A dry February, besides increasing my despair at the prospect of even more Spartan water rationing come summer, fooled me into thinking that my ever-expanding collection of raingear was a waste of money. Well, no worries now! Since the beginning of March we’ve gotten over 11 inches of rain here in Contra Costa. Besides making garden plans more than pipe dreams, it’s been a great way to test some new raingear.

Showers Pass Spring Classic. My new BFF for jackets is the Showers Pass Spring Classic. This is Showers Pass’s new jacket for 2016 and it is significantly lighter and less “backpacky” than their previous high-end model, the Elite. Showers Pass happened to have a sale just before the rains restarted and mine arrived the day it began to rain in earnest. So it was immediately put into service. Like most of Showers Pass’s other jackets the Spring Classic is made of a three-layer breathable yet waterproof fabric similar to Gore-Tex or E-Vent; the seams are fully taped. There are two long, zippered side vents and a small zippered back neck vent. What distinguishes this jacket from SP’s others is the fit and weight: it’s definitely trim fitting and intended to be worn over just a base layer or at most a jersey and baselayer. It’s intended for “performance” riding and the fit is on-the-bike, i.e. the front seems slightly short until you sit on your bike and the arms are the correct length for being on the bars, i.e. they don’t pull up and expose your wrists. The cuffs are elastic and can be pulled over gloves so that water doesn’t pour into them. This jacket does not rustle in the wind and make a racket, which is nice.

It is noticeably light especially for a three-layer waterproof garment so much so that it’s doesn’t have that characteristic rustling sound when you move. The Spring Classic is over 100 grams lighter than SP’s previous top-of-the-line jacket, coming in around 300 grams. It’s also easy to roll up and stuff in a rear jersey pocket.

I use a SP Transit jacket when I’m on tour. In comparison the Transit is cut much, much bigger and allows for more clothing–and even a Camelbak–to be worn underneath. It’s equally waterproof but much heavier and impossible to stuff in a jersey pocket (hence the Camelbak!). The Spring Classic is a different beast altogether—it’s more portable with a race-cut fit for ease of donning and taking off yet it’s good enough to wear all day.

I’ve found this jacket to be completely waterproof regardless of the torrent. If water intrudes it will be either from it dripping down your neck or from the vents being open–actually I’ve not had either problem—and not from the fabric or seams.

But that doesn’t mean I’ve stayed dry. Like all three-layer waterproof garments the breathability of the Spring Classic can be overwhelmed when you’re working and sweating hard, and those vents suddenly become necessary. In the low 60s, this jacket is almost too warm for medium efforts and I find the vents must be fully open. Fortunately the design of the side vents is such that I’ve experienced little wetness intruding. When the temp is in the 50s the Spring Classic starts to feel more comfortable at effort; it’s too late in the year to try it in the 40s but I imagine that overwhelming its breathability would be very hard in that range.

It comes in black or red; obviously the black version hides filth more easily but the red is much more visible. The list cost is $289—ouch!—but I got it on sale.

Shower Pass CrossPoint Softshell Gloves. I’ve also been trying out Showers Pass new Crosspoint Softshell Waterproof gloves. I’ve said in the past that there is no such thing as a waterproof cycling glove. Showers Pass has proven me wrong—these gloves are indeed completely free of water intrusion. But the waterproof membrane, Outdry, doesn’t seem to breathe at all and my hands always have ended up soaking wet from sweat. Perhaps if the temperature were lower I wouldn’t have encountered this conundrum. But 50s and 60s are pretty typical temps in the Bay Area and I suspect they are really going to be used regularly on colder days or on days when I’m noodling along. If the temperature isn’t too cold I find it is more comfortable just to wear glove liners underneath regular cycling gloves and let the hands get soaked. The Crosspoint gloves cost $80. Not worth it in my experience.

Assos Sturmnuss Knickers. As for the lower body I have been wearing Assos’ expensive Sturmnuss knickers. These babies are $339 list, which is absurd regardless of how good they are. But they are good. For rainwear Assos subscribes to the belief that waterproof breathable membranes are not good enough for hard cycling—you will always end up sweating up a storm, so it’s better to be aim for increased breathability at the expense of sheer waterproofness. I have not had any water intrusion nor dampness caused by sweating. But they aren’t perfect. First, they are intended to go over your shorts or tights, which means that for changing conditions you have to stop to put them on or off. The leg holes are just big enough for me to get my clodhopper touring shoes with covers through them but your experience might differ. If you have to take off your booties to get these knickers on, then that would be a significant inconvenience. That’s why I usually prefer to use Rainlegs because they can be rolled up or down easily and quickly, and since I ride with fenders it doesn’t matter that they only cover the tops of my legs. Second, they are roomy around the thighs, which is good for unhindered movement, but they look like like MC Hammer’s harem pants only in black. Third, since they’re knickers they don’t cover your lower legs, which isn’t a problem per se since you don’t lose a lot of warmth in that area anyway. But the water pouring down your legs ends up going into your booties or shoe covers if you’re out in the rain for an extended time. That is the advantage of rain pants—they go over the tops of your shoes so water isn’t given the opportunity to compromise them. But knickers do keep you cooler and that reduces your sweating inside the knickers. You’ll have to decide whether you can live with wet shoes. That said, as with gloves I’ve never found a shoe cover or bootie that truly keeps my feet dry. It doesn’t matter what it’s made of—GoreTex, neoprene, PU—they all leak. They only differ in how long before they let water in. If you’re out in the rain for just an hour, no problem. But if you ride for two or more hours, your feet are going to get damp, period. With the Assos knickers you’ll probably find that your feet get wetter just a little faster. Still it’s better than if you didn’t have any rain pants at all; if you just had shorts then everything, feet included, would get wet very quickly.

Final verdict: The Showers Pass Spring Classic jacket is extraordinary and although not quite perfect (I wish it would breathe even more) it is an improvement on their previous jackets, which set the mark for rain jackets. But they are best for cool conditions. The Showers Pass Crosspoint gloves are mediocre. They are indeed waterproof but they don’t breathe so you end up having wet (but warm) hands. The Assos Sturmnuss rain knickers are almost the Holy Grail—waterproof, light, totally breathable—but are very expensive and are not easy to put on or take off if the weather changes.

For more information:

Showers Pass: www.showerspass.com

Assos: www.assos.com

A few months ago while wandering the aisles of our local Safeway I spotted some pouches that looked like large GU gels. They weren’t sports food at all—they were baby food. In my mind baby food is inextricably linked to Gerber’s little glass jars. But now they’ve grown up and are available in easy-to-open screw top pouches—rather than tear-off—making them much easier to carry, open, and use. My curiosity was piqued: could these be a better on-the-road food than Clif bars or gels? I’ve come to hate Clif bars and gels and use them only because I’m too lazy to prepare anything else for on-the-road eating. As a consequence when I’m riding alone I rarely eat anything regardless of the length of the ride. (But if I’m riding with others, then it’s a great excuse to stop somewhere very nice for a good, long lunch!) I’ve got enough fat on my body to fuel me for a very long ride so it merely becomes a question of whether I mind slowing down or eating something repulsive like a Clif bar and then maybe going faster.

The pouches I saw happened to be Earth’s Best Organic Baby Food Puree although Gerber’s—and I’m sure all baby food companies now—sell their food in pouches as well. Earth’s Best are organic, GMO free, and vegan friendly. We bought a couple, an orange banana and a banana blueberry. They sat in the cupboard for a couple of months until I realized they actually had a short expiration date and I’d better use them fast. The bottom line: they definitely taste better than gels or bars because they’re real food, just pureed. For example, the Orange Banana consists of organic bananas and orange juice concentrate. And because they’re pureed food, specifically fruit, they aren’t thick or dry concoctions that need voluminous slugs of water to get down your craw. After all they are intended for babies! So they taste good and they’re very easy to swallow. They also come in a huge variety of fruit and vegetable combinations, 28 (!) in all. I liked them so well that I bought a box of 12 from Amazon.

So what’s the drawback? Cost-wise they’re about the same as a Clif bar. But these are real food, so the pouches are definitely heavier and not as calorie dense. The only way you’re going to get 100 calories in a tiny 1.2 oz. gel pack like a Clif Shot is to take as much water out of it and use industrial food products like maltodextrin and dried cane syrup. Earth’s Best pouches are 4 oz. and contain only about 90 calories. A Clif bar weights 2.4 oz. and has 260 calories or about three of these Earth’s Best pouches. But if you want the light weight of a bar made out of organic brown rice syrup, well, you’re stuck eating Clif bars or some such dreck. Baby food is easier to slug down and you don’t have to wash it down with water. Plus, it’s yummy.

For more information: Earth’s Best Infant Puree Pouches

Like most recreational cyclists I studiously ignored the nascent appearance of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, on our shores. I preferred to propel myself down the road, thank you very much. Using an electric bicycle seemed like another incarnation of laziness and of not knowing what to do with too much money. E-bikes also were oriented towards the commuter and ‘transpo’ crowd, and there it has some semblance of a rationale: you could commute to work and not arrive so sweaty that your funk would repel your coworkers, or for example if you wanted to haul your kid to Rooftop Elementary up Twin Peaks, you could use the electric assist.

In Europe electric bicycles, although still a small yet distinct portion of overall bike use, have been growing by leaps and bounds. Over the years Roger and I have seen them go from rare Bigfoot-like spottings to steady and regular appearances both in the cities and the countryside. Three years ago outside of Bern, Switzerland we ran into a group from Zurich, all of them on e-bikes. They were on rental ‘pedelecs’—electric bikes that you must pedal to get a power assist (i.e. no throttle)—and having a holiday in the hilly countryside east of Lake Geneva. They didn’t appear to be couch potatoes nor were they dressed in cycling drag: they were just regular city folk. When we stopped together at a cheese-making farm in Affolterm for lunch, I took the opportunity to chat with them about their bikes. They weren’t on anything special, some urban style bike with upright bars and a gear train, probably nine gears in back. They explained that they were out doing daily tours and that if they had to use regular bicycles they would never be able to do the distances or hills that they were covering and consequently see and experience so much less of the beautiful countryside. They said if you run down the battery on the bike, you are able to exchange it at train stations for fully recharged units and keep on riding. Apparently this zone of Switzerland had infrastructure that allowed for easy battery exchange—Elon Musk would be envious. Of course if you run the battery down, then you’re on pedal power only and since the bikes run about 50 pounds, that’s a lot of weight to lug around. But at least you can make it back to town.

After lunch we set off together and I was able to see them in action. They definitely were pedaling to get around and they were enjoying the countryside. In fact they loved to stop and take pictures of the spectacular views of the area. And, they were out doing something for exercise. At that point it sunk into my head that e-bikes wasn’t cheating at all: they were liberating devices. These folks were able to do something healthy and pleasurable that they very likely would not have done otherwise.

Roger loves his e-bike. As I mentioned previously, a couple of years ago he started having health setbacks. The result was that he was not just going slower but struggling much of the time. Rides were becoming exhausting efforts. No amount of training was likely to bring him back to his former level. The e-bike allows him to do all the riding he used to do and enjoy at the speeds he used to do (and faster!) at a power output he is able to sustain.

I don’t know of any other e-bike users in the club but I do know that the Den Daddy is actively searching for one. Maybe we should set up a Different Spokes subsection: Electric Spokes! Derek is in his eighties and still actively rides throughout Contra Costa. But he claims he can’t do hills anymore and thinks an e-bike will be of great help, and he is exactly right. However it is a bit ironic since the last few times I’ve ridden with Derek he has zoomed on the flats at close to 20 mph. I don’t doubt that he isn’t enjoying the hills anymore and he’s probably comparing himself to the way he used to ride, which I know from my own personal experience can be demoralizing. If he succeeds in finding a mount he likes, I think he’ll take to it like a fish to water. And he’ll be kicking your butt not just on the flats but the hills too. (You better hope his battery dies before you do!)

Speaking of kicking butt, Bill Bushnell, one of our former Ride Coordinators (but unfortunately no longer a member) rides an electric recumbent. If you rode with Bill back in the day you know that holding his wheel was difficult. Then he got a recumbent and it became almost impossible. Then he faired his recumbent and it was impossible! Well, Bill developed a health issue that cut his power and made riding more and more problematic. His solution was to electrify his recumbent. He still rides incredible mileage and does rides that would destroy you or me. If there were ever a poster child for the potential benefit of e-bikes for recreational cyclists Bill would be it.

The future development of e-bikes in the US is going to be very interesting. No doubt the majority of purchasers will continue to be very casual cyclists who just want to get from point A to point B without much effort. But with Boomers and Gen-X cyclists getting on in years there is another market to be tapped. Aging recreational cyclists no longer have to resign themselves to going slower and slower. Instead they can harness the power of an e-bike to keep going at the same pace they used to and/or to continue to do the big rides. For e-bikes to catch on with this crowd they’ll need to evolve in a slightly different direction to appeal to those enamored with carbon fiber and drop bars rather than your typical city bike with upright bars, a kickstand, and fat tires. We are just now beginning to see the appearance of that kind of e-bike, designed for fast road riding rather than commuting. The cost is already up there already because e-bikes aren’t cheap—you have to pay for the motor and an expensive lithium battery. For example Specialized’s top-end e-bike, the Turbo—which is a city bike—is now $7,000! It’s a piece of art and certainly Apple-esque in its suave mien but you’re still stuck with a boat anchor with flat bars. Admittedly weight is less an issue for an e-bike since the extra watts to propel that poundage can come from a battery rather than your paltry quads. From a design perspective e-bikes for this crowd will have to look and ride like what they’re used to riding: carbon fiber Venges, C60s, and Dogmas. Whether that’s to be able to hide the fact that you’re using ‘mechanical doping’ or because our esthetic sensibility has recentered around aero-superduper carbon bikes, it really doesn’t matter because that lithium battery and motor allow a drab city e-bike to drop every Pinarello in sight. Yet we know what a real bike is supposed to look like, so damn it, make one that looks like a Pro Tour bike even if it does weigh 50 pounds. When e-bike manufacturers catch on, look out! You’re going to be seeing a lot of e-bikes in the Bay Area. Maybe even under me.

UPDATE (2/2): Perhaps the marketing elves have been hard at work as I wrote. This bike checks all the boxes for a carbon e-bike: http://road.cc/content/tech-news/177447-first-look-€10000-typhoon-e-assist-packs-250w-hidden-motor

The details are sketchy but it looks like the Typhoon is not a pedelec: power assist is by throttle. Note for whom this bike is aimed: “The Typhoon clearly isn’t aimed at professionals, but wealthy cyclists that want a little assistance on the hills or for keeping up with fitter friends. The three modes mean you can get just a little bit of assistance, enough to help if struggling to keep up and about to be dropped from the group. Is there any problem with an amateur cyclist using such a bike, if it helps them to ride more, as long as it’s not used for racing?”

Weight is about 8 kg., or 17.6 lbs. It’s yours for just $11,000!

If you were on the Mt. Hamilton ride, Turkey Burn 2, or a recent Social ride, you may have noticed that Roger was riding an electric bike. It’s a ‘pedelec’—he must pedal in order to get any electric assist. If he doesn’t pedal, then the bike doesn’t move. The bike isn’t light: it’s about 50 lbs. And it isn’t a fancy racing bike: it has upright bars and looks like a commuter bike. He can set the amount of assist, from none to ‘turbo’, but he usually has it set on the lowest setting, ‘eco’. He was able to ride to two miles short of the summit of Mt. Hamilton before his battery finally conked out. For the record that was about 20 miles and well over 4,000 ft. of elevation gain. When it died, he just swapped out the battery for a second fully charged one that he was carrying on the back, and that was more than enough to get him to the top and back down to the start. On the way up he wasn’t trying to spare the battery, as he spent a fair amount of time in the next higher setting, ‘sport’, which of course drained the battery at a higher rate. Under flatter circumstances Roger has been able to get over 50 miles on one battery, making completing a century on an e-bike within the realm of possibility.

Getting the e-bike has transformed Roger’s riding. A couple of years ago he started having health setbacks that reduced his power and endurance. Coupled with just getting on in years meant he was not just going slower but struggling on rides we used to do without any issues. Rides that he had done previously that were enjoyable were becoming exhausting struggles to be survived rather than relished. No amount of training was likely to bring him back to his former level. After much hemming and hawing he went down and demoed a Haibike pedelec and was sold on the idea despite having no other experience than a ten-minute demo ride. He’s now had it about four months and he’s able to do all of our former rides more easily and is back to enjoying riding.

Like most recreational cyclists I viewed the appearance of electric bikes as an aberration. Wasn’t the point of cycling to put move by your own effort? If you were using an e-bike, it must have been so you would not have to exercise. Since e-bikes are primarily aimed at commuters and so-called casual cyclists, that actually makes a lot of sense. If you’re want to get to work more quickly than walking would do and you don’t like to ride Muni, then an e-bike is a viable option: you don’t have to work up a sweat if you don’t want to and you have extra power when you’re hauling your groceries home with you. Oh, and it makes going up San Francisco’s hills tolerable.

But for recreational cycling what would be the point? In Roger’s case using an e-bike hasn’t prevented him from exercising at all. To the contrary it has re-enabled him to cycle. He gets the same workout but the experience is different: he’s able to go faster yet keep his effort below the top of his range where he used to spend an unhealthy amount of time. The result is that he finishes his rides pleasantly tired and not wiped out as he has been. Going up hills is still hard but he’s going up them at a faster clip, which also makes the entire experience more enjoyable and less frustrating. The result is that he’s riding more than ever and actually getting more exercise than before.

If we cycle long enough in years, we are going to get slower: that is a certainty. It’s an inevitable byproduct of aging. There is only so much that training can do, and in any case who wants to train incessantly? E-bikes are another way to keep going albeit not entirely dependent on our own effort. Here’s a thought: instead of viewing e-bikes as cheating, we should see the benefit that they afford all of us who are getting on in years: to age gracefully on the bike and to allow us to do something we dearly love.

January 1 allows us all to wipe the slate clean and start anew, to do a reset. What of 2016? Undoubtedly some of you are already dreaming of new cycling exploits for the coming year. It could be as simple as planning how to ride more often or as aspirational as completing (another?) AIDS LifeCycle or going on a cross-country tour. From small things, big things follow. That plan to ride one more day during the week or get on your trainer when it’s wet and cold outside just might lead to completing your first century!

I rode less in 2015 than I had initially thought I would but it wasn’t because “life got in the way”. In fact it was just the opposite: I was living my life and cycling just didn’t figure as prominently a role as it had in prior years. I hadn’t gotten tired of cycling or was burned out: it just seemed the right move to ride less and devote some time to “the rest of my life.” Ironically an important influence was the state of Different Spokes. Although I had been concerned about the imbalance in our Ride Calendar and had commented on it, i.e. that we weren’t offering as many easier, social rides as we had back in the day, I hadn’t done much about it. I was part of the “problem”: I too liked to ride fast and hard too and didn’t want to lead rides that I wouldn’t normally do. I figured that those who wanted to do less challenging rides would step forward and lead them. When that didn’t come true, I decided I’d stop being such a hypocrite and start leading slower, social rides. Last year we had a very good turnout overall, so Roger and I are looking forward to offering at least one social A-paced ride per month in 2016. That’s a long way of saying that doing those Social A rides was so enjoyable that I started to back off from the harder rides I liked to do. Now I’d much rather go out and schmooze on a ride than do another solo training ride. Plus, stopping for a great lunch is always much more pleasurable than wolfing down a Clif bar. I hope that more of you will join us this year.

An inevitable part of aging is being witness to your own physical changes (usually declining) as well as that of your larger social circle. I have a cousin whose wife is living with late stage Alzheimer’s, and he’s not the only one I know in this situation. I also have friends and family dealing with chronic, debilitating pain; Parkinson’s; and cancer among other ailments. It’s a reminder that being able to swing a leg over your bike and go for a ride, let alone being healthy, is a gift. Even if it turns out that you aren’t able to fulfill all your hopes for 2016, just get on your bike, go for a ride, and experience the joy that only rolling down the road on two wheels can provide.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but bicycle manufacturers now have model years in emulation of cars, computers, and clothing. So the upgrade and ‘new features’ propaganda is in full swing for the 2016 model year. If you’ve been cycling for a while, you may have noticed a subtle change in road bikes on the showroom floor. I’m not talking about electronic shifting—I’m referring to the disappearance of triple cranksets. Shimano, the largest of the three international component manufacturers, has been gradually yet inexorably phasing out triple road cranks and has just started the same process on its mountain bike chainsets. Shimano used to offer a Dura Ace triple crankset but it vanished in 2008; its second road tier, Ultegra, kept the triple until its revision to eleven-speed two years ago; this year the third tier, 105, dropped the triple. If you want a triple road crankset from Shimano, you now have to drop down to Tiagra, which is also ten- rather than eleven-speed (not that that’s a bad thing, mind you).

Campagnolo has never offered a triple in its top-of-the-line Super Record group but it did have a Record triple for a number of years. Campy ended that at about the same time as Shimano killed the DA triple. Campy continues to sell a triple in its Athena line, which is fourth tier. SRAM has never offered a triple road crank and is going in the opposite direction by instead marketing a single chainring systems (“One ring to rule them all”) for road bikes.

On the mountain bike side Shimano continues to offer an XTR triple but the writing is on the wall: it’s pushing the XTR double and a single-ring chainset to compete with SRAM’s XX single-ring set up. If the demand for triple cranksets is diminishing, it is mostly due to the relentless marketing emphasis on racing. That’s too bad because triple cranks have advantages for the recreational cyclist, whose needs are not the same as the racers’.

Two developments have made it possible to ride a double chainset and get a reasonable range of gears. Compact double chainsets—50-34 or 52-36 combinations instead of the race standard 53-39—allow gear development (i.e. gear-inches) into the mid-30s with older cassettes (historically a 11- or 12-27 cassette). Now with eleven speed cassettes we are seeing wider ranges such as 11-32 that allow even lower gearing but without sacrificing reasonable jumps between gears. A smaller front chainring along with a bigger rear cog means we’re finally seeing road gearing getting down into mountain bike territory and low enough to replicate the gearing you’d get from a triple crank with the previous smaller cassettes: a 34 front/32 rear yields an approximate ratio of 29 gear-inches. That’s just a hair lower than the old triple combination of 30 front/27 rear (= 30 gear-inches) of a Shimano triple system.

Given all this why would you bother with a triple crank? It has more weight than a compact double and in theory more complicated front shifting yet the gear range is no different. For those who live in flatter parts of the world, the gear range provided by triple chainsets (or wide range compact doubles) is completely unnecessary anyway—no one is screaming for super low gears in Indiana for example. But in Northern California wide range gearing makes sense unless you deliberately want to restrict your road riding to less mountainous routes. In just about any part of the Bay Area there are steep and/or long climbs—Mt. Diablo, Hicks Road, Tunitas Creek, Mtn. Charlie to name just a few (and those are just the paved ones). Lots of cyclists use triples on less frightening climbs such as Palomares or Mt. Tam. A few years ago I was chatting with one of the principals of a local bike shop about the disappearance of triple cranks and he made the same comment: riding the local hills and Mt. Diablo just made more sense on a triple.

Even with wide-range compact double set-ups the gearing isn’t always low enough. That might strike some of you as absurd: “You need a gear ratio lower than 30 gear-inches? You must be ready for a wheelchair!” But there are local ascents where an even lower gear is helpful, if not necessary, for survival: Hicks Road in Campbell has a solid mile at 14% as does Gates Road in Napa, and Mix Canyon is over 16%. Even on lesser grades a gear lower than 30 gear-inches will reduce the load on your thighs and allow you to spin a more comfortable gear. Of course if you’re also carrying stuff (or have additional “cargo” around your waist), then the imperative for low gearing is even more urgent.

But it’s not just about range: with a triple you can use a smaller cassette, say a 12-28 rather than an 11-32, and have smaller (and thus smoother) jumps between gears for the same range as a compact double. My ‘sweet spot’ for riding seems to be 76 to 47 gear-inches—I do the majority of my cruising in that range. On a triple these gear ratios are conveniently all in the middle chainring. But on a compact double my preferred range is split down the middle between the big and small chainrings. So I find myself doing a lot of double shifting to stay in that range, say from a 50×23 to 34×17 to get the next ratio. It’s just easier to click up and down the cassette on a 42 or 39 middle chainring. On my triple crank bike the big ring is used primarily for descents and fast flat riding and the granny is used infrequently but it comes in very handy for long, tough ascents (e.g. Hicks). The middle ring is where I do most of my cycling. This division of labor works really well for me and probably does for many other recreational cyclists.

If you have a tandem, then the absence of a triple option is an even more depressing development. Climbing on a tandem is just harder and low gears are not a luxury but a necessity. You need really big gears for the descents and the really low gears for the climbs. There’s nothing more debilitating and demoralizing than having to do a long ascent on a tandem and being over-geared. Roger and I have a 28 granny and a 34 rear cog (= 22 gear-inches) and it’s tolerable for moderate ascents, up to about 8% grade, and plain suffering at anything more challenging (Note: for the record we have ridden the tandem up ascents like the Covadonga in Spain and the Rossfelder Panoramastrasse in Germany that are much longer and steeper.) If you’re doing loaded touring, well, forget about finding a road triple unless you drop down to Tiagra or Athena. (You’re probably better off with a mountain bike triple if you’re really carrying a lot of gear.) So for those markets the loss of the road triple is exasperating.

What I’ve found irritating about the compact double besides having to double-shift frequently is the extreme chain angles it requires. I end up a lot in the big-big and small-small (or near big-big, near small-small) gearing to be in my preferred gears. At those angles even with a well-lubricated chain there is often a lot of noise. In addition depending on how well set up the drivetrain is, the small-small combinations can lead to the chain rubbing on the inside of the big chainring producing even more noise. Annoying!

There are three oft cited negatives of triple cranks: weight, finicky front shifting, and greater Q factor. There is no doubt that a triple crankset is heavier. But the total difference in weight is on the order of 150 to 200 grams at most, i.e. just a half pound—this is essentially a meaningless weight difference. As for finicky front shifting, I’ve found Shimano triple front derailleurs to be quite good and I’ve never had problems with them. It’s possible to drop a chain on any chainset but the compact double with its 50 to 34 jump—seems to be especially prone and I’ve certainly observed that often on group rides. Plus, with the compact double you’re doing a lot more front shifting. A greater Q factor means a wider stance. The virtues of a narrow or wider Q are individual; some fitters claim the narrower Q leads to less loading of the medial side of the knee and hence less likelihood of injury. But the optimal Q depends on the individual’s particular morphology and most of us switch effortlessly between road bikes and mountain bikes, where triples until recently had been the norm, so the argument is academic rather than real.

Face it: we are going to be stuck with whatever is on the showroom floor and that means compact double chainsets and no triples. A look at any brand’s 2016 catalog is going to show a near complete absence of triple crank road bikes. Perhaps that’s good for component manufacturers since it reduces their tooling and development costs. But it’s not necessarily good for recreational cyclists—tolerable maybe but not good.

If you’re interested in triple cranks or want to keep using them in the future, you should pray that Campy and Shimano continue to produce at least some road triple systems even if they are second-rate. There are also several small companies that continue to produce triple cranks, e.g. Sugino, TA, Velo Orange, Compass. But you won’t be able to find a triple front shifter or front derailleur unless you give up indexed shifting (and obviously electronic shifting too since no one makes an electronic shifting system for road triples). It’s always possible to get a third-party triple crank, buy a third-party triple front derailleur (e.g. Interloc), and use bar-end shifters. Personally that’s a big jump because I’ve been using indexed shifting since forever and love it. Where does that leave cyclists like me? Well, praying for one thing—praying that Shimano reverses course at some point and produces the road triple again in their higher end groups. But road cyclists seem to be drinking the compact double Kool Aid without protest and so I suspect we are indeed witnessing the eventual demise of the road triple. My back up plan is to stock up on road triples for when my current parts wear out. I guess that makes me a retrogrouch “survivalist”!

Water bottles are a cheap accessory usually running between $4 and $10, and unless you’re using a pack hydration system such as Camelbak’s, a necessary one for longer rides. The Camelbak Podium Ice bottle sells for $25. What in the world would justify a premium price for an item that we use without a thought, mistreat callously, and dispose of as quickly as last week’s boyfriend? The name gives it away: this is an insulated water bottle, which one will appreciate greatly in hot weather. Camelbak makes two insulated bottles, the Chill and the Ice. The former sells for $12 and claims to keep water cool “for twice as long.” The Ice ostensibly commands a premium price because your water is kept cold “4X longer!”

A little history: A few years ago Camelbak sold the Ice bottle and then after one season it mysteriously disappeared. I had bought both the Chill and the Ice and found the Ice to work better than the Chill. On a typical hot day I’d fill the bottles with cube ice and cold water, and an hour later all the ice in the Chill bottle would be melted; in the Ice bottle it would last about 45 minutes longer. So, that’s not “4x longer” but almost. But as we all know, size matters and Camelbak sold the Ice only in a 21 oz size whereas the Chill came in both 21 and 24 oz. So I mostly used the Chill.

Riding in Contra Costa County in the summertime can get hot—often over 90 degrees—and having a cold sip is so much more refreshing than a tepid one. I was dreaming of a 24 oz (or bigger!) Ice bottle. Unfortunately Camelbak stopped selling them, and subsequently I found out that the insulating material that Camelbak used in the Ice bottle was no longer available, which is why production ceased. Darn. Well, at least we had a few Chill bottles and one small Ice bottle.

A couple of weeks ago we were wandering through REI and what do I spot but a new Ice bottle. I’m not sure what insulation was used before but now Camelbak is using Aerogel, an extremely light material, and it works very well. The Ice bottle still holds just 21 oz of fluid (a standard water bottle holds 20 oz) but it has the size of a typical 24 oz water bottle; all that extra space must be the insulation. The Chill still comes in either 21 or 24 oz sizes, and there still is no 24 oz Ice bottle. Now seeing the size of the current Ice bottle (the previous model was quite a bit smaller), I can’t imagine how you’d fit a 24 oz version on your bike: imagine the difficulty prying that thing out of your bottle cage. It would have to be the size of a typical Thermos! That must be the reason Camelbak doesn’t make a larger Ice. So if you want the additional cooling power of the Ice, you’re stuck with 21 oz, which is only slightly more than a small water bottle. If you need to carry a larger bottle, then you’re stuck getting a Chill, which isn’t a bad thing, just not as good as the Ice is. At least with the Chill you pay less, $12 for the 20 oz bottle and $15 for the 24 oz.

Yesterday we went for a ride out to Danville. It was in the mid- to high-80s. I filled both the old and new Ice bottles with cube ice and cold water. The new one lasted nearly the entire ride including a long coffee break at Peets, about 3 ½ hours total. I can’t recall when the old Ice bottle got warm but it was well before. I’d say that’s an improvement!

After years of drinking the Kool-Aid that tires should be as thin as possible and pumped to the maximum, we’re finally getting some sane discussion on suitable tires for recreational cyclists. When it came to road tires, thin was in and we liked them hard, rock hard. But we’re now learning that wider tires at lower pressure not only may be more comfortable but that this may actually be faster too. Rims are coming onto the market that are slightly wider than we’ve been used to, increasing the volume of air in the tire, which in turn allows you to lower the pressure without risking a pinch flat.

I’ve been riding a pair of HED Ardennes+ SL wheels for six months and finally feel comfortable making some comments about them. Most clincher rims are 19-20 mm wide but the Ardennes+ rims are 25 mm. In other words they’re extra wide, wider than most road clinchers made today, or at least clinchers intended for speed and nimbleness rather than durability and touring. Wide rims are common in super-cheap wheels intended for neglect and abuse but they’re distinctly rare in racing and performance riding. So, the Ardennes+ manages to be very light: the stated weight is 1502 g. Even if this is exaggerated a bit–and wheel weights almost always are—these are still very light especially for such a fat rim. They certainly feel like it: I can accelerate them easily and they feel very similar to a pair of old Easton SLX 90 wheels, which were purported to weigh about 1420 g. If you’re not sure what your current wheels weigh and like most of us you’re riding a middle-of-the-line Specialized or Trek, your stock wheels are likely to be somewhere around 1700 to 2000 g. So, the Ardennes+ wheels are going to be quite a bit lighter than what you’re used to. For comparison a pair of Mavic Aksium wheels—aluminum rims and steel spokes and considered a relatively inexpensive upgrade from stock wheels—is supposed to weigh 1,735 g. My experience with Mavic rims and wheels is that their weights are always overstated. Nonetheless this gives you an idea how much lighter these HEDs will be than what you’re consider an upgrade wheelset: they’re 230 g lighter than the Aksiums. Well, that’s a half-pound you will feel every time you accelerate. Unfortunately the Ardennes+ wheels are not cheap. Well, almost no wheels are cheap these days but these are less cheap than most other wheels, $1,150 to be exact. (Note: I got a deal on mine so they were quite a bit less. Never pay full price!) Premium wheel prices are going through the roof these days—consider that Mavic’s top-of-the-line aluminum clincher, the R-Sys SLR, costs a mind-blowing $2,200. That’s right, over two grand for, my gawd, wheels with just aluminum rims. Zipp and Enve carbon clincher wheels go for as much as $3,000, and Campy Hyperons are almost, gasp, $4,000! Okay, now that’s just insane. Anyone who’s buying wheels that costly and who isn’t racing is just pulling a Walter Mitty. So, a thousand-plus bucks for a set of light wheels is kind of okay, right?

But as I mentioned, the selling point of these wheels–specifically the rims–is their unusual width rather than their weight. With its Ardennes wheels and Belgium rims, which are both 23 mm wide, HED broke from the narrow-is-better philosophy because their research showed that a wider rim for a standard 23 mm clincher tire smoothed airflow over the wheel by eliminating the ‘light bulb’ shape and replacing it with a smooth transition. The Ardennes+ widens it further to 25 mm. However it was neither for the weight nor the aerodynamics that I was interested in but rather in what the wider rim allows one to do with the tire pressure, which is to lower it quite a bit. In fact, I’ve been riding these wheels at 55-65 psi. That’s a tire pressure more like what you’d find on a cruiser bike than a road bike. Since the rims are slightly wider at 25 mm, I’ve been riding them with 25 mm Michelin Pro 3 tires. This gives an even plusher ride than 23 mm. tires. Michelins are known to run wider than their labeled sizing, and in this case the Pro 3’s measure out to 30 mm after sitting on the rims for a few weeks. That extra half-centimeter makes the ride positively buoyant. For added comfort I’ve put in latex instead of butyl tubes for their resiliency and compliance. And, at this width I could go even lower to around 47-57 psi according to Frank Berto.

If you’re worried that a fatter tire will mean more rolling resistance, never fear: it turns out that this trope isn’t always true either. Wider tires at the same tire pressure deform less, and the amount (and shape) of tire deformation are what determine rolling resistance.

It all works beautifully. Even at 55 psi. I’m in no danger of bottoming out the tires because the air volume is so huge. They have the smoothest ride I’ve ever experienced from a clincher tire, which goes to show that bigger volume tires with lower pressure are a real boon for clinchers as long as you’ve got the right rims. It’s a real pleasure to ride these wheels—they’ve got it all: light weight, super plush ride, precise feel, and they roll fast. You could always stick a wider tire on your existing rims and reduce the tire pressure in order to reap some comfort. But the advantages of a wider rim are the even bigger volume compared to a traditional rim, the increased sidewall support especially for high speed turns, and of course the better aerodynamics if you’re into that kind of thing.