new from rans

my favorite bike company has unveiled their new 2011 models. among them are one of the cutest and one of the dumbest bikes i've ever seen.

first, the cute one. 20" wheels. it's a bmx-sized upright. if only it was cheap and pink, i'd buy two of them now for my girls to grow into.

now, dumb. i see what they're trying to do. like me, they're trying to get riders onto their bikes that would otherwise be uninterested. but look at the thing. you get all the damage to your back, shoulders, wrists, etc, but with an added bonus - your innards get squished.

to see what i mean, pull your chair back a few feet from your computer. feel the way you're sitting on your sitting bones - just the way you would be in your rans saddle. now lean forward to grab those drop bars. your hips can't rock you forward to extend your torso. all you can do is fold right in the middle. feel how your stomach presses into your lap. try to take a deep breath. no room for your diaphragm to expand. dang.

obviously, i've never ridden one. i'm just commenting on a photo. i hope i'm wrong about this one. it's hard to accept that my favorite company could make such a mess. but then i look at some of their nearly-flat-on-your-back ultra-recumbents and think it's not that unlikely after all...

stacking the deck

this is really part two of "okay, why?" i'm going to talk a bit more about why i'm dedicated to getting more people out of their cars and onto safe, comfortable, body-sustaining bikes.

i'll start here: portland, OR has a robust and dedicated cycling community already. in fact you'll find us at or near the top of any list of bike-able cities. a quick websearch even turned this up: #2 for the whole dang world. there are already tons of programs and organizations and things like bike lanes and bus/bike options to make it easy for you to step out of your car.

what i'm adding to the wealth that's already there is information about how upright riding can get you over some barriers to cycling. i guess i should talk about that in another post because i've already gone way off topic.

what i meant to talk about is what i perceive to be the dark side of our flourishing cycling culture. an anecdote: once i was asked to participate in an email interview that was to be published in some online journal. one question posed was: "what’s the one thing Portland drivers should know about bike commuters?" my answer: "don't trust them!" i went on to talk about how portland cyclists often fail to follow traffic rules and more or less dare cars not to hit them. pretty sure the interview was not published...

first, a guess: because cycling is so easy here, many people are only (or at least primarily) cyclists. they may never have passed a driving test and may not know the rules. second, many cyclists i've talked to believe that they are above the law and owed the road. because they're, like, saving the world or whatever.

so, my selfish reason for getting you out of your car and into the bike lane is that i'm trying to stack the deck with riders who know and respect the rules. it's sad and ridiculous that i feel more nervous surrounded by bikes than by cars.

something to prove

i do have something in common with those spandex-clad bike jockeys and even those "fixie" hipsters bent on shredding their hips and knees: we ride fast because we have something to prove.

i have guesses about what they have to prove. the road bikers go fast to prove to themselves that those $2000 rims were a good investment. the track bike hipsters are proving that despite the fact that they don't wear helmets or have brakes they are still faster than death.

and i have this to prove: comfortable doesn't mean slow. i'm rolling a 27lb bike on 26" 100psi wheels with a not-particularly-aerodynamic upright torso. and i still pass at the very least 4 (but probably more like 6 or 7) commuters for every one that passes me. just wait 'til i get that Zenetik pro!

testimonial

it should be obvious that i'm preaching here. so when i read something like amy jo's comment to the "okay, why?" post: "inspiring me to get a new bike.... ", i have to shout "hallelujah!"

anyway, this reminded me of another moment a year or so ago. i was on my way up to coventry cycles to test ride what was to become just about my favorite bike ever. joyfully, on the way, i ran into a good friend i don't see nearly enough of. she agreed to go with me and ended up test riding a RANS Fusion ST alongside my RANS Zenetik. just a few pedals into the test she exclaimed "i think i'm in love!"

look ma, no training wheels!

this has little to do with upright, but everything to do with cycling: i'm excited to report that my two four-and-a-half-year-old daughters are competent training wheel-less riders! i'm almost confident enough to let them try the morning commute to pre-school on just two wheels.


we already scored a second-hand hot pink electra crank-forward bike for my older daughter to grow into. if you see another out there in used bike land, let me know! we need a matched set.

(it looks like this, only much pinker.)

okay, why?

the easy answer would be "i'm prone to proselytize". but that's way too easy (and way too obvious to anyone who knows me). so here're the real answers:

why the bikes? the bike is my insurance policy. my theory is that if i use my body the way it was designed i will never succumb to all the usual cycling wear-and-tear/repetitive injuries. i'll be riding as comfortably when i'm 90 as i am today. i'll just be a little less speedy...

why the blog? that's the real question, yeah? i mean, why should anyone else care about this? well, first i hope to inspire current riders to think about their bodies. i hope that the people that are already dedicated to going by bike will continue to do so into their twilight years.

but even more than that, i hope this blog is read and enjoyed by people who don't believe cycling is for them. i want people to see that this isn't only the pursuit of kamikaze bike messengers and spandex-clad tour de france emulators. a few "what ifs" for these folks to consider: what if sitting in the saddle of your bike was as comfortable as sitting in your office chair? what if you never had to go to the gym again because commuting was your workout? what if you could ride with your head held high, in a position to see all that traffic moving around you? what if you didn't have to be an athlete already to consider cycle commuting?

that's really the deal. if i get one person out of her car and into the bike lane, this blog is successful.

things i think i know, part 2

things i think i know about bicycles (and how those things relate to human bodies)

most bicycles put the human body in a position it was not evolved for. the body is moved out of a neutral, at-rest position and muscles and joints are engaged in ways contrarary to their design. in addition to the ways this affects the body posture and parts (detailed in part 1), most bikes provide some other disservices. i'll list some of the differences in the way a body makes use of upright bikes vs more common bike designs.

• sitting on the sitting bones with an upright spine allows a greater range of motion in the neck and therefore better ability to see what's going on around you. a standard diamond-frame necessitates lifting the head up toward the back. a recumbent bike forces a tucking of the head toward the chest. both actions limit the neck's mobility.
• placing the pedals too directly below or too far away from the pelvis forces a rocking off of the sitting bones. i'll split this up into two seperate bullets:
• standard diamond frames, "cruiser" frames, and most all frames on "comfort" bikes place the pedals close to below the pelvis. this forces the body into two potential positions, both of which rest the weight of the body on the perineum. either (on a road or mountain bike) the spine is pitched forward toward the handlebars resulting in weight bearing and shock absorbing via the hands, wrists, arms and shoulders. the neck is also forced to hold the head aloft. or (on a cruiser or comfort bike) the handlebars are higher and closer to the saddle. the body cannot lean forward, so instead the lower back arches to compensate.
• many recumbents have the opposite effect. the pedals are often very far forward and much higher in relation to the pelvis. this causes the pelvis to rock back onto the tailbone. it also forces the neck to tuck the head in toward the chest.

things i think i know, part 1

things i think i know about human bodies (and how those things relate to bicycles)

• humans are upright bipeds.  our spines point our skulls right up at the sky.  we are not stooped-over knuckle-walkers like other apes.  our bikes should allow our bodies to work the way they are built: upright with spines and skulls pointed to the sky.
• the delicate bones in the hands and wrists are designed to grasp and manipulate objects.  they are not designed to bear the weight of our torsos nor act as shock absorbers.  our bikes should not put our bodies in a position that places weight on the hands and wrists and forces the shock of every bump we encounter to be absorbed by our hands, wrists, arms and shoulders.
• there is a part of the human body that is designed to be sat on.  it is not the perineum.  our bikes should not pitch our bodies forward off our sitting bones.
• our heads weigh as much as a bowling ball.  our necks are desinged to balance that weight up on top of our spinal column.  our bikes should not pitch our bodies forward and force our necks into the position of hoisting upward that bowling ball.