Site hosted by Build your free website today!
« November 2016 »
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Bike gear
In the news
Road use and cycling
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
You are not logged in. Log in
Sunday, 13 November 2016
A public service announcement to bike opponents

A public service announcement to mountain bike opponents:

Be fair to yourself and others: learn about the subject before taking a side

When it comes to opponents of mountain biking trail access (such as in the situation with Watchung Reservation in Union County, NJ) there tend to be two types of people.

Type one is the person who might not have anything against mountain bikers, but, not engaging in mountain biking themselves, or knowing of the subject, has some general concerns about trail interaction, safety, etc.

Type two is the zealot, the person who simply thinks bikers are reckless, bad, evil, that we consume human souls or eat babies. 

Obviously there is not much you can do with the zealot -- his opposition is essentially ideologically driven, so addressing any specific concerns he raises will not convince him.  And in some cases he may flat out dismiss facts that he does not like or finds inconvenient to his narrative or ideology.

The first sort of person, however, is essentially not anti-mountain bike, but merely lacking in knowledge and context.  And that is something that can be addressed.

If you are someone who has what you think are actual concerns about how mountain bikers can safely interact with other trail users, or if they will ruin the trails, or any similar concerns, then please, be fair to yourself and to mountain bikers: learn about these issues before taking a side!

I realize not everyone has time to research every issue.  But if you care about mountain biking enough to take an opinion on it, please learn about it first -- and not just from the bike hating zealots.  Talk to actual mountain bikers -- many of them are also hikers or road cyclists or engage in other activities, so chances are you may already know some and not be aware of it; you may just know them as roadies or fishermen or something else.  Or stop by a bike shop.  Mountain bike groups like JORBA have web sites with information, as well.

Generally speaking, if you don’t bike yourself, or hang out with bikers, what you are likely to hear about mountain biking is only the anti-biking side, so take some time to investigate the other view on the issue.  It may put many of your concerns in context, and you may come to the conclusion there is no reason to oppose mountain biking trail access after all.

Again, I realize not everyone can research every issue.  But if you care enough about it to take a side, please have the respect for others and yourself to learn the facts.

Thank you.

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 10:42 AM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sunday, 23 October 2016
The truth about the new "no bike signs" at county trails

This is a new one, tried a video entry.  Excuse the wind noise and crappy sound hopefully the message is clearer than the production values...


Long and short of it is, as you can see, the ordinance the county says bans mt. biking is about "roads" "paths" and "sidewalks".  But the county's own maps, which go back way before the new signs, don't show any sidewalks or paths, only "trails".  Wonder why that is.  Maybe the ordinance -- passed in 1983 by the way - wasn't about banning mt. biking, which only happened in 1995 (in a backroom meeting by unelected employees -- who don't pass ordinances, hence trying to say this old one said something it didn't, such as the repeated misquoting of the ordinance, saying it contained the word "trail" which appears nowhere in it?  And when the stuff it is about is clearly about largely paved surfaces?  True "paths" might mean dirt paths, but there are no dirt paths on county maps in most of these parks, certainly not in Passaic River park... and at Watchung all the trails are marked "trails".  And since the "path" reference in the ordinance is bookended by a rule about not blocking cars, that seems unlikely to be about mountain biking, doesn't it?)...  

See for yourself:



Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 3:14 PM EDT
Updated: Sunday, 23 October 2016 10:59 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Trailside meeting draws a full house to support mountain bike access

The auditorium at the trailside center at Watchung Reservation was packed October 20th as mountain bikers and supporters showed up to hear about and comment on the new trail plan put together by consultant CMA Associates. 

 Some stand-out moments from the 10-20-2016 meeting:

“The bikes aren’t the problem. The county is the problem!” – hiker concerned over poor maintenance of trails and park in general.

“The points I’ve been making and other people have been making have been about transparency and access. I get what you’ve been saying about patience…. But I think we’ve been patient for about six years, or maybe twenty years. I hope that the message after tonight from every mountain biker here to the county is please give us a plan for getting this open, we’ve been waiting for twenty years and it’s only fair to open it up.” – mountain biker from Westfield.

“If you set the precedent that they can charge for access, even indirectly by requiring you to comply with a registration requirement, you risk gaining paid access to a few trails in Union County but losing free access to every trail in the state of New Jersey” – Brian (me), biker, commenting on the suggestion that cyclists pay a fee and register their bike to ride in Watchung on trails they’ve already paid for with massive taxes.

“Why are mountain bikers third class citizens?” – citizen commenting on the fact that mountain biker trails marked on the map displayed at the meeting were the smallest allotted of the three groups of hikers, equestrians, and then bikers.

And the highlight: A young kid who opined that when he first saw the new “no bike” signs when his father took him to the park, he “thought they were a bad joke.”  The innocent view of this young rider quite summed up how many people, seeing the issue for what it is, without the politics and nonsense that has become attached to it, would react to the idea of going to such trouble just to prevent people from getting outside and having fun.

There were only two people who spoke out against mountain biking; a runner who said he’s okay with bikers elsewhere, but at Watchung they’ve been rude, and a “trail steward” who said that mountain bikers talk about doing trail work but they haven’t shown up to help at Watchung until recently.

To the first, one can only assume he has had very bad luck to run into a few bad apples.  Or perhaps poor people skills?

The second is actually amusing, because it actually helps the case for mountain biking. 

 Yes, by banning mountain bikers, you remove any incentive for them to help with trail work at a park they can’t officially ride.  Why is this a surprise?  And why does it make you contemptuous of mountain bikers?  Would you volunteer to help at a park where you were banned?  Bikers only helped out recently because that was when the no bike signs came down and people thought the county was opening the park; they didn’t before because they had no reason to.  At an August trail work session for instance, over half the volunteers were cyclists.  However,  only days later, new no bike signs went up, a reversal souring any goodwill and discouraging any future trail work efforts by bikers, until they get park access. 

But except for those two, the support for mountain biking access was the order of the day. And lastly, the room was full.  Many people came from all over and spent the better part of two hours listening speaking up, and being involved.  At one point the room was so crowded people were standing in the back.  It was estimated there were about a hundred people at one point.

Thanks especially to Burt, Matt, Matt S., Tom, the guys from Hilltop Bicycles, Joe, and all the others I didn’t know who showed up.  And thanks especially to Mr. Seebeck of JORBA, the Jersey Offroad Bicycling Association, who came from far away to be there and advocate for cycling access.

Now some questions that emerged:  

First, what about the new no bike signs that were posted in places besides for Watchung, that never had them before?  It seems CME was designing not just a new trail plan for Watchung but for the whole county, which would imply these new bike prohibitions at other parks are part of the same.  This raises a concern: Could the plan result in a net loss of trail access rather than a gain?  If we get access to trails at Watchung but lose access at every other place in the county, where there never were no bike signs before, that would not be a good thing.  

Second, the contractor CME said they were seriously considering registration to ride in the Reservation, when the subject was brought up.  This as I stated at the meeting would set a dangerous precedent and risk free park access at every other park, as governments are always looking for alternative revenue streams.  And of course, under such a plan the trails will not truly be open, not in the sense of every other public park.  Cyclists have already paid for these trails with their tax dollars despite not being able to use them for years; if anything the county owes cyclists back fees, not the other way around!

And lastly, when asked outright if they have consulted with other county park managers etc. to get information on how to implement mountain biking access, Union County’s Ron Zuber said they have not talked to park managers from other counties, like Morris, where there is mountain biking, in order to get advice. He said that since the next county over is Essex, and they don’t allow mountain biking at South Mountain, there was no point in asking other counties.  Does he forget that Union County is surrounded by other counties besides Essex?  With almost all the rest of the state allowing mountain biking, why look to the one other county that also has a similar backwards policy? Moreover, if they haven’t been pursuing this, what have they been doing for two years since the February meeting at Galloping Hill Golf Course (where we were promised the plan would be implemented in “a few months”)?

Also, Dan Bernier and some other long-time mountain bike opponents were at the meeting, although they did not speak or make presentations.  Their continued involvement – especially since they were instrumental in imposing the ban twenty years ago in a secret backroom meeting of unelected employees – raises serious questions about what the county’s actual approach is to be on mountain biking going forward. 

In short, though the public support for bike access was overwhelming, the county and its contractor’s progress is lackluster at best.  While they may intend to follow through on promises to open the park, they either appear to be hesitant or stalling.  Common sense alone should have prevented many of the above issues, chief among them the failure to ask advice from counties with mountain bike access: if you want to know about mountain biking, you ask counties where it is part of the program!
With this in mind, thanks to all who showed up.  There appears to have been a turning point in public opinion regarding bike access, but we still need to get the county itself to get moving.  

It’s more important than ever to keep the pressure on the county going forward until the trails are open and we can all ride without looking over our shoulders. 

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 1:35 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Saturday, 1 October 2016
Dumbassery in London.. and elsewhere

Today nearly had the ubiquitous pedestrian step in front of me without looking. Fortunately was able to stop without falling.  But it was funny because the same day a friend of mine sent me this:

The IMGUR page shows a video clip of a English  cyclist approaching a street crossing, with various pedestrians here and there.  The cyclist goes behind one of the peds and is going to mske it through ok, but the ped sees him and turns around and then steps in front of him.

The title of the video is that once a ped is crossing you have to stop by UK law. However, others responding to the post pointed out if the ped is out of the way you can go behind him.  That makes sense.  Either way, 

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 2:20 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sunday, 14 August 2016
Union county gov't claims to work with them for trail access, then reposts

Union county claims to work with cyclists for trail access, then reposts "no bike" signs


8-14-16: When the no bike signs came down in Winter of 2015, it was a relief.  The extralegal "ban" on mt biking in Watchung Reservation, enacted in a backroom deal by unelected gov't employees in 1995, seemed over.


Shortly, riders began riding there more frequently -- including yours truly.


I rode there just last week.


Then, today, driving on the road thru the Res I see new "no bike" signs.


It was a surprise, to say the least, but also does not reflect well on the county government.  At the February meeting with riders, JORBA, and consultant CME Associates, riders were assured Union county intended to open the park to mountainbiking.  There was precious little communication since; but after my Dec. 2015 OPRA request about the ban, the signs did come down.


Why are they back?  Was the county lying all along?  Or is this some last ditch stalling attempt to keep riders out even while a new trail plan including cycling is drawn up?  What happened to the 43,000 dollars paid to CME for said trail plan?  Why was it never presented, the vote mysteriously cancelled?  Why is the county, which promised to work with riders and in particular the Jersey Offroad Bicycling Association, not returning communications?

Under what "law" are these signs posted?  The signs quote at the bottom a county ordinance, part of the public safety code regulating bicycle riding on roads and sidewalks.  This never had anything to do with mountainbiking or offroad trails, which is why it took an OPRA request in the beginning to find out if and why mt. biking was "banned" -- there is no law or ordinance on the books because as the gov't admitted in its OPRA response, "The freeholders did not act to exclude mountain biking".  So what is going on?


Hopefully citizens will protest this.  I encourage all local riders to write the freeholders and demand fair park access and that the county cease trying to pretend an ordinance that says one thing means another.   I have filed another OPRA request – we’ll see what happens.

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 2:38 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 15 August 2016 8:29 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Friday, 29 July 2016
Watch "London has fallen"
A while ago I posted a piece praising "Premium Rush" -- not because it was destined to be some classic of film-making magic, but because it was simply a fun action movie with a cyclist as the action hero, and that is something that as a cyclist I could appreciate. It is also something obviously rare these days.

By the same token, one could say the same about "London has fallen".

An action movie set against the backdrop of international terrorism, the movie tells the take of a U.S. Secret Service agent and his President, who must escape a series of terror attacks in London.

At first blush this seems hardly unusual; every other Tom Clancy novel seems to have had a similar plot, right?


Except, when Hollywood made Tom Clancy's novel "The sun of all fears" into a movie, it took the Islamic terrorists who were the villains and exchanged them for neo-Nazis, in order to be more politically correct.

Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, and who doesn't dislike Nazis? They make almost as good a bad guy as Darth Vader. That said, however, it seemed a bit of as stretch -- and it ultimately removed from the story the villain the author had chosen. Let's assume that he had in fact chosen that villain for a reason. What is lost then in changing it? You still get an entertaining story and conflict, but not the conflict the author intended, and that is saying something, because political correctness has become so rampant these days that even though we are at war with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, finding a film where they are the bad guys is as rare as a traffic free day on the turnpike. Worse, finding a movie with an unflinchingly patriotic action hero is as rare as one where the action hero is a cyclist!

In short, anything that doesn't conform to political orthodoxy has a hard time these days. As a cyclist -- a member of a group who is constantly denounced, called names, and even threatened with death in the streets on a regular basis -- I can sympathize (cyclists are one of the few groups it is politically correct to denounce and talk about murdering, incidentally). So as a U.s. cyclist, under cultural siege, I feel a kindred spirit with the action hero of yesteryear, the kind that might have shot or blown up a bad guy while shouting "yippie kiyay" to the cheering of fans (see any Bruce Willis film) but who is now deemed a cultural dinosaur.

And that is what seems to upset so many about London Has Fallen. It isn't that the movie shows us a good guy vs. terrorists -- that subject has been shown in films for decades. Rather, its that the hero -- and the other characters -- are so goshdarned proud about it. One gets the impression that, in addition to their objection to the villains being modeled on real life bad guys (Islamic terrorists) this is what really pisses the far left off.

Indeed, "London" is replete with examples that make it a "feel good" movie for these troubled times. When the news plays video of a real life terror attack, and politicians who do nothing in response but mouth bromides, the film shows one guy standing up to the terrorists. While real life good guys seem to cede the moral high ground to terrorists, as if their excuses or beefs with the west entitle them to murder, saying we bring violence on ourselves, the film's characters, including a vice president portrayed by Morgan Freeman, enthusiastically and explicitly reject this narrative.

While present-day politicians seem to have morals which drift with the wind, the President in the movie responds to his imminent killing by terrorists with defiantly reciting his oath of office -- even though he is repeatedly interrupted by physical blows.

And finally, the hero of the film, Secret Service agent Banning, in the final fight with one of the terrorists, grunts out a line many patriotic Americans could agree with "we are not a building, we are not a piece of paper, we are not one man... **** like you have been trying to kill us for a long time. And in a thousand years, we'll still be here!" (this last bit uttered as he had the villain in a headlock).

Yet while regular Americans watched this movie and in some cases cheered at the theatre, the far left and the so called "intellectuals" (was there ever a greater misnomer?) have been hating on it. They literally cannot say enough terrible things. It has been called racist, xenophobic, bigoted, small-minded, and perhaps worst of all, insensitive!

For instance, the following are from actual search results: "Rolling Stone Mar 4, 2016 - There are bad sequels, and then there's this Islamophobic, Trumptastic mess 'London has Fallen' — read Peter Travers' zero-star review.'" while MTV said, "London Has Fallen: Bigger, Dumber, And Even More Offensive - MTV" and the NY Post wrote, "Racist, idiotic 'London Has Fallen' is a revenge dud".

Someone should tell these people it is no less racist to oppose terrorists than any other nasty people out to kill you. Islamism, like any other terrorist ideology, is not a race your are born with but a choice you pursue, hence opposing to cannot be "racist" (someone please get these gentlemen a f*^#ing dictionary!)

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, regular people who were not racists or bigots enjoyed the movie -- largely for the same reasons the leftists hated it. Much in the was in Premium Rush, the cyclist in me felt like cheering when the narrator said, "one time or another we all get hit...sometimes, you gotta hit back," the American in me had the same reaction to "London", for the same reason.

Logically, action movies are not necessarily a practical guide to life's trials an tribulations. One man couldn't realistically take down a hundred terrorists -- just like the stunt riding or smashing of jerk driver's mirror in Premium Rush is not how to go about dealing with your next bike ride.

That said, however, there is something to be said for the emotional appeal of such stories, as what they are -- simplified and idealized fiction.

And in that simplification, we get to a real truth that the far left, in their rush to politicize everything on behalf of everyone but everyday Americans, forgets: There are indeed good guys and bad guys in the world, even if the solution to dealing with them isn't accomplished in 90 minutes as it is on film.

And, of course,m most Americans -- those who haven't drank the politically correct kool-aid -- want the good guys to win, and be damned proud of it.

So go rent "London has fallen". It's not Shakespeare, but it is an entertaining action flick with a moral certitude not seen since John McClane shot a bad guy off the roof back in the 1980's.

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 11:25 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Monday, 30 May 2016
Self driving cars: a menace to cyclists and road users everywhere!

Google self driving cars to be equipped with “people catching” hoods?

Yeh, self-driving cars no boon for safety


According to a tiny article in Investor’s Business Daily, Google just patented a sticky hood for their self driving cars.  The purpose is that when the car hits a person, they will stick to the hood and not be thrown, hopefully minimizing any injury beyond the initial impact.


What no one seems to have picked up on here is that this is a tacit admission that, not only will self-driving cars probably not be the perfect vehicles their promoters say, but those promoters themselves actually know they will be much more dangerous than regular, person-operated automobiles to pedestrians or even bicyclists.

We already knew this - outside of AI (artificial intelligence) there is no way for a computer to do what a alert road user does.  Self driving cars don't really drive in the sense of a thinking road user -- they cheat, reacting to sensors and a set of commands.  If it ain't on the commands, forget it.  This is why Google's cars were flummoxed by a trackstand in one famous example of their inability to deal with cyclists in real world situations -- and why their claim, recently, of being able to interact with a cyclist alongside (with no other traffic or variables around or between them, hardly a realistic assessment) doesn't convince me. 

Heck, if you want to talk safety, recallt he google car famously pulled over for driving too slow? Google said it capped their car's speeds at 25 mph.  Good, makes sense.  But then they let them drive of roads with much higher posted speeds, where the cars might actually cause an accident!  Why not truck them out to residential neighborhoods?  It costs more but it would at least show a concern for others and the rules while using the public as your personal lab rats [something they probably shouldn't be doing anyway]. 

Now you have this "sticky hood" thing.  The very fact that the company has patented what is essentially a cow-catcher for people implies they expect their cars to be colliding with them.  You do not go to the trouble to design, research, develop, and patent a device to make human beings stick to the hood of a car, unless you foresee that car actually hitting said human beings.

Consider that, then consider this: In all the major news articles I've read ove rthe last few years, from the NY Times to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, on self-driving cars, no one mentioned how they would interact with cyclists as part fo traffic.  In fact, cyclists were not mentioned AT ALL, not even in one article that specifically about a test area constructed to see how the cars reacted to things around them!!!

Bjut just now, after google and others have been working ont his for years, they are now saying "oh, we can react safety to cyclists".  Is there any way this could be more obvious that these companies (and the gov't) are treating cyclists as an afterthought and not a legitimate part of the traffic dynamic?

There may --- may -- be some minor merits to driverless cars versus a drunk or texter, but they cannot think, cannot make moral judgements, and are no substitute for an alert human.  With this new reveal, it is clear that it is not just critics of the self-driving cars like myself that conclude this, but even the companies promoting the cars themselves.  A cow-catcher for human beings hood is something you design only if you see your car colliding with human beings.  This says volumes about the implications of self-driving cars for cyclists and other road users not enclosed in cars.  But the self-driving boosters still swear their vehicles are safe.   

Sure.  Whatever you say.  
So why the “human target” hood?

I didn't even touch on the privacy issues.  Let's just say if Windows 10 is like Skynet for your PC or laptop, then self-driving cars, with their necessity to track your movements and location, and  the multitude of cameras they will have pointed at streets all over the U.S., are like Skynet for the roads.



Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 8:19 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Monday, 25 April 2016
Riding the Rez
Monday, 25 April 2016
Riding the Rez

Now that the "no bikes on trails" signs are down from Watchung Rez (a cop who helped remove them, through a bike shop owner friend of mine said it's official now) I've been riding there a lot, and I have to say it is both awesome and horrible.

 It is awesome to be back on a regular basis after years of worrying if should I ride or not, will I be hassled?  Especially since it's literally a few miles from my door.

However, it is horrible because many of the trails are in bad shape.

The damage is clearly due to natural causes and human neglect; erosion, and no one doing what is needed to repair or minimize it.  This is what happens when you exclude a major trail user group... your trails deteriorate.   

The trails are generally rideable, but it would be such an even more wonderful place to enjoy the outdoors if they were better taken care of.  So it is sad that so far the county has yet to schedule the promised inclusion of cyclists in particular mtb groups like JORBA.  Oh well, governments are often free with promises -- and just as free at forgetting or postponing them.  Or maybe something actually will be done -- who knows? Hopefully it will, the neglect is not something that will help in the long run.

In the meantime the park is a great place to ride and with the no bike signs removed by the government, there is a much reduced chance of anyone giving you sh!t.  So get out there and ride!  

We have a great park right in our own county.  Yeh the trails could be better, (maybe this is why so many ride fatbikes as opposed to normal or traditional styled mtb tires?) but the fact that it could be better does not mean we shouldn't use it as is until much needed improvements are made.  For that matter, if you see a moveable hazard and can stop safely, fix it.  I did this the other day in another park [not Watchung res], a bridge made of beams had been messed up, one of the railroad tie size beams was some distance away.  I dragged it over and reseated it, them moved all the other spread out beams back together.  The same thing at Watchung, tho less dramatic.  I've stopped to move the odd loose rock or even litter off the trail.  And once half of a huge tree (lighter than it looked).  Why not leave things better than they were?

But the important thing is  if you look at the public now, people want a place to ride -- and other people, hikers etc., don't mind.  The way to keep access is to use it.  If no one rides there, are waits for some official notice in the paper, they may be waiting years, in which case in the meantime, nothing would have been done to restablish cycling as a normal trail activity.  Beyond your enjoyment, riding there helps make cycling more visible and seen as a regular normal thing.  And therefore reduces the likelihood of any intolerant jerk trying to kick us out.

Ride safe, ride well, and have fun.  Just watch the dilapidated bridges and washed out trails in some spots.



Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 12:05 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 30 May 2016 8:19 PM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink | Share This Post
Thursday, 7 January 2016
Signs are down, trails open

Noticed this December that the no bike signs at Watchung Reservation were down for the first time I can recall in two decades.  This coincided with another OPRA request to the county for information on the Rez, as well as some other measures I took.  Since the county is not talking to myself or anyone else involved in efforts to end their extra-legal, never authorized by legislative action "ban", which was created by a handful of unelected employees in a secret meeting in 1995, no one knows why the signs are down.  I would argue it may simply be they got tired of answering the darn OPRA requests.  Or maybe it was the producer from a local news station I contacted.  Who knows.

Of course, the park was never actually "closed" -- the gov'ts policy was to exclude bikers, but it was never authorized by passing a law or ordinance... But the fact that the signs were essentially bogus and had no authority is beside the point; it is still nice to see them gone, and minimizes the likelihood of the ignorant hassling any bikers who mountain bike there.  Which is good news as The Rez is right nearby, way closer than parks in other counties.

I rode there twice the week I noticed the signs gone, and as soon as the trails dry from the past week's rain plan to go back for more.  Ride safe and have fun.  After after 20 years we've earned it!


Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 7:26 PM EST
Updated: Monday, 30 May 2016 8:40 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sunday, 8 March 2015
Drillium - its back!
Topic: Bike gear

Back in the day.... probably a few years before I was being born -- a strange craze swept cycling.  People were taking perfectly good arts and drilling holes in them. 

The idea was to save some weight -- but also create a pleasing design in the process.  Some guys did professional quality work, but many more were the shop employees or racers or just plain garage mechanics who tinkered.

Some drillium made enough of an impact that mass-produced parts started being sold with the holes already in them (of course, even back then, liability was an apparent concern; I've read that the holy parts weighed more than the unholed ones, indicating they were probably beefed up first, which sort of defeated the "hole"  purpose.  Be that as it may, however, note that the Campagnolo Nuovo Record brake levers were undrilled from the factory.  Super Record, which came later, had factory-drilled levers.

In short, drillium was big enough to influence the industry.  Even today, the popularity of drilled parts among "retro" riders enables companies like Velo Orange to offer "drillium" chainrings and cranks.  Of course, this is a niche market.  The truth is, Drillium hasn't been big for years.  Why?  One might as well ponder the nature of gravity.  Some say excessively drilled parts broke; others that as Super Record supplanted Nuovo Record there was less market for drilling; and of course, then parts started being made of carbon and stuff and this trend passed into history.

Sort of.

The truth is, there is always someone out there who tinkers.  I did this back in the 1990s to the shift levers on my old Gitane, because they were old enough to be "period" and i wanted to see how to do it, but except for the odd chainring, or sometimes chainrings made into home-made bash guards fro mountain bike use, those Suntour shift levers were all I ever drilled out before.  So after stumbling on some pics onlien that remonded me of my long-deceased Gitane, I decided to follow in the footsteps of the 70's, and drilled out a pair of dia-compe brakes.  Not bad, so I did the 105 group on my Trek 470... front and rear derailliuers, downtube shifters, brakes, and lastly, the brake levers.  My friend who runs a bike shop told me brake levers are hard to do and in the olden days guys built special jigs.  I did it freehand with a cordless drill while listening to oldies radio.

Now... if only I had more parts to practice on...!

Posted by blog/bicyclerider at 5:06 PM EST
Updated: Sunday, 8 March 2015 5:15 PM EST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older