform them what needs to be done. This usually assumes too much. We may know exactly what is wrong with the bike according to our standards, but we don't know better than the rider what they need from the bike, what they can afford to or are willing to put into it, and if they even care that the wheels wobble and the bars are crooked.
I think it may be time we gave a little more credit to the rider's themselves, particularly the ones that are obviously not as invested in bikes or in cycling as we are. How they see their bikes is just as important as how we see them, and the two views are often perpendicular. To be willing to hear exactly what the rider is trying to tell us without correcting them according to our own cycling-immersion-skewed outlook can be as important as mechanical ability. The perfect service is one with which the rider is satisfied and can feel that they have been listened to and understood, and has participated in the decision making process when it comes to their repair. Sometimes a quick brake adjustment is all a bike really needs - even though to our eyes it may be falling apart - to satisfy the rider.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Safety First...
Some crappy bikes are crappy because they don't work like they are supposed to, or because they do work like they are supposed to but they are not made to work well (this actually happens: don't buy a bike from wal-mart). Some bikes are crappy because they have been modified by someone who has used parts in ways they were not intended to be used and has made the bike unsafe to ride. The first two types aren't fun to work on, because it seems that no matter how much work you put into the thing, it's not going to work well. This can be frustrating. The second type can be frustrating in a very different way.
This past week we dealt with a customer who had done some home modification to his bike, specifically intermixing some threaded and non-threaded headset and fork parts with a quill stem that was the wrong clamp size for the bar he was using. There were other problems with the bike too, and the specifics don't really matter to my point, but the bike was most certainly unsafe to ride even in the most generous judgment. The challenge, when confronted with a bike such as this in a shop, is how to deal with the bike and customer in a productive way.
There are usually three ways a confrontation (and they usually are confrontations) like this go. Either the tech refuses to even work on the bike (which leaves the customer angry and still riding an unsafe bike), or they quote a price to make the bike safe which is much higher than the customer wants to hear (which leaves the customer angry but hopefully riding a safe bike), or the tech does the work the customer asked for and the little extra to make it safe without consulting the customer (usually the case when the tech doesn't actually see the bike before it is taken in, and this tends to produce a large bill which surprises the customer and again we end up with a safe bike and angry customer). In our particular case, it was the last of these three, and our story ended with the customer refusing to pay for some of the work and parts that were done, despite the fact that the bike was unfit to ride without them.
So, what are we to do with bikes that are unsafe to ride and customers that are unwilling to pay to make them safe? The easy answer is to refuse to work on them. This may be the least time consuming and most painless way to do it, but it often means more of the same type of modification that made the thing so unsafe in the first place is about to take place.
The second two ways this can go, as mentioned above, usually go sideways because of cost. Chances are that the reason sketchy kludges exist in the first place is to save money, and cost is generally the sticking point on these types of repairs. I think that the clash comes when, in discussing the desired outcome and cost of the repair, both parties assume too much. The tech usually assumes that the customer is at best being willfully ignorant and at worst challenging their expertise. The customer, I would think, assumes the tech is trying to gouge him or her on work he or she deems unnecessary. Both of us are probably wrong.
As techs, we need to remember that some peoples' bikes inhabit places of far lesser importance than ours in their lives, and as such it can be surprising for them to learn the costs of maintaining something they regard so trivial. These customers often don't know about changing technology and prices, and the patronizing tone this often prompts in even the most sensitive techs worsens the issue. Customers need to realize, though, that bike shops do not make their profit on labour. I once read a forum post in which a rider expressed his suspicion that a shop was intentionally giving his tires slow leaks to force him to come back and spend 10 bucks every week. Obviously he should fix his own flats, as should everyone who rides more than a walking distance from home, but more importantly if he thinks shops make money from fixing flats, he is dreaming. At best we break even, usually not.
So, where are we then. Bikes need to leave the shop safe, and customers need to leave happy; but sometimes, the two are opposites. I guess communication and mutual respect might solve these problems. It seems obvious, I suppose, but it's easier said than done. Usually by the time we realize the way we should have handled a situation, the ship has sailed. Constant vigilance then, constant vigilance...
This past week we dealt with a customer who had done some home modification to his bike, specifically intermixing some threaded and non-threaded headset and fork parts with a quill stem that was the wrong clamp size for the bar he was using. There were other problems with the bike too, and the specifics don't really matter to my point, but the bike was most certainly unsafe to ride even in the most generous judgment. The challenge, when confronted with a bike such as this in a shop, is how to deal with the bike and customer in a productive way.
There are usually three ways a confrontation (and they usually are confrontations) like this go. Either the tech refuses to even work on the bike (which leaves the customer angry and still riding an unsafe bike), or they quote a price to make the bike safe which is much higher than the customer wants to hear (which leaves the customer angry but hopefully riding a safe bike), or the tech does the work the customer asked for and the little extra to make it safe without consulting the customer (usually the case when the tech doesn't actually see the bike before it is taken in, and this tends to produce a large bill which surprises the customer and again we end up with a safe bike and angry customer). In our particular case, it was the last of these three, and our story ended with the customer refusing to pay for some of the work and parts that were done, despite the fact that the bike was unfit to ride without them.
So, what are we to do with bikes that are unsafe to ride and customers that are unwilling to pay to make them safe? The easy answer is to refuse to work on them. This may be the least time consuming and most painless way to do it, but it often means more of the same type of modification that made the thing so unsafe in the first place is about to take place.
The second two ways this can go, as mentioned above, usually go sideways because of cost. Chances are that the reason sketchy kludges exist in the first place is to save money, and cost is generally the sticking point on these types of repairs. I think that the clash comes when, in discussing the desired outcome and cost of the repair, both parties assume too much. The tech usually assumes that the customer is at best being willfully ignorant and at worst challenging their expertise. The customer, I would think, assumes the tech is trying to gouge him or her on work he or she deems unnecessary. Both of us are probably wrong.
As techs, we need to remember that some peoples' bikes inhabit places of far lesser importance than ours in their lives, and as such it can be surprising for them to learn the costs of maintaining something they regard so trivial. These customers often don't know about changing technology and prices, and the patronizing tone this often prompts in even the most sensitive techs worsens the issue. Customers need to realize, though, that bike shops do not make their profit on labour. I once read a forum post in which a rider expressed his suspicion that a shop was intentionally giving his tires slow leaks to force him to come back and spend 10 bucks every week. Obviously he should fix his own flats, as should everyone who rides more than a walking distance from home, but more importantly if he thinks shops make money from fixing flats, he is dreaming. At best we break even, usually not.
So, where are we then. Bikes need to leave the shop safe, and customers need to leave happy; but sometimes, the two are opposites. I guess communication and mutual respect might solve these problems. It seems obvious, I suppose, but it's easier said than done. Usually by the time we realize the way we should have handled a situation, the ship has sailed. Constant vigilance then, constant vigilance...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)