The Reluctant Motorist [or why I like my bike]
Topic: Reluctant Motorist
The other day after reading about stricter fuel-economy standards in the newspaper, I drove my car. Normal for most people, but to me a noteworthy event. My friend Patty was going to the City and I decided to be nice and give her a lift.

My little Honda Civic of 1991 vintage [several crashes, several rebuilds, nearly 200,000 miles and still going strong] is something I use sparingly, not just out of a patriotic effort to avoid wasting gas, but because I simply like to ride my bike.

I don't often go to the train station midday on a weekday -- even when I took the train to work it was in the norming and night -- so I wasn't quite prepared for the shock of not finding a parking space. People apparently DRIVE to go take the train these days, and they don't just drive normal cars, they take huge SUVs build like battletanks. Normally this would just be a sad amusement to me -- I walked and rode my bike when I used the train regularly -- but now it was a concern; there was no parking!

Finding half a spot that remained betwixt a Jeep Sport Ute and a huge Nissan or Acura or something I put my car in park, took a last glance out the rear window plastered with Trek, Lemond, Shimano, "I'd rather be riding", and other bike stickers, and opened the driver's door. Big mistake.

The door opened six inches and stopped. Turning sideways, I squeezed myself out of the car but not before I nearly ripped my rather nice watch off my wrist and nearly dislocated my bad shoulder. Once out of the car, I tried and managed to close the door; the two SUV's each took up about 1 1/4 spots, and with one on either side, it was practically impossible to park anything bigger than a Matchbox car between them. But it was the only space, and the train was coming.

As much an many poke fun at the SUV, with it's ungainly size, hard-to-clean-off-the-snow height in the winter, and it's wasteful gas guzzling, nearly everyone drives one. Fine. That's their business -- as long as they drive within the limits of reason and the traffic laws. Remember those editorials about "lawless" cyclists? I geta' laugh out of them every time I'm nearly run down by some idiot in an SUV. Yet, let there be no mistake; it is not just the SUV, any more than the cell phone, or the newspaper-reading-while-driving-on-i287. The problem is the judgement of these people, namely how and when they drive -- not what they drive, per se.
And also how they park.

There are bigger spots in every lot, and the drivers of large SUV's could park in those. But they don't. They go wherever they want, without regard for whether they fit. I never forget the first time I nearly got clipped by one of these tanks, I was minding my own business on my bicycle when some dude in a huge Excursion tried to drive past on the shoulder, which was only a few feet wide!

So my first reaction when I read the papers and see arguments for stricter CAFE standards to combat dependence on foriegn oil, I grimace. By forcing cars to become smaller, existing CAFE standards are pushing people out of large sedans or station wagons and into SUVs, trucks, and un-mini-vans. The dangers that this will continue are legion.

Moreover, even if people were to buy smaller cars, I am not sure that sould solve the idiot problem, or the fuel one....

Ultimately the fuel problem is a political and technological one; until we develop better technology, we are going to be at the mercy of environmental and arab fanatics when hitting the gas pump. Dependence on foreign oil is a direct result of our refusal to be dependant on ourselves, not only in terms of how many people drive when they could bike, but in terms of our political leaders being too softbacked to grow the spines to drill for oil on our own shores, if needed.

As to the idiot problem, an idiot in a SUV isn't an idiot because he is in an SUV. That is just one simptom. The danger in trying to remove the SUV's by government decree is that it will hide the problem,
if not make it outright worse; imagine the same idiotic SUV pilots suddenly seated behind the wheel of tiny imports, under the impression that they are in The Fast and The Curious? In fact, given their total unconcern for their current vehicle's size, it isn't likely they would get worse. But imagine that person who thinks a truck will fit on a two foor shoulder now driving a tiny Toyota? It's only a question of time until they try to fit it even places they never tried to force their SUV to go.
In addition, anti SUV legislation wouls come too close to violating people's rights. Let's face it, if you want to take a machine designed to go on a safari, and use it to drive to the train station half a block away, that's your business.

Just don't take up more than one parking space. Then it becomes my business.

In the meantime, I prefer my two wheels to four. Especially as it is a hell of a lot easier to find a spot to park it!

Fixed gearing and vintage steel
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: fixed gearing
8-25-05 Fixed up and rode my fixed gear, the Fuji touring fix I took on the 5Boro ride... handled okay, and was not bad at all. A longer seatpost which I'd already installed, once adjusted, and a different bar stem, and it was a better ride!

Also been riding my old steel roadbike -- a Schwinn Tempo -- lately, but that's mainly because I am in the process of repairing my Trek XO1... seatpost clamp broke [D'oh!]

"Remember, there is no hill too big, only effort that is too small" [overheard words of whisdom from some dude on an old road bike as he passed a car with a trailer struggling uphill].

-- Elvis

"Steel is Real", or "thoughts on functional nostalgia?"
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: Functional Nostalgia?
Riding primarily my Lemond Nevada City roadbike these past few days I can't help but note that, not only does it's steel frame look better than fugly oversized unobtanium, but it rides better.

Well, not better exactly, just different, but depending on how you assess a ride quality, it could be. For instance, the bike feels stable not only when climbing but also descending, even at speed. Also it seems to handle bumps pretty good, with a lot less harshness than even some other steel frames. And the welds on the 853 Reynolds frame are clean and wonderfully done.
So how, can I ask myself, can I justify keeping the bike outfitted the the stock el cheapo parts kit?

Tho the 'Vada has essentially the same frame as more expensive bikes like the Zurich, it came with bargain Sora shifters. While the Sora works okay [and I've had shop techs confirm this, one telling me that "I've never had to warranty a Sora shifter", the bike wants more. What to do?

Well, I turned the triple into a double, removing the crank on the drive side and removing the granny gear before putting the crank back on; then I adjusted the limit screws to lock out the "3rd" position of the front shifter. But in reality the inner 42 should now be a 39.... And I intended it to be, with the 42/52 combination a temporary thing until I can get around to replacing the inner gear ...yet, I am loathe the spend $30-something on a chainring! So it stays 52/42 up front for now. Actually, all my old vintage roadbikes had 52/42, but that was in high school and early college; I am older and heavier now. Yet...

For now, at 42/52, I can still make it up some big hills -- this is with an extra 30 lbs I should probably lose, and a knee that still could be described as "bum".

I got the Lemond because though a modern bike, it so closely resembled the steel framed roadies of yore. Maybe that 52/42 combo shoudl stick around a bit, then. It makes the resemblence all the more true.
...And reminds me that, though I have a bit of a way to go until I'm the 160 lb me who used to ride for 5 or so hours a day, I can still make it up those hills with those same gears.

-- Elvis

The day with a bicycle -- or "How many traffic laws can they break in one day..."
8-20-05 Rode for the first time in a while, 35 miles on my Lemond roadbike. Knee is still iffy but my leg no longer hurts.

Well, it was a fine day to ride, but as I rode I couldn't help but think of some words I read, papers found while cleaning up.
The theme was similar; one was from a columnist in an Arizona newspaper, one was from a New York tome, but they both argued for a crackdown on -- are you ready for this -- lawless cyclists.

No, that's not a typo. Bicycles.
Yes, bicycles. See, apparently those of us on bicycles are more of a danger, lest we violate a traffic code, than someone steering a two-ton automobile.

Keeping in mind these editorial rants on how lawless and dangerous cyclists are, I kept my eyes open while riding for lawless motorists. It went pretty good until I began riding a bit with two folks headed down Springfield Ave; some puke in a black BMW but between the three of us as we shifted into the left lane.

Why, I am not sure, maybe he was just eager to wait at the stop sign, but it was, as I put it, "rude". Except not only rude, but dangerous. In a contest betwixt bike and Beemer, there will be one clear winner. Why this moron's eagerness was, in his mind, a license to risk death and injury, one may never know, but he wasn't alone.

I greatly enjoyed my first ride in a while, but couldn't help but notice as the afternoon wore on:

1 Woman in a white SUV who failed to use a turn signal three times in a row in the space of a minute
2 vehicles that "floated" stopsigns and nearly ran me over
1 elderly woman in a Buick 4-door who rushed to get in front of me in the right lane, then sat there without turning on red, and didn't turn on green, either, until several people behind me began beeping
-- This same elderly woman came to a complete dead stop in the middle of a main street before putting on her turn signal
2 people driving with burnt out taillights
1 person talking on a cell phone whilst driving
2 cars that didn't hold their lane but veered towards me menacingly for no apparent reason
l landscaping/dump truck doing a k-turn in the middle of a busy, heavily-trafficked 40mph street 7 large SUVs parked on the curb on a main road in front of a residence, so nearly a whole block of street was reduced to half a lane, and
...1 landscaping truck parked, taking up a whole lane [traffic including myself had to go on the other side]

And this was, essentially, an uneventful ride! But it raises in one's mind the question: What about bicyclists warrants a crackdown while THIS sort of thing is being done by drivers in CARS, which are arguably more dangerous than bicycles?

As one enjoys the sights and feel of a nice summer ride, keep in mind that it is you, on the bike -- not the idiots around you who pay no heed to the traffic laws -- that newspapermen with loose lips and angry letter-to-the-editor writers who write before they think are out to get.
What a world.

A Day Without A Bicycle
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: RANTING&RAVING
"Why don't you get a car?" "You rode here?" "It's _______ out to ride!" [too hot/cold, depending on season fill in blank].
These are the reactions a bike rider is used to getting. They are accepted, even expected, and whether he admits it or not the cyclist secretly appreciates them. For the cyclist knows it is not too hot or cold to ride, and there is notjhing unusual about riding ___ distance, and that not driving a car when he could is by no means a superhuman feat -- but if the non-riding public wants to feel that the opposite is true, fine by me!

Yet, the most overlooked fact of a cyclist's life is that there will be days -- perfect days for riding -- when you become one of those non-riders, days when, for some reason, you just cannot ride. There are no days too inclimate for riding, barring hurricanes or tornados in the street; I've ridden in extreme hot and cold, over 100 degrees F and below 15 degrees with wind chill. But, sadly, there are always days when you are not able to ride for some reason.

This was one of those days.

A sprained (?) knee [who knows how the heck that happened?!] kept me from riding today, although I could have ridden, I figured it best to rest for today and ride tomorrow. But all ther mind turned to was cycling.

And then it hits you: THIS is what makes you different from the rest of the human race; you WANT to push yourself down the street under your own steam, forge your own path through woods where no so-called sport-utility-vehicle could fit, you want to feel the hot wind of a hundred degree day passing through your helmet vents, feel the muscles in your legs come alive.

That day when you can't ride -- THE day without a bicycle -- is when you realize what EVERY day is like for the rest of the human race.

The day without a bicycle is the day you live as a non-cyclist. As a "regular", "normal" person.
As such it is a day of reflection -- and wonder. "How can anyone live like this?" you ask yourself. "How can they not rage at the boredom of being stuck in a car, not jump at the thought of answering that call coming from the road ahead, that message from the trail saying "I am here, waiting for you?"

To the cyclist, whether mountainbiker or roadie, fixed gear or 24 speed, bmxer or folder, commuter, "recreational rider" or racer, the day without a bicycle is a day to look at the non-riders around you, who like you are not riding, but not missing the experience, and ponder the unthinkable: What if THAT was me? EVERY day? Each rider has a reason he first took up cycling. For me getting back into riding when in high school was a response to being hit by a car for the first time -- it really helped my busted leg heal, and it also got me outside. The 96-lb me. Which turned into the cyclist me. The Day Without A Bicycle makes me wonder: What if I'd never been hit by that car? Would I still ride? Would I know what I was missing?

In a day or two -- maybe ever tomorrow, I hope -- I'll get back on my bike. My knee will stop hurting and I'll go back to riding. But
I will appreciate it all the more for the reflection I underwent during the day without a bicycle.

The green mov't and the exclusion of cyclists
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: Environmentalist vs bikes
Ever notice how the "green" mov't, which benefits immensely from support borrowed from seemingly likeminded cyclists, actually doesn't care at all for bike riders?

Ride enough in the woods and you'll get this. It isn't just limosine liberals, either -- those guys in Hummer's with the Sierra Club stickers on their gas guzzling bumpers. Speaking of the Sierra club, they have a policy of, whenever possible, urging the gov't to exclude bikes from "protected" lands.

The problem, however, becomes blurred when it comes to roadriding. While the environmentalists may be seen easily as opposing off road riding, it has become cliche that they agree with bikes on the road. But this is not for any love of cycling -- it is for hate of the auto, and if some other alternative to the car were to present itself, the greens would congregate toward that. As individuals some of them may be cyclists, but as a movement and an ideology, environmentalism is incompatible with cycling. It is just a lot easier to see this in reference to offroad riding.

People say, well, if the greens close trails, who cares, becaus emost people who oen moutnainbikes do not take them offroad? Even if that's the case, they ARE mountainbikes, and as knobby-tired machines constitute more than half the stock of your average LBS [local bike shop], anything that hurts mountainbiking hurts cycling. That many of the mtb buyers wouldn't be directly hurt, as they may not be frequent offroad riders, is irrelevent. Anything that hurts cycling, hurts cycling. That the greens have rationalized this by saying, well, a lot of folks don't use their mtb's offroad anyway, is ironic -- because part of this yes, may be due to people who buy mtb's for commuting, etc. -- but part of it is certainly due to trail and land closures. Most local woods are "officially" off limits to bikes though we all ride there, at least here in NJ; the county gov't has long ago been talked into excluding bikes, mostly due to mythic theories by the greens about alleged "trail damage". The absurdity here is that the same county land is usually littered with been cans and dog feces, which apparently the government does not see as damaging to the woods(?!)

So how does the mountainbiking and roadbiking relate to greens? Simple: By bike paths.

The issue of bike paths is often proposed by greens who offer it as an "alternative" to mountainbiking [these guys obviously aren't mountainbikers] and by traffic planners as an alternative to roads. So you have the gov't on one side saying the solution to bike vs. car is to take the bikes off the streets, and on the other side, the greens saying the solution to bike vs. nature is to take the bike off the dirt. Bike paths -- and urban [or sub-urban] "planning". Two concepts that should scare American cyclists.

Rereading an issue of the Virginian-Pilot newspaper, one thing sticks out: An article in the August 30, 2003 edition titled "Sprawling suburbs may fuel weight gain and inactivity", on page AA3. The point of the article is that fewer people walk or bike when distances are farther apart.

Ostensibly the focus of the article is health benefits of exercise, but in trying to explain why people aren't getting exercise the article brings in the risks of biking: "For bicyclists, Americans are twice as likely to be killed as Germans, and over three times as likely as Dutch cyclists."

This belies a crucial difference between the U.S. and Europe, however. First, Americans have a greater -- and growing -- number of automobiles in terms of the ratio of cars to people: by an account in the August 30th issue of the Daily Record NJ newspaper, it is the highest ever. Narrow-streeted, crowded European cities cannot support the vast number of cars, trucks, and SUVs that the U.S. can. There is just no room for them. Thus there is a more even ratio of bikers and pedestrians to cars on the road -- whereas in America there are many, many more cars than bicyclists let alone pedestrians. Another key difference, especially with regard to those long-lives and accident-free Dutch bicyclists, is that they make extensive use of bicycle paths separate from the roads.

The article in the Virginian-Pilot talks of suburbs versus cities. Yet, for a long bike ride, where would you rather ride? A ride through New York City, versus, say, a ride through a rural area? Even with the skills and fearlessness of the most death-defying bike messenger, a cyclist would be apt to spend more time in the NY trip dodging potholes, cabs, careless pedestrians, and walking his bike around double and triple parked trucks than he would actually riding it. If it be exercise you want, a ride in a more suburban environment will take you greater distances between stops. When I ride through the great swamp, I can ride nearly twenty miles -- at least -- before putting a foot down on asphalt to stop. In more crowded areas the stops are more frequent, interrupting one's ride. These things are not going to be solved by paths that go nowhere when we already have an adequate road system .....Adequate for cars anyway, the proliferation of SUVs in suburbia has created dangerous situations; imagine two SUV's passing on a road where there are also SUV's parked on either side?

Failing an attempt to denounce human progress as destructive to the natural landscape, the social engineers of the next grave new world are now trying to blame a preponderance of fat people on "suburban sprawl". The idea is to argue everyone into cities again, by saying it'll be good for them and they will get more exercise. True, in cities fewer people drive, but not for any sheer love of walking or biking: They don't drive because in cities that are overcrowded with cars crammed onto roads not designed for the volume of traffic they hold, there is no room for additional cars -- and because the roads are not modern and designed to handle the volume of auto traffic, in many cities a bike is actually faster and more practical. Healthiness, or a love of cycling sports, has nothing to do with it for many. Of course, there are a good many actual cyclists in the urban area, as many as outside it. But they are not cyclists because of their environment. And if put in an environment where the auto was a practical alternative, many would still cyclists be. That is what makes them cyclists; they choose to ride bikes, even when they could ride their cars.

Yet, if people are too lazy to ride leisurely from one town to the next on wide, usually well-maintained suburban streets, what makes one think they will dare brave a hair-raising trip across a busy urban center to get to a store, dodging taxis, double parked delivery vans, and drivers who may or may not know enough English to read the road signs?

The fact is that the statistics are not accurate. The article in the Pilot said in Europe people make 33 percent of their trips by bicycle, but Americans make just 9.4 percent of their trips on bikes. Yet this is not a representation of cyclists; it is a representation of overall Americans. If you looked at American cyclists, suburban and urban both, you would see a different picture, people who may use a car or train to get to work but who in their spare time may spend more of their time on two wheels than at home.

Moreover, by trying to force people into "healthier" lifestyles, by putting them in a situation where they have no choice but to walk or ride a bike because the car is impractical, the urban planners of the nation are doing nothing to encourage love of bicycling. Far from it, by practically forcing people to bike, walk, or use mass transit, these would-be social engineers are virtually denying those same people the chance to willingly choose bicycling as a means of transportation and -- more importantly -- recreation. Why is this the case? Because someone who bikes only because he has to will not continue to do so when he no longer has to. But someone who bikes because he chooses to will continue to do so even if he is offered other alternatives.

This is the same whether one is talking about forcing biking on the populace by limiting "suburban sprawl" and confining citizens to the urban world, or whether one is talking of taking the bicyclists and confining them to bike paths in parks and so forth.

Bike paths by themselves are no danger to cyclists, but they are not for everyone, any more than HOV lanes on the highway are. Let's face it, a bicycle path will never get you to the same place as the vast road system in this country. For the bicyclist who doesn't just want to ride around in circles but who actually wants to use his bike to cover distance, a path is useless. In New Jersey, for instance, there is a path from Madison to Morristown. But if one wishes to ride through New Providence, Summit, Chatham, Madison, and on to Morristown, the road is the only way to go. There is simply no chance that any system of paths, no matter how well made, could do for the cyclist what the road does. Moreover, there is the danger that once bike paths become commonplace, that may be the only place cyclists are permitted to ride, and they may find themselves barred from the road. As to safety, there is no risk that can't be addressed via enforcement and education of drivers... bikes ain't the problem.


That guy in the car might have four wheel disc brakes, but the dude on the Bianchi who's clipping along at 40-plus miles per hour cannot stop on a dime just to accommodate the guy in the car, who be too lazy to extend his foot and stop at a stop sign.
Speeding is, next to drunken drivers, one of the most talked about problems on the roads in America. Politicians and police alike complain mightily about speeders -- while hoping silently that they continue to speed, so that the politicians and policemen may continue to collect their money. But speeding does not "cause" crashes -- running stop signs or other course alterating acts do that. Yet, these are not enforced. Meanwhile, the punk who
"floats" a stop sign and hits hte cyclist blames the cyclist -- and so now the same dude who isn't allowed in the woods, is not wanted on the road, simply because he is getting "in the way" of other people's illegal driving. The sad irony here is that the automobile as we know it wouldn't exist without the bike. The inflatable tire? Invented for the bicycle. Good paved raods? Implemented upon advocacy from cycling groups.

Bike paths, to the urbanm planners and greenies, are a "Solution" -- but to bicylcists they are a danger. Because, tho a fine idea in and of themselves, they may soon become compulitory, and cyclists may soon be banned from the very pavement whose improvement they facilitated earlier in the 20th century, and the very woods that they have often, in misguided moments of sympathy, helped the greens preserve.

It is a fate worth avoiding.

RIDE REPORT -- Trek 4500 modified / busted up knee
Mood:  don't ask
8-13-05 - Saturday. Yesterday morning Patty and I were supposed to ride. Hadto resort to doing laps around the neighborhood because my knee was barely working. I think it was because the seatpost on the Trek 4500 which I'd been riding the past few days was too short. I had meant to install a proper one but did not get around to it until AFTER my knee hurt. D'oh! Hopefully it's just sprained.

Consequently, I meant to do a long road ride on my Lemond today but I feel like Cap'n Ahab with his peg leg, so it's unlikely, I'll be lucky to putter around for ten miles or so if that.

BIKE: 4500 TREK
MODIFICATION: Longer seatpost

The Bontrager seatpost [27.2mm, 350mm length] was a godsend, allowing proper leg extension. The bike is now quicker in every aspect; climbing, on flats, accelerating, even riding on pavement [as we are all want to do on occaision, even those of us with roadbikes], and handles much better.

Have not been able to fully test it, however agfter a partial test ride, I'm happy to report that with the installed seatpost, the 4500 fits and rides way better. That, and it's not as hard riding with a bandaged knee as it sounds.

Woods test -- TREK 4500 Lonerider special
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: RIDE REPORT
8-12-05 -- the Trek 4500 performed admirably yesterday tho it is arguably heavier than my friend Patty's bike [I gave her my Cannondale].

This was only my second ride in the woods in a long time, but I started it by going full hog, trying a side of the river where there was no trail. She had some difficulty but the 4500's rapidfire gears excelled where the cannondale's gripshift was difficult to operate, so even tho her's was lighter and a better frame the 4500 was able to get through.
Perhaps i shall equip her bike with such gears?
Nevetheless, the 4500 proved an admirably bike for riding where there was no trail, until we came to a rather large ditch [more like a small ravine]. The seat height still is not perfect and it rides resultingly not as good as it could. Shortly after crossing it we turned back, then crossed the river and took the trail on the other side. This began as a deerpath years ago and has long since been ridden my mtb's; unfortunately, some moron from the government put bridges in over some of the dry streambeds/ravines so that you have to dismount and haul the bike up two steps(!). Why couldn't they leave my woods alone?!
Nevertheless, it was a proper mtb trail in terms of being narrow enuff at points to be called singletrack, and we followed the original trail route, also taking a detour to a lower part fo the woods, near the river, where someone had built a neat bmx berm. Hopping it on my mountainbike was probably a bad idea but it's all good as nothing broke.

BIKE: Trek 4500
HANDLING: The '45 handles clims good despite it's weight, probably cause of the short frame [for a mtb it's got a nice wheelbase] and the smaller gears up front. It descends easy enough as well with no fear of endo'ing, whether on grass, dirt or in between. Despite the somewhat hefty front-end weight the bike was able to make it over roots and logs as well, and steering was quick enough when that narrow turn between two close trees came up.
SHIFTING: The rapidfire shifters outperform grip shift every time, but shifting up into an easier gear isn't always smooth, sometimes it has to be shifted up and then backed down a notch to get the drivetrain to run smoothly. This may be something easily fixed by adjusting cabel tension; will have to see...
BRAKING: Brakes were more than adequate, and easily c ontrolled; no fear of skidding out here, despite the "v-brake"s unpleasant rep for excessive stopping power. Mostly no rim noise.
SHOCKS: Aside from the weight the Rock Shox JETT fork isn't horrible, and ate up roots and rocks with no noticeable theft of energy offroad, but it took a lot of tweakming with allen wrenches to get it stiff enough to ride, it was set cushy soft.

THING TO DO: install longer seatpost to obtain better leg extension; install extra water bottle.


-- Elvis

Wed 8-10-05
Mood:  caffeinated

FIRST ENTRY: CAPTAIN'S LOG, STARDATE... Oh, sorry, wrong channel... too much sci-fi and coffee and not enough tequilla and Dana Scully... Uh, it's 11:03am -- test rode my "new" TREK 4500 mtb. The front shocks suck but then I'm a retrogrouch so I itch for a fork with lockout. Maybe fer my b-day? Yeh right. Well, the bike rides well and I posted a review to roadbikereviewdotcom's mtb page...

The Lonerider site is humming along but kinda crowded and disorganized. I guess this will take up the slack ... I will probably make this my new "what's new" page as the other one is crowded with several year's worth of bicycling-life related notes...
Anyhoo... I plan on taking the 4500 back into the woods a lot in what remains of the summer, I used to ride those woods a lot but not so much anymore, however, with a proper mtb, it should happen. Accounts of it's performance will follow.

Still riding my Lemond roadbike frequently of course, and I have been biking to work every day for the past few months.