What is a typical Different Spokes ride? A cursory glance at our ride calendar shows a variety of road rides, in fact only road rides. In 2014 there wasn’t a single mountain bike ride listed—all 108 rides were on the road. The shortest ride was the Three Bears at 23 miles led by Stephanie Clarke and the longest was an ALC Marshall Wall ride at 105 miles led by Joseph Collins. If you tally up the mileage for all the club rides in 2014, you’ll discover that the average length of a Different Spokes ride was 55 miles. The average terrain rating was 3.25, where 3 means “moderate hills with some challenges” and 4 means “hills, some steep climbs, with some relief”. In other words, the typical ride was a bit more than moderately hilly. Finally, the average pace was halfway between B and C, i.e. between “moderate” and “brisk”.

So, it appears the typical DSSF ride was a road ride with a B/C-3-55 rating. If you think about it, that kind of ride is beyond what most recreational cyclists would do on a regular basis. They might do a ride like that as a challenge, as something atypical and extraordinary but not as, say, a default ride. A little closer look at the details shows that of the 96 club rides (I didn’t include Jersey Rides because they have a varied rating depending on the route taken), 57 were B rides, 19 were C, 18 were D, and a measly 2 were A pace rides. Most the rides were listed as B very likely because that’s the “sweet spot” for rides, i.e. supposedly not too hard, not too easy. But well over a third of the rides were either C- or D-rated, i.e. for strong, fast cyclists. If you were looking for a leisurely ride, well, you had a grand choice of just two rides, Ron Hirsch’s Bike to Bakeries ride or the Fall Social Rosie the Riveter ride.

The apparent majority of B rides would lead you to think that most Different Spokes rides are at a moderate pace. But the number is deceptive because, in my experience, many of these rides attract quite a few strong riders and the average pace can actually be quite high. I suspect that there is also some subtle pressure on ride leaders to list their rides at B pace; we’re a small club and a ride that is listed as a B will likely attract more riders than a C or D ride. The B ride has become the default “everybody” ride and more people will show up because in unspoken DSSF culture an A ride is interpreted as “slow” and C or D is interpreted as “race pace”. But this subtext isn’t available to newcomers to the club so a first ride can end up being a slap in the face. On the positive side club B rides always have a few regroups so that slower and faster riders can regroup and hang out, albeit for a short time. But being “dropped” and riding alone might discourage a newcomer from attending another club ride. And, there aren’t slower rides they could try given the dearth of A rides.

Although I haven’t looked at other clubs’ ride listings in detail, I suspect that they have a similar distribution of rides, i.e there aren’t enough easier rides. For example, the Valley Spokesmen club recently sent out an email to its membership asking for more leisurely paced and no-drop rides listings. And this is from a club that is much larger than Different Spokes and even has a dedicated new/slower rider subgroup, the Feather Pedals. As I mentioned in a previous post, ride leaders are likely to be the avid recreational cyclists and the more dedicated club members. So, given their limited time for riding they’re going to list rides they want to do, which are rides at their ability level.

There are really two issues at play here. One issue is the type of rides offered—our ride calendar is slanted towards harder rides—and the other is an ‘accurate’ description in the ride listings. I’ve written at length on the former and the effect it has on some newcomers and slower riders, and here I want to focus on the latter. A ride that ends up having a pace faster than the listing has two effects. First, it introduces some uncertainty in the minds of those perusing the listings. Will that ride really be conducted at a B pace or will it be faster? Riders who can’t keep the pace don’t get to socialize as much or otherwise enjoy the company of LGBT riders if they’re off the back for most of the ride. Those persistent enough to return might, through time, figure out which ride leaders lead fast rides regardless of their advertised pace and avoid those rides, or they learn to enjoy socializing only at regrouping points. But most people would just stop coming on club rides and look elsewhere for socializing. Second, it “raises the floor” for other rides: ride leaders get used to a certain perceived pace as the “B” pace regardless of any objective measurement such as average speed or average speed on the flats. And, if the same people keep showing up and accepting the pace, then it becomes the de facto “B” pace. For ride leaders there is also herd mentality at play: ride leader X lists his rides as B rides and I can keep up with him, so I should list my rides at a B pace too.

The club ride code has morphed through time. Here is the old club ride code (circa 1980s):

Terrain

1 – Mostly flat, easy grades, suitable for beginners (25-miles Bike-A-Thon route, Sausalito bike path, Sawyer Camp Trail)

2 – Few low hills, a challenge (e.g. Cañada Road, Tiburon Loop)

3 – Moderately hilly, some challenge for the average rider (e.g. Twin Peaks, Marin Headlands)

4 – Hilly, some steep climbs with some relief (e.g. Mt. Tam, Berkeley Hills)

5 – Very hilly, steep climbs, for strong riders (e.g. Mt. Diablo, Mt. Hamilton)

Pace (speeds assume a flat ride)

A – Leisurely, with many stops (10-14 mph)

B – Moderate, with occasional stops (13-17 mph)

C – Brisk, with few stops (16-21 mph)

D – Steady, strenuous, with very few stops (20+ mph)

The old club ride code attempts to provide something other than subjective guidance. If you’ve ridden some of the example routes, then you have an idea of how hilly the ride will be. Most people know how fast they can ride on the flats and can determine whether they can keep a B pace or not. If there is one fault with the old ride code it is that the pace categories are very broad: 17 mph is much faster than 13 mph yet both are “moderate”. Nonetheless ride leaders can check their pace against the pace categories to figure out if they’re pushing it or going too slow, at least for flat rides. One problem with the old ride key is that pace on the flat doesn’t reliably translate to pace on a hillier ride. For example, generally a heavier person may be able to keep the same pace on the flats as a lighter person but that is usually not the case when the route becomes hilly: the lighter person usually is faster. So, what might be a “moderate” pace for a lighter person ends up being “leisurely” for the heavier person!

On the current club website the ride calendar has a different ride code. The terrain key is mostly the same as the old ride code although the example routes have been eliminated. I think we would do better to add them back. But more importantly the pace key has no objective speeds. The B pace is “moderate, occasional stops”. Now, what does that mean? Moderate means different things to different people and provides essentially no guidance at all except that it’s harder than “leisurely”. “Moderate” and “leisurely” can only be interpreted subjectively, i.e as perceived effort. The word “pace” is ambiguous because it can be used to refer to an objective rate, e.g. 15 miles per hour, or to a subjective assessment of speed, e.g. “moderately fast.” Without objective guidance, words for pace end up being interpreted subjectively as perceived effort. Two individuals can rate the same objective pace (15 mph) as leisurely, moderate, brisk or strenuous because it’s dependent on their conditioning. A subjective pace key is not going to be very helpful for riders in deciding whether they should attend a ride, i.e. whether they’ll be able to keep up with the group: how would they know how fast a ride is going to be led on any particular day?

If, however, you delve a bit deeper into our website you find another ride key linked to “About Our Rides” (i.e. at http://www.dssf.org/dssf_html/ridekey.php). I’m not sure where this ride key came from but it’s actually better than the one in the ride calendar. Again, the terrain key is the same as on the ride calendar but the pace key includes not just average speeds but moving averages as well:

Average speed                 Moving average speed

A – Leisurely, with many stops                     (5-7 mph)                                (8-10 mph)

B – Moderate, with occasional stops            (7-9 mph)                               (10-12 mph)

C – Brisk, with few stops                                 (9-13 mph)                             (12-15 mph)

D – Steady, strenuous, with very few stops (13+ mph)                              (15+ mph)

Note that the speeds for each category are significantly lower than in the old ride code. That actually accords fairly well my own experience and correlate well with my Garmin data. Those average speeds look very low but keep in mind they include stops and incorporate flats and hills.

One could argue that both subjective and objective descriptions of pace have their flaws and neither is better than the other. Objective average pace suggestions obscure the significant difference between a ride done at a consistent speed versus one that oscillates between very fast and slow—both might have the same average speed. The best job I’ve seen for trying to provide guidance to participants is the Grizzly Peak Cyclists ride code. GPC suggests that you time yourself on the Three Bears loop in Orinda. Your time determines the typical pace you would be comfortable riding according to their ride key. Yet nothing prevents a GPC leader from inaccurately listing the pace of a ride and only corrective feedback from participants might encourage the ride leader to change the listing the next time. In other words despite having a more objective way for determining your pace, you still are at the mercy of the ride leader’s skill at accurately listing the pace of their ride and their zeal in sticking to it.

Ride pace may technically be independent of ride length and hilliness but it’s not surprising that they actually go together. Cyclists who are stronger generally prefer to do longer and harder rides, so a faster paced ride is likely to be longer and probably have more climbing too. So what happens when the B ride starts to inflate? Not only does it get faster, it also might get longer and involve harder routes, and I think that is happening as well. That means for the B-paced rides, they also become longer and hillier overall.

So why do so many rides get listed as B rides regardless of their difficulty? In all the years I’ve been in Different Spokes I’ve rarely if ever heard a complaint that a ride wasn’t led fast enough vis-a-vis the ride listing, but I’ve certainly heard complaints about rides being led faster than some riders felt they could handle. Was that misjudging one’s ability, being fooled by the ride listing, or the ambiguity of the pace key? Perhaps all three. Of course participants can ride at whatever pace they’re comfortable doing as long as they know the route or have a map, so the real concern behind the complaint isn’t the pace per se but that getting dropped is lonely and discouraging and not the social experience one is looking for in a group ride, as if being LGBT in the first place—even here in the Bay Area—wasn’t isolating enough. Group rides are inherently social, so when riders can’t keep pace, no matter what the listing, they’re probably not getting the socializing they were hoping for. I’m not blaming ride leaders for this situation: ride leaders who list challenging and fast B rides really do think they are riding at their B pace. But the assessment of pace has been skewed that “moderate” now encompasses such a very wide range of speeds and it isn’t a helpful label.

In my opinion the B rides have become problematic. They’ve become faster, a bit longer, and overall a bit harder. It’s the “moderate” ride but acts more like a “brisk” ride. With the current dearth of A-paced rides, this leaves those who are discouraged by our “moderate” B rides with no alternatives. Has there been a similar speed up on A pace rides? Unfortunately we don’t know because so few A rides are listed these days. Perhaps if enough A rides were led, we might see that they too have undergone inflation and become faster than originally intended. Newer riders probably should be cautioned about B rides even though they are the only viable options in the club given the lack of A rides. Increasing the number of A rides will be difficult given the general lack of interest in leading rides at all coupled with the club’s lack of a core group of ride leaders who like to ride slow(er).

The solution for the meager number of easy, leisurely paced rides, awaits. But the solution is easier for the “fast” B-paced rides. Ride leaders can take a look at the recommended moving average speeds at the club website (and included above) and use it in selecting a pace label rather than basing it on solely on how difficult it feels. If this had been done last year, I suspect that quite a few “B” rides would have been classed as C (or even D!) Note that I’m not suggesting that rides be led slower, just that ride leaders who are entertaining listing a ride at a B pace attentively evaluate whether they are actually going to end up having a ride that conforms to the DSSF ride key—there’s nothing wrong with listing your ride as a C or a D if that’s the pace you plan to take.

Back in the day no racer or wannabe racer would be caught in public sporting a cycling mirror. That shame was relegated to touring cyclists and nerdy safety geeks, i.e. “freds”. No pro racers ever used a mirror, instead preferring to quickly glance back if necessary. Of course no one seemed to care or notice that pro racers almost always raced on closed roads and thus had no need to spot a semi hurtling towards them from the rear. However there has always been a silent group of cyclists who, fred-dom be damned, tried a mirror and “never looked back.” My descent into fred-dom may have begun with wearing a Bell Biker helmet in 1975 (who among you even remember when bike helmets didn’t exist?) but was confirmed when I started using my first mirror, a Third Eye attached to that very helmet! Fashion? Who cares! For the first time I could glance backwards to see traffic without having to crane my neck all the time. My anxiety about being unexpectedly rear-ended was allayed. I was sold! Fortunately nowadays our sport is so large that what was once a fashion faux pas is, well, passé. I see lots of recreational cyclists roaming the Bay Area (and the world!) with cycling mirrors. Apparently I am not alone in being drawn to the fred side. And with good reason: as in a car, a well-made rear view facilitates being able to see behind quickly and assess the traffic situation (or just check out the hunk who’s sucking your wheel). If you’re thinking of bucking the PRO mentality or if you’re just pragmatic but have never considered the utility of a mirror, let me enlighten you on mirror basics.

Not all cycling mirrors are the same. Not by a long shot. Not only are there different types of mirrors but some seem to have been designed by someone who’s never ridden a bicycle. When you think ‘bicycle mirror’, you’re probably imagining a heavy, metal contraption that your dad once bolted to the handlebars of your Schwinn Stingray (if you’re as old as I am) or if you’re younger, maybe your bmx rig. You can still get that kind of mirror, but you also have a plethora of lighter and more elegant (if such a word can be used to describe a cycling mirror) choices. The most common kind attaches either to your helmet or to glasses, but you can also get mirrors that attach to the end of your handlebars. Bar end mirrors supposedly eliminate the disadvantage that helmet and eyeglass mirrors have, which is that they are easy to knock accidentally and either dislodge, break, or throw out of alignment; A bar end mirror is supposed to solve that problem by being placing away from your face, where you’re most likely to brush it with a hand. However you’ll see in the comments below that they have their own set of problems. My own experience is entirely with eyeglass and helmet mirrors and my comments will be restricted to this type. I’ve also drawn upon Bing Wu, Nancy Levin, and David Gaus to comment on their experience with their cycling mirrors. Other general complaints about helmet and eyeglass mirrors are that they tend to be too flexible and bounce, that they are small, and that they constantly need to be adjusted; actually the latter problem also afflicts bar mounted mirrors.

If you’re already using a mirror, you’ve probably figured out what works for you and are sticking with it. If you’ve joined the Children of PRO cult, you’ve already stopped reading this blog post. If you’ve made it this far, you’re on the cusp and are at least open to the idea of going fred. First of all, a mirror is not going to solve all your cycling woes. It’s not going to cure cancer or stop climate change. It might make it easier for you to look to the rear—that’s all. For about $20 you can give it a try—that’s not a lot of dough to invest on an experiment. Some people just don’t like mirrors for whatever reason. More power to them. But I can tell you why I use a mirror. For years I just turned around and looked. Maybe it was because I heard something, I was changing lane position to avoid an obstacle or another cyclist, or I was just anxious. A mirror can make that quick glance a tad easier. That was the key: it was quick even if not always thorough. If thorough were important and I had enough time, then I’d turn around and look. Over time I have come to use the mirror very frequently because it’s so easy to check the rear; it’s now second nature to me. Even if I have to move evasively to avoid glass or road debris, I have learned how to do a really quick glance backwards before veering. A mirror also allows me to check on anybody who’s in my draft: I can see if they’re losing contact, how close they’re on my wheel, and how hard they’re working. If someone is losing contact in the back, a mirror allows you to check quickly and then slow down. Conversely if you’re trying to lose someone, a mirror allows you to assess the situation and respond accordingly, i.e. stomp harder! So a rear view mirror isn’t just for safety—you can used it to check your overall traffic situation and that includes your fellow riders’ position and status. And it certainly allows you to check well before you hear the rumble of a car engine.

Finally a mirror, no matter what type, brings its own set of minuses. Yes, it’s one more thing you can lose or break. Yes, they can go out of adjustment. They’re mostly smaller than you’d prefer and the mirror is probably of just adequate quality. I’ve found that these cheap plastic mirrors scratch if you clean them with paper towels. So just don’t. Another minor annoyance I’ve experienced is that although they’re all light, it’s still enough mass to cause my helmet to rotate slightly forward unless I have my chin strap very tight, which I don’t like. It’s no big deal but it’s annoying if you’re wearing tall sunglasses that then start to hit the helmet brim. Whatever. You decide what is or is not a deal breaker for you. Nobody’s invented the perfect cycling mirror yet.

Third Eye. Third Eye makes four kinds of helmet and eyeglass mirrors and I’ve used them all. I’ve had the most experience with their mirrors. They cost between $10 and $17. The Hardshell Helmet mirror is now a misnomer. It was intended for helmets such as the original Bell Biker or MSR helmets that had a distinct and separate outer hardshell to which it could clamp. I’m not aware that any such helmets are made these days. Nonetheless it worked very well as it attached quite firmly and didn’t move at all. Unlike the other Third Eye models it had limited adjustment—if you needed to see at a different angle that you couldn’t attain by pivoting the mirror on its tiny ball joint, you simply moved the whole thing around the perimeter of your helmet and reattached it—but that was its strength because it had a short plastic arm that reduced bobbing. Third Eye makes a Pro mirror that is ugly as sin: it has a hideous foot that you stick directly to the side of your helmet. The arm is long and was prone to oscillating when riding over rough road. And, you can’t detach the mirror, so traveling or packing the helmet was a pain. I never cared for this model. Strangely, the model that I like the best and have used for years is the “Foam Helmet” mirror. This model was supposed to stick directly to the EPS and was developed back in the day when the best helmets were just EPS forms covered with lycra such as the first Giro helmet. Those helmets are long gone but I’ve found that this model works very well with modern helmets. It has a Velcro-like pad (they call it Dual-Lock) that adheres to any helmet surface; you then attach the mirror to it. You can easily remove it if you’re traveling or just want to ride without it. The arm is relatively short (but not as short as the Hard Shell) and thus bounces less. The mirror is on the small side but it’s big enough because it’s held closer to your face than other helmet mirrors. If I need to see more, I just sweep my head  ever so slightly to take in a larger angle of view. One minor problem is that the Dual-Lock system, although more reliable than the Velcro that they used before, requires a firm push to remount the mirror or else you might lose that mirror at an inopportune time. (Side story: I lost one going around a GG Bridge tower when a huge gust blew it right off and into the Pacific!) Finally, Third Eye also makes a model for eyeglasses. There are better eyeglasses mirrors than these. Because they’re made of plastic—like all the Third Eyes—I’ve found the mounting tines break easily in attaching and detaching them from different glasses. They’re just not sturdy or durable enough unless you intend to put them on one pair of glasses and leave them there. All the Third Eyes are made of a black plastic that seems to become more brittle as it ages—they all end up breaking eventually. The ball joints tend to be too tight initially and thus finicky to make fine adjustments but then loosen annoyingly as they age and need more readjustment as time goes on. But it doesn’t matter because they end up breaking anyway. The one positive is that they’re cheap and easy to find in just about any bike shop, so replacing them is no big deal. I find I get a few years of heavy use out of one until either the ball joints go south or the plastic breaks. Did I mention they’re cheap and easy to find?

Blackburn Helmet Mirror. Despite an inexpensive cost of $13, avoid this mirror. It’s similar in design to the Third Eye Pro mirror but with a more discreet mount. Unfortunately the arm is made of thin, long black plastic so the mirror bounces violently on rougher road and you can’t make out what’s behind you. It’s very light but that very lightness contributes to the problem. The mirror adjusts easily and seems to hold its adjustment better than the Third Eye models. The mirror is, like the Third Eye Foam Helmet model, on the small side. I’ve toyed with the idea of either putting down a thin layer of rubber putty on the arm or of gluing a thin rubber strip to it in order to damp the oscillations. Did I mention that it bounces a lot?

Cycleaware Reflex Helmet Mirror. Now we’re moving up the price ladder to $20. This is the other mirror that I’ve had years of use. Obviously I liked this one otherwise I would have dumped it a long time ago. Unlike the Blackburn or the Third Eye mirrors, the Reflex has a thicker mirror arm, a plastic encased metal wire, that is not only very durable but also bendable, allowing you to get it exactly *just so*. The mirror and arm are easily detachable from a small plastic base, which you stick onto your helmet, so it’s good for traveling or packing. You can also rotate the entire arm and mirror upward and out of the way if you don’t want to use the mirror temporarily or need to wipe sweat from your face. After more than a decade (yes, ten years) I’m still using the same Reflex mirror! Over the years the ball joint at the base has loosened a bit so that the mirror can rotate downward slowly over bumpy roads. The stickum adhesive has also gone south but my home fix was simply to replace it with easy-to-get double-stick tape, and it’s still working fine. I bought a replacement about three years ago thinking that the original one was on its last legs, but it just keeps working! The Reflex vibrates slightly, just slightly more than the Third Eye. But it’s not enough to be bothersome. The shape of the mirror is vertically oblong; it would be better if it were oblong horizontally in order to increase the angle of view.

Hubbub Helmet Mirror. Costing $29 by mail order, the Hubbub uses a different construction and attachment method than the other mirrors. It’s constructed of thin but durable wire that you bend to clamp to the underside of your helmet by simple mechanical force. Although it’s easy to detach and change position, it’s decidedly low-tech and may result in compressing or slightly indenting the EPS on the inside of the helmet. It’s probably not compromising the safety of the helmet, but any time you dent EPS you should think twice as the integrity and safety of the helmet is due to its ability to compress upon impact. The mirror shape is large and octagonal and provides a nice angle of view without annoyingly obscuring your forward vision. This mirror is also easy to detach for traveling, packing, or just to take it off if you don’t want to use a mirror. It’s quite rigid and does not vibrate very much (all mirrors will vibrate some) probably partly due to the lack of any ball joints and no plastic. But the lack of easy adjustability is also a pain as for example when it’s cold and you ride with a cycling cap under your helmet. Now the mirror’s position is very likely to be incorrect and it’s not easy to change without bending the metal arm. And then you have to bend it back when you ride without a cap. By the way, the metal is springy so it’s not easy to bend. But as long as you don’t ride with a cap or balaclava under your helmet (or always ride with a cap), this mirror works fine.

Bike Peddler Take A Look Eyeglass Mirror. It took me years to get around again to using a cycling mirror that attaches to an eyeglass frame rather than a helmet after using the cheap Third Eye version. This type of mirror is probably the most popular type and I can see why: it’s simple, very adjustable, fits any eyeglass frame, and provides an excellent rear view. Keep in mind that eyeglass mirrors can be bumped just as easily as helmet mounted ones. The mirror is rectangular and longer in the horizontal direction—exactly what you want in a cycling mirror. Instead of ball joints the Take A Look uses friction-fit cylindrical metal joints, one for each spatial axis, so you set the mirror at exactly the correct angle. Unfortunately, for moving the mirror inward or outward you’ll need to bend the main arm. To move the mirror closer, you simply move the attachment further back on the eyeglass frame. It goes without saying that wearing a cycling cap under your helmet does not affect the placement of the mirror because it’s not attached to the helmet in the first place. Another advantage is that you need only one mirror if you have, as I do, several helmets. The cost is a reasonable $13 to $20. The main disadvantage? You need to wear eyeglasses. On the other hand since they fit glasses rather than a helmet, I’ve found them useful when I’m walking on trails or multi-use paths, as I’ve discovered that 95% of cyclists don’t give an audible warning when passing pedestrians. So, it allows me to be fredly even when I’m not riding my bike! As expected they do add a slight weight to your glasses, and if you’re picky about eyeglass weight, this may be a deal breaker.

Safezone Mirror. This is a helmet mirror on steroids. The price is also on steroids (or maybe the manufacturer is on drugs): $40! It’s much larger than the other helmet mirrors and the mounting system is, uh, “industrial strength”: it’s OMG large. I guess the fashion philosophy of the Safezone is ‘say it loud, say it proud—I’m FRED!’ You attach the Safezone to your helmet using zip ties, so this one isn’t super-easy to remove. But it is easy to adjust: the arm is made of Locline, interlocking plastic bits (similar to the arms of a Joby Gorillapod, if you’re a camera person) so you can get the mirror into any position you want. I haven’t used one but Bing has. He opines: “I haven’t had anything besides the Safezone mirror. But I do like it, mainly because of its huge surface area which gives me a really clear view of everything behind me. I can see the road, the sky, the cars and other bikers. Downsides – because it’s so big, it can partially block the view of what’s in front of you. It’s a bit of an art to adjust it so that you optimize rear and front view. It attaches to your helmet via cable/zip ties, so it’s never seated all that snugly and can wiggle around. So you constantly have to fiddle with it. But it’s fairly flexible and will usually go the way you want it to. It’s just that the moment you take your helmet off and put it back on, it needs a bit of readjustment. It looks dorky and won’t win any fashion prizes. People say I look like Robobiker. You get used to it though. Bottom line, I have no desire to get any other mirror. This one does the trick quite nicely. My first, and hopefully last. At least until it breaks.”

Mirrycle Mirror. If helmet or eyeglass mirrors aren’t your thing, you might consider a bar-mounted system. Nancy uses a bar-mount mirror but instead of mounting to the brake lever of drop bars it attaches at the bar plug. Hers is made by Mirrycle but a quick search on Amazon.com shows that there are dozens of bar-end mirrors available. They run about $18. The Mirrycle has a short arm that moves the mirror outward, presumably so that your left arm won’t obscure your view. Nancy prefers a bar mounted mirror because she hasn’t had good luck with eyeglass and helmet mounted ones—they don’t fit well or they fall off too easily. She likes her mirror because it’s large and she can see a lot, but because it protrudes outward from her bars she says it’s sometimes in the way, say, when you want to lean it against a wall on the left side. She hasn’t had any problems with it. Keep in mind that if you’re concerned about weight, most bar mounted mirrors including the Mirrycle are going to weigh more because of the larger mounting system and mirror. But seriously, if you’re sporting a mirror, low weight is probably at the bottom of your check list, right?

Cycleaware Roadie. This is another bar end mounted mirror but it’s decidedly more PRO (if any mirror can be PRO). The Roadie seems to be a copy of a Swiss-made mirror, the Sprintech Racing, but at a lower cost, $20 versus $28 for the Sprintech. The Roadie has a flat mirror whereas the Sprintech Racing has a convex mirror. Unlike the Mirrycle the Roadie (and the Sprintech) does not protrude outwards; in fact It’s sleek and aero but consequently also smaller. Because the mirror is further away and not upsized you may find that the view is somewhat restricted. (The Sprintech compensates for its diminutive size by using a convex mirror but that potentially introduces another problem: spatial distortion. You get a wide angle of view but it makes it harder to gauge how close a car or other rider is or how fast they’re approaching you.) The mount is a ball joint that allows you to pivot or rotate the mirror for a better angle. But David has found that the joint loosens in time and doesn’t stay put. David moved to a bar mounted mirror after he got new glasses which did not allow him to attach a mirror. After he used a mirror he got hooked just as I did, so he got the Roadie as a replacement.

Dennis Westler, former Different Spokes President, wrote this obituary, which was originally published in the March 1991 ChainLetter. Dennis’ recollection of Bruce is spot-on. Bruce had the distinction of having having been a member of the Specialized Bicycle racing team and having raced against a young Greg Lemond. He was the cyclist that many of us in the club aspired to emulate. I interviewed Dr. Bob Bolan about that first BAT and he recalled that he rode the event at full speed and that only one guy was ahead of him. He kept trying to reach this guy and never could—he just vanished up the road. At each rest stop he’d pull in just as this rider was taking off. He couldn’t remember who that guy was. Bob asked me if I was that guy! Uh no, it wasn’t me because I didn’t ride in the first BAT due to graduate school. Who was the ultra fast rider who got to Guerneville first? Bruce. And, as Dennis mentions Bruce had a fist full of Gay Games cycling medals as his palmares! Bruce’s BAR obituary is found here.

 

In Memoriam, Bruce Matasci 3/2/56-2/2/91

Out on my bicycle last weekend, in every strong graceful cyclist who approached, I thought I saw Bruce. And I had to tell myself over and over again that he was gone.

Back in the early 1980s when I joined Different Spokes, bicycle racers seemed like some godlike breed. I would see them training in their bright, tight clothes. They never seemed to smile; they would snarl at you as they passed. I loved the sport, but the practitioners of it seemed so awful.

And then there was Bruce—smiling, kind of quiet, but friendly. Fiercely competitive but so full of enthusiasm for the sport, he would always offer instruction and encouragement. He was attractive. He was effortlessly masculine. He was licensed! Here was a racer with no chip on his shoulder.

I remember riding with him in the road race in Gay Games II. I had been training furiously. We were both riding in mid-pack. The race was hard and exciting, and to me it was amazing to be able to keep up with him. In the last 200 yards, he put on a sprint and just sailed off. Hammering ’til I thought I’d bust a vein, I couldn’t stay on his wheel. That man was strong!

I remember the first Bike-A-Thon, riding up to the Russian River. That night Bruce, Walter [Teague], and I were driven to a party way out in the country. It was to honor the participants, we were told. Unbeknownst to us it was a radical faery collective. Surrounded by men in fanciful costume and aboriginal makeup, we were afraid to touch any of the food or drink for fear they were laced with psychedelics. As the group began some bizarre ritual led by a man seated inside a pyramid of saplings, we knew we had to leave. Bruce, Walter, and I walked miles back into town in the rural darkness, talking and laughing, and I felt close to Bruce for the first time.

I remember riding with Bruce in last year’s Bike-A-Thon. He had not been training heavily but was still able to work my butt off. He probably already knew at that point that his health was declining but he chose to tell no one but his partner Fred. He went to the Games in Vancouver despite his knowledge, and was triumphant as he had been in the two previous Games. The last time I rode with Bruce, he seemed as strong as ever. Early in December he was struck by a car while riding, and never really recovered from the accident. He died from complications of HIV infection.

I will remember Bruce for the rest of my life for many things—his humor, his skill, his honesty and clear sight, his ability to care, his big legs. I will see his image when I strive to be better on my bike. And I will see his image when I strive to be better as a person.

-Dennis Westler

Once the mainstay of the club the social brunch ride has fallen onto hard times. Whether it’s just the times we live in or unnatural selection we just don’t have many short ambles that involve dining rather than velocity and lactate threshold as the goal. There was a time when Leon’s BBQ—now long gone *sob*—across from the San Francisco Zoo was a common Decide ’N Ride destination. Nowadays Spokers prefer to ride longer, faster, and dine on Clif bars or quick and lackluster sandwiches. So Roger and I didn’t expect a big turnout. We had four RSVPs but then the weather, a rare rainfall, led us to postpone the ride to the following day and we lost a couple. DSSF old-timer Sharon Lum and relative newcomer Bill Knudsen ended up joining us in what turned out to be the perfect day for a bike stroll, a fabulous brunch, and a view from the new Bay Bridge.

Fortunately the weather turned out to be spectacularly beautiful—mid-60s, bright sunshine, and light breeze—making any trepidation about having postponed the ride on short notice melt away. For those who don’t know, Assemble is the restaurant in the old Ford assembly plant right on the Bay in Richmond. It’s conveniently located on the Eastshore section of the Bay Trail, a very popular, easy cycling route from Emeryville all the way to Point Richmond. Their signature dish is a chicken pot pie but also make a variety of American comfort foods using ingredients from their organic garden. The ride along the Bay Trail has nearly continuous views of the Golden Gate and the Bay, and wetland restoration has turned former garbage dumps into pleasant, natural retreats in our highly urbanized environment. Old-timers will recall that the area along the Emeryville section of I-80 was populated by junk and driftwood, which intrepid artists turned into whimsical sculptures; only a few remain today.

We met at Macarthur BART and rolled down 40th Street bikeway to the Emeryville IKEA, making our way under I-80 onto the Bay Trail. Because it was a sunny Sunday morning other cyclists, joggers, and strollers were out in force. But we weren’t hurrying the pace so it didn’t matter. Bill was recovering from a nasty cold, which was also keeping Wandersen too ill to ride that day. Sharon, who came out of cycling retirement for Derek’s Old Farts Confab a few weeks ago, really hadn’t been riding her bike in earnest for eons; she came up from San Jose because she was curious about the Rosie the Riveter Museum, which is next door to Assemble. The ride was essentially one long, ambling conversation. Bill and I rode mostly within earshot of each other while Roger and Sharon chatted quietly in the back. Consequently I didn’t hear much of what they were chatting about. I don’t recall all the details but Bill did recount his and Wandersen’s recent ocean cruise, the niceties of winter in Chicago, how he met Wandersen, and how icky his cold was. The excitement of the day was contending with the traffic going into Golden Gate Fields for race day. Although Roger and I had ridden through the horse track grounds many times it has never been on a race day and consequently it has been empty and barren. But not this day! Cars were streaming into their vast lot and filling it quickly. Golden Gate Fields also has the only hill on this section of the Bay Trail, a steep but mere blip.

Once at Assemble we didn’t have to wait long for a table. The interior is industrial chic and I was surprised it wasn’t jammed on such a great day; perhaps people were outside having too much fun? Roger and Sharon had the chilaquiles, Bill the sliders with fries, and I the fish and chips; Roger and I also split a bowl of potato kale soup. On paper they sound mundane but in execution Assemble’s dishes were definitely a notch above. Thusly sated we lolled a bit outside and peeked in the Rosie the Riveter Museum before heading back. Everyone decided to check out the Alex Zuckerman bike path onto the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge, so we rolled back through Emeryville into a stiff headwind coming through the Golden Gate. If you haven’t been on our very own ‘bridge to nowhere’, you’re missing something special. It’s about eight miles out and back, and if the weather is good (and it was) you’ll get unusual views of the Bay as well as an up-close-and-personal view of the deconstruction of the old eastern span. At the end you’re almost within touching distance of Yerba Buena Island. Signage indicated that the path is scheduled to be completed by this summer! I rather doubt it seeing that the gap between the existing path and Yerba Buena is still ‘challenging’. But when it is completed it will be a splendid ride out into the middle of the Bay and no doubt we’ll plan a fab brunch on Treasure Island!!

Spokers,

It’s a fact of life that all good things must come to an end. So it is with the 2015 March Saddle Challenge. If you signed up for this year’s Saddle Challenge, please finish entering your miles cycled during March within the next few days. You can use the Saddle Challenge link on the DSSF homepage, or go directly to:
http://www.dssf.org/dssf_html/sc/

In addition, if you made a pledge, please mail a check (made out to Project Inform) to the DSSF post office box, so we can donate all money raised on behalf of Different Spokes:
Different Spokes San Francisco
P.O. Box 14711
San Francisco, CA 94114

Of course, even if you didn’t sign up or make a pledge, you are still welcome to make a tax deductible donation to Project Inform as part of the Saddle Challenge. Just send your check to the address listed above. We will forward all checks received to Project Inform.

Based on miles entered so far, I am pleased to announce that 11 riders have cycled a total 4,435 miles in March and raised $493 for Project Inform. Congratulations and thanks for participating!

Sal
President, DSSF

Perhaps there is no greater sin in the gay community than to become old. Lord knows there’s only so much good a jar of pearl cream can do before one is forced to throw up one’s arms in exasperation and don a veil. Or just hide. And hide we did, sort of, until at Derek’s behest this past Sunday a rather exclusive gathering of old (in both senses) Spokers convened over in the East Bay at—where else? Rossmoor!—for a ride, a nosh, and to catch up on the latest personal news (“So, what have you been doing for the past 25 years??”) I don’t know when this evil idea of an old farts confab first came to Derek. But as part of his bucket list he wanted to pull together as many Spokers from the early days of the club as he could locate and, as he put it rather unartfully, “After having been the ‘old guy’ in the club since the early days of the club, I wanted to see how all of you would feel when you were finally old!” To add insult to injury, he opined, “And some of you don’t look half bad now that you’re old!” Ah that Derek, such a card.

It wasn’t listed in the club ride calendar, as if it would have mattered since almost none of the old Spokers are still members or would even bother to look at the club website. But through word of mouth/email almost thirty of us showed up for a leisurely ride to Danville and up to Blackhawk for a coffee stop before returning back to Rossmoor for a post-ride nosh ‘n josh with a few others who forwent the ride. There was a lot more grey or white hair (or lack entirely thereof), widening waistlines, and creaking joints than your typical Different Spokes ride. For the most part these old Spokers could still turn the cranks but maybe it was at a more casual pace than one tends to find on club rides these days. Derek may have been the oldest in years. Those of us who were in our twenties or thirties when Different Spokes was formed are now older than Derek was when he joined in 1983!

In any event, the purpose of the ride wasn’t to lay waste to each other in anaerobic battle as it was to schmooze and socialize. When was the last time you did that on a club ride? We went down the Iron Horse Trail to Danville and then up Camino Tassajara to Blackhawk where we stopped at a Starbucks for refreshment. I suspect some of the livery we were sporting would either elicit guffaws or strange looks in the club nowadays. Yes, there were a few ‘contemporary’ bikes—Matt O’G’s carbon Tarmac probably being the most recognizable—but they were far outnumbered by the old school road bikes—for example, a couple of Vitus 979s, ancient Cannondale aluminum steeds, a mid-90s LiteSpeed, a lugged steel Guerciotti—and the old school mountain bikes (yes, we used to have a very active mtb group) with nary a bit of suspension or hydraulics in sight. Even some of the garb was old school: t-shirts, Bermuda shorts, tennis shoes; Eric Jansen sported the original club jersey from 1988, a true relic of the age (he also rode an original Bridgestone mtb, a brand that was probably the most popular in the club during the late ‘80s).

And what would a club ride not be without at least someone getting dropped and getting lost? That fate befell Tom Jewell and Paul Quintilian, who eventually made their way back to Rossmoor, their SF sense of navigation having been temporarily derailed by the lack of fog and Muni tracks. We followed Derek into Rossmoor proper and reconvened at the Rossmoor Gateway Club, where we met those who chose not to ride, for more refreshments and more chatting.

I won’t bore you with the entire guest list. There were many who couldn’t make it for one reason or another anyway. Peter Renteria was the only original club founder who could come, along with his husband Kevin, who met through Different Spokes and then vanished. (Me: “When was the last time you guys rode your bikes?” Kevin: “About 23 years ago!”) Dennis Westler, who was President for umpteen years in the late ‘80s and ‘90s showed up; he now leads rides for Performance Bike. Almost everyone present had ridden in at least one Bike-A-Thon; someone there had ridden in them all. Many had been in a club leadership role at some point such as board members, BAT coordinators of various flavors, and plenty of ride leaders. Joe McClinton and Rachael Ginsburg, both of whom used to lead tours for the club, came out as did Sharon Lum, who pioneered many now-eponymous standard club rides. There were a few original 1985 BAT riders: Karry Kelley, Paul Quintilian, Dennis Westler, and Peter Jenny. Strangely there were four ChainLetter ex-Editors in attendance: Doug O’Neill, Rob Bregoff, Don Lapin, and I. Overall it was an exceptionally involved group of oldsters.

On a personal note, not only was it a chance to reconnect albeit briefly with old friends but I also got an opportunity to chat with several Spokers whom I hadn’t had the pleasure of meeting before. In the back of my mind—and I suspect in the minds of others in attendance as well—were thoughts and memories of old Spoker friends who had passed on. Thirty-three years is ample time to lose many friends and club members. This was one last time to ride in spirit with them as well.

We’re now half way through the 2015 March Saddle Challenge. Beautiful cycling weather so far this month has led to a very strong start by the 13 participants. With people rapidly racking up the miles, it looks like we could well raise a record amount of money for Project Inform. So far, the participants have raised $336 out of an expected total of $916. Please help put us over the $1K mark; it’s not too late to sign up, enter your miles retroactively, and join the fun.

Based on miles entered into the SC Web site so far, the top 3 positions remain unchanged from the last report: David Sexton with 545 miles, Sal Tavormina with 435 miles and Gordon Dinsdale with 353 miles. Ron Hirsh and Will Bir have shown a burst of activity over the past week jumping into the 4^th and 5^th positions with 262 and 164 miles respectively. To round out the group that has recorded over a century, we have David Gaus with 159 miles, Jerome Thomere with 138 miles, and Nancy Levin with 100 miles. Rumor has it that some riders may be saving up their miles in order to enter them at the end of the month, so be prepared for a wild, unpredictable, and exciting finish!

As a reminder, the Saddle Challenge is the Club’s annual event in March to challenge each other to get out on our bikes and ride! Choose a goal for yourself: 100 miles, 300 miles, 900 miles…! Whenever you come back on the SC page, you’ll be able to log your miles, watch your progress and see what other members are doing.

The Saddle Challenge is also a way for members to raise money for Project Inform where Ron Wilmot, a long time DSSF member who started a fund-raising ride, the Ron Wilmot ride. You can choose to pledge per mile or a lump sum. Of course this part is entirely optional.

Other stats: 2,354 miles have been ridden so far towards the total goal of 5660 miles.

Happy riding!

So far, 13 intrepid cyclists have signed up for the Different Spokes March Saddle Challenge. We’re on target to raise $916 for Project Inform! Please help us reach an even $1K. Remember, it’s never too late to join. Just go to http://dssf.org/dssf_html/sc and enter your first and last name, and the password and then you can retroactively enter your miles for the month. To get the password, send an email to: president@dssf.org

At the end of the first full week of cycling, David Sexton is out in front with 346 miles! Sal Tavormina is a distant second with 217 miles followed by Gordon Dinsdale at 171 miles. Two more cyclists have ridden a century or more, Nancy Levin and David Gaus, with David Goldsmith close behind at 97 miles. Other riders who have entered miles include Evan Kavanaugh, William Bir, Jerome Thomere and Ron Hirsch.

With mileage goals varying from 100 miles for the month (which is 25 miles a week, quite doable), up to 1000 miles, the Saddle Challenge makes it easy for any member to participate and not feel like they have to be a fast or high mileage rider to compete.

As a reminder, the Saddle Challenge is the club’s annual event in March to challenge each other to get out on our bikes and ride! Choose a goal for yourself: 100 miles, 300 miles, 900 miles…! Whenever you come back on the SC page, you’ll be able to log your miles, watch your progress and see what other members are doing.

Don’t forget: every mile counts. So, if you commute with your bike, it’s even better!

The Saddle Challenge is also a way for members to raise money for Project Inform where Ron Wilmot, a long time DSSF member who started a fund-raising ride, the Ron Wilmot ride. You can choose to pledge per mile or a lump sum. Of course this part is entirely optional.

Other stats: 1,264 miles have been ridden so far towards the total goal of 5535 miles.

Happy riding!

Autumn in northern California is always a strange time, a neither-fish-nor-fowl period. If you think for a minute, you’ll realize that we don’t have four real seasons here; it’s more like three seasons: a short, green spring; a dry, dusty brown summer; and a wet (we hope), cold winter. This year was no different. The transition period we call ‘fall’ was practically nonexistent, as we had a hot Indian summer followed by a perfectly warm period with plenty of sunny days. Riding this fall has been decidedly excellent because of blocking Pacific highs sending almost all the rain into the Northwest keeping us dry and giving us plenty of enviable riding days. And in Contra Costa where I live, we went from blistering heat in October to November days that were warmer than summer in SF! Well, it has all come to an end. I finally had to don knickers and a long-sleeved jersey this week.

But not before we had one last blast up Morgan Territory and Mt. Diablo last Saturday. Morgan Territory Road is one of our few remaining Road Less Traveled routes, at the margins of Bay Area urbanization and dangling by a thread from becoming just another subdivision. Just down the road are Clayton and Concord, and probably what’s keeping Morgan Territory from being invaded is the current lack of water. But for now it’s ours and it provides a beautiful experience of what the nearby San Ramon and Diablo valleys were like a mere 30 years ago before Walnut Creek, Danville, and San Ramon engulfed all the open space. (Yes, it’s difficult to imagine now but in the ‘80s we simply crossed over the Berkeley hills to ride on country roads.) David Goldsmith led the four of us up Morgan on what has become a fall tradition. Summer on Morgan Territory is like a friendly visit to a furnace—not the best time to go—but fall is perfect if you don’t have rain—it’s not boiling hot, the weather is kind, and the leaves are turning, giving one a taste of what Easterners experience annually (and tenfold in grandeur). When you’re not anoxic and semi-conscious because of the 14% and 16% bumps on the climb, you’ll realize that you’re all alone on a beautiful, winding road surrounded by trees turning luscious colors. At the top, Morgan Territory Preserve, you’ll find a view of Mt. Diablo from the south and a panoramic vista towards the Livermore valley. For the most part we lucked out and the sky was clear allowing for great views. But as we rested at the Preserve and ate our snacks the moist air driven up the west side of the mountain was condensing and clouds began covering the hillside. Chilled by the breeze we set off on the descent to Highland, which sadly always ends in a frighteningly fast blink of an eye. All that altitude gone in minutes aided by a double-digit grade, the near complete lack of traffic, and decent sight lines that only made us accelerate with abandon. After lunch at Domenico’s in Danville, David made us climb up Diablo for more fall fun. By now it was cooling off and all my clothes went back on despite the uphill. It was still sunny but the autumnal heat was now gone. David and David continued on to the top while Roger and I descended back to BART. A good end to a near-tropical “fall”: an all-day, 82-mile ride with friends. Next stop: winter rain riding!

We had a big turnout for this year’s Fall Social at Phil Bokovoy’s house in Berkeley. The last hurrah of excellent weather must have encouraged a spate of Spokers to roll over to the East Bay for the traditional rides, the ever-popular Three Bears and the beautiful Rosie the Riveter stroll by the Bay. This year’s Social took place about a week earlier than usual and that may have had something to do with the sunny, warm conditions during a time of year when things could go either way, “earthquake weather” or the onset of a cold autumn. Fortunately we had the former and that made lolling in Phil’s backyard especially comfortable and convivial. Having the event a week earlier also meant that it didn’t have to contend with the after effects of a Halloween Saturday in the Castro!

The Rosie the Riveter ride, which had been dwindling in popularity in recent years, had a resurgence of interest as seven folks took in the spectacular views along the East Bay waterfront. David Shiver and his son Roberto came along as usual. Years ago Roberto first started coming in a buggy towed behind his daddy’s Cannondale; he then graduated to a trail-along, and now he’s on his own bike, a mini-mtb. A slightly larger group of about ten folks did the Three Bears, and they managed to beat the Rosie group back to Phil’s although just barely.

Phil, as usual, butterflied and barbecued a delicious turkey, and we had a wide assortment of salads, appetizers, and of course yummy desserts including Jim’s homemade apple cobbler. The dish was slung while folks inhaled their dishes. You just had to be there. Thanks again to Phil for hosting the soiree [sic] and to everyone who contributed! Next stop: Holiday Party…