So perhaps some pics on here got out sooner than Salsa expected–although again, all I was doing was parroting the detective work done by others, as it was forwarded to me.  I’m pleased to see that RATG was a source of accurate information.  (And perhaps just a tad bit smug that it scooped Dirtrag…which still hasn’t updated its website with a post).

Someone at Salsa was kind enough to officially forward some materials on the new Horsethief and Spearfish.  No geometry yet…but my guess is that we’re looking at shorter chainstays, given the new suspension design, the new BB, and the drivetrain options.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the BB is a tad bit higher, either.  Not sure what’ll happen up front–slacker or not.  Spearfish remains 100mm/80mm.  Horsethief is 130/120.

Looks like a direct mount front deraileur and revised cable routing, as well.

Holy crap are the colors hot.  Someone at Salsa deserves a raise.  (No, really.  The annodizing looks Hamazing.)

And, if I dare say so…Spearfish + ENVE rims = WIN.  (Ironically, press shots show ENVE.  Build specs show predominantly Stans).

Their ‘official message’ is here.  If that link doesn’t work, here’s the details:

XX1FTW.

Wow.  Hotness.  Hawt.

I’ll be curious to see the geometry…and to see how the Split Pivot affects the feel of the rear end.  I have no complaints about the 80mm of travel on the Superfish…but I’ll be curious, nonetheless.

I’m not surprised to see that Salsa’s sticking with Aluminum…at least for now.  There’s some pretty fancy-schmancy tube forming going on there…

Sometime soon…test-ride.

Eagle-Eyed Readers have pointed me towards this photo of the alleged new frame.

Does look like a split pivot.  Aluminum.  Rear thru-axle (12×142?).  Fox CTD rear shock.  You can see the front derailleur mount, too.  Maintains the existing seat-tube bracing, the cross-chainstay brace…hmmm….

Allow me to say this right off the bat: I have no inside line.  No insider information.  No amount of prying has made me privy to any info.  I’m not a bike shop employee, I’m not provided with any information that’s not available to the rest of the world.

That said, I’m a fervent observer of all things Salsa.  So I’ve noticed things like this:

1.  Salsa is having a sale on existing full-suspension bikes.

2.  Carytown Bicycle Company is probably violating a non-disclosure agreement by posting that Salsa is releasing new FS bikes.

3.  Salsa has a blank page reserved on their website about split-pivot full suspension bikes.

4.  Some schmoe on MTBR is also promising updates to Salsa’s FS bikes.

I’m perhaps not the brightest person in the world, but I think I see a pattern here.  What is a Split Pivot you ask?  Wikipedia to the rescue.

Frankly, I love my Superfish, and don’t foresee any change in mountain bikes in my future. She’s perrrrrrrrfect.  But I’ll be interested to see what Salsa comes out with.

As part of my ride yesterday, I rode down the ‘new’ bike path on Orchard Road.  It was sunny, 72 degrees, and generally glorious weather…and yet I was the only one on the path.  I couldn’t figure out exactly why, until I came across this:

The asphalt turns to gravel which turns to nothing.  It’s a trail to nowhere.

Suburbia is replete with bike trails to nowhere.  We let developers build subdivisions that include one little chunk of disembodied bike path that terminates at their property’s boundaries.  We apply for grant funding to construct bike paths that start at nothing and end at nothing.

Don’t get me wrong…some communities are doing it right–or at least trying to.  But so many communities let the developer define what the bike path should be, and are willing to accept little bike path chunklets that do nothing and serve no one.

Communities don’t think twice about making developers acquire, by purchase or condemnation, land for road improvements.  Need more turn lanes?  Make the developer build it.  Need an off-site road improvement?  Make the developer pay.  But how many communities make the developer complete offsite improvements to make sure that bike paths actually connect to something?

Let me put this in simple terms: a new subdivision needs water mains.  If I build a subdivision, I put the water mains (the big pipes that are buried in the street and that provide water to the houses) in the ground, so that the houses have water service.  But my water mains by themselves do nothing.  I have to build a water main from my subdivision to the nearest ‘live’ watermain that has water pressure in it–a water main that is connected to wells and water towers that provide the actual water.  I may have to build 2 or more such connections, to make sure that the houses in my subdivision have adequate pressure.  Even if I have to cross someone else’s property, a community will make me get an easement to install my watermains, so that my water system connects to the community’s wells, and so that the system works.  Unless I build those connections between my water mains and the community, no water will flow.

But if I’m a developer and I’m building bike paths, far too many communities are willing to accept a system where I build on-site bike paths, and don’t connect them to anything.  It’s like water mains without the water–no connections means that the system doesn’t work, and the link to the community is lost.  What does that result in?

It results in bike paths that look really nice when they’re installed…ribbons of smooth asphalt.  And those paths sit unused.  They weather, deteriorate, and eventually, someone questions why they were built.  People who do not support cycling look at the unused bike paths and say, “hey–this is why we don’t need bike paths.  No one uses them.”

To use the Orchard Road bike path at the South end, you have to cross two roads, each 5 lanes wide.  There are no sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, or other means of making the crossing safely.  Once you’re across those roads, you have to hop a curb, walk through the weeds, and then get upon the gloriously smooth ribbon of uninterrupted asphalt.  Whose interest is served by that?

In just 2 weeks, I have Chequamegon.  I’m signed up for the 100, although I’m contemplating doing the 60.  We’ll see.

Sunday, I lit out early, for a long ride on the Spearfish.  I did a self-supported 90 mile ride.  I started with 20 miles from my house down to Saw Wee Kee.  I rode 15 miles at SWK…which is a feat onto itself.  That takes a lot of commitment, and re-riding of trails.  I then ducked out of SWK and headed southwest onto Chad’s gravel.  I did a big loop down ’round Plano, and then headed back to home.

I had contemplated riding Kettle, but the weather forecast for Sunday was terrible all week, so I figured I would get stuck riding wet gravel…and yet when I awoke on Sunday, it was clear, and so was the forecast.  Accordingly, some mountain biking is better than none, and thus I made the decision to hit SWK.

The bike performed nearly flawlessly.  My only concern is the tires.  I’m running a set of Rocket Rons.  I have about 200 miles on them now, and until yesterday, they’ve been perfect.  Yesterday, I was riding and turned, and felt the rear end going all over the place.  I stopped and checked it out, and found I was riding on about 10psi.  I couldn’t find a puncture anywhere in the tread, so I aired up and listened…and heard a sickening little hiss.

The rear tire was leaking out of the sidewall…a tiny little leak.  No obvious damage on the outside (no scuff, scratch, etc.)  I turned the tire on its side and shook it, and a droplet of Stans came out.  Shortly thereafter, the Stans coagulated, and the hole sealed up.  I aired to my desired pressure, and rode the rest of the day without incident.  I’m still a bit leery, though.  For 100 miles, I’d hate to be nursing a slowly flattening rear tire.

I think I’m generally ready for Cheq…as ready as I’m going to be.  I need to do some more research into how the drop bags work, what the water situation is, etc., but I’ll figure that out.  I also need to find a spot to camp Friday night.  Details.

This is the anticipated Spearfish setup:

The frame bag is stuffed with a spare tube, tools, pump, and related bike equipment.  The top-tube bag is full of food.  I plan on running a 100L camelbak with additional food (and perhaps a light jacket, depending on the weather).

I’m running a 34T MRP Bling Ring and 11-36 gearing.  I’m still thinking about going to a 32 or even a 30T chainring.

The Project 321 Lefty is working amazingly well.  I cannot believe how laterally stiff it is–it is a great piece of kit.  I’m also very happy with the CTD shock.  Particularly when hitting gravel or doubletrack, the ability to lock out the rear is welcome.

More miles in the coming weeks.  Cheq is my last major ‘formal’ event of the year…at least according to current plans.

I’ve never ridden a Kona bike.  I don’t think I’ve ever even laid hands on one.  So this post isn’t really about their bikes…it’s about their aesthetics.

More specifically, about their advertisements.

Kona has been running a series of very simple ads.  They picture a Kona bike, prominently featured, in its native habitat.  Simple text.  To the point.  Like this:

They’ve had the Abra Cadabra, the Rove (their gravel oriented bike), and a couple of others. I don’t normally take time to comment on advertising, but I really like the aesthetic of their ads.  Simple, clean, and to the point.  They draw your attention to the bike.  No misplaced humor.  No ridiculously technical discussion of design merit.  Just the bike–where it should be.

If the goal of the ads is to get you to look up the bike and see what it is, then mission accomplished, Kona.  Seriously–I wouldn’t ordinarily consider myself to be susceptible to advertisements…but this is the first time in as long as I can remember that I saw an ad and made a note to look up the product.  It’s a well-done advertisement.

North Central Cyclery recently became the world’s first Jones dealer.

World’s.

First.

I’ve commented before on how crazy it is to have such awesomeness this close to home.  I’ll reiterate that sentiment.

Anyhow, this is a driveby review of the Jones Space Frame.  NCC built one up nice.  Shimano XT 2×10 drivetrain.  Truss fork.  Jones loop bars.  Thomson X4 stem.  Nice lock-on Salsa grips.  Surly Rabbit Hole rims front and rear, sporting a 29×2.2 Bronson in the rear, and a Surly Knard up front.

That’s NCC’s photo.

I spent all of 8 minutes riding it.  In an entirely urban environment.  Take this for what it’s worth.

NCC calls it the most interesting bike in the world.  They may be right.  The riding position is totally upright, but I can see how seatpost angle means that you can use one size frame for nearly any size rider.  Seatpost + stem = totally different bike.

Riding slowly or sitting still, it has a feeling of innate, utter calm.  The wide, flat Bronson out back (mounted on the Rabbit Hole), and the big Knard up front, coupled with the bike’s stock geometry and upright sitting position make it unbelievably stable.  You can trackstand at will.  You can ride handsfree without thought.  You can be calm and collected.

Until you come to a curb.  Or a rock.  Or a small country.

When you face an obstacle, something snaps.  I don’t know if it’s the Knard up front, or the truss fork, or what…but you have a feeling of invincibility.  Plans for world domination suddenly seem rational.  It bulls through any obstacle with impunity.  Through, over, but no desire to go around.

I can’t imagine what it’s like off road, though I’d love to find out.  But what was most striking in the driveby review was how complicated its personality was.  Not complicated like difficult to like, but complicated like subtle…like a glass of wine that has a little more flavor with each sip.  Savory.  Totally calm to rip snorting blockbuster in 0.2 seconds.  Attitude, but in a cool, collected way.  It’s the bike that you see studying in the library all of the time–the smartest kid in the classroom…and then you see it in a bar, playing pool, in a white t-shirt with a pack of smokes rolled up in the sleeve.

Ok, it’s nothing like that.  But it’s awesome.  Interesting.  Compelling.  There’s something going on here.

Some time ago, I attended a Brompton Bike clinic at North Central Cyclery, and was intrigued.  Intrigued enough to try riding a Brompton.  This post is about the why…and a little bit about the what.

I don’t ride bikes anecdotally.

I don’t.  When I go for a bike ride, it’s lycra and water bottles.  I don’t ride for transportation.  I don’t ride to get somewhere.  I ride to ride.  I ride planned training rides…and recovery rides.  I’ll do the ever-infrequent fun ride with a group of friends, but for the most part, my riding is going out, warming up, riding hard, cooling down, and going home.  I ride a lot.  But none of my riding is anecdotal.  I use that term figuratively…none of my riding is short and narrative.  It’s always long, hard and usually out of breath.

I work as a professional, and frequently am replete with shirt and tie.  Sometimes, pants.  So biking really isn’t compatible with my day to day.  I live 23 miles away from where I work most days, and I often have days where I leave home before 7 and don’t get home until after 11.  Biking to work is rarely a reasonable option.  At work, I often have to travel to meetings that are distant, on a tight schedule.  So biking at work is rarely an option.

But there are times when it can work.  Today, I had to meet someone for lunch at a location about 1.5 miles away from my office.  Temps outside are around 70, overcast, but no precipitation.  I could drive, but if only there was a way to bike there…

Introduce the Brompton.

This is a M handlebar.  Raw/lacquer finish, to show the beautiful welds.  2 speed, fenders, easy wheels, front luggage mount, extended seatpost.  Generator hub and lights.

I’ll write more about the bike at some point, but the welds are amazing.  (I figured an urban parking lot was an appropos background).

Did I mention the welds?

Gotta keep your dress pants out of the chainring.

It’s too early to have any conclusions…I’ve done lunch runs a handful of times.  I’ll be curious to see what the social/professional ramifications of showing up on a bike are…and frankly, I’m going to try that in a rather timid fashion.  I don’t want to be the eccentric who shows up on a bike and isn’t taken seriously (if there is a cliche for that).  First thoughts:

1. Extended seatpost is brilliant.  I’d look at the telescoping seatpost if I needed to fold smaller, but I cannot see a downside to the extended seatpost.
2. Once you learn how to fold it, folding is no longer scary.  It’s simple.
3. In retrospect, I’d probably look at a 6 speed.  2 speed is suggested as “1 speed to get going, 1 speed to keep going”, and on flat ground, it’s great.  Except when it’s windy.  Or you’re wearing a shirt and tie, and really don’t want to sweat.  Which happens to be a lot, for me.
4. Being accustomed to riding fast(er), it takes conscious effort for me to ride at a relaxed pace that avoids getting the heart pumping (and the sweat pouring out).  I have to keep thinking…commuting.  Commuting.  Commuting.  Slooooow.  Slowwwww.
5. Fenders and easy-wheels rock.  Definitely the way to go.
6. The handling limits of tiny tires are surprisingly high…
7. unless you’re on gravel.  She doesn’t like gravel.
8. The chain lube that comes stock is great.  I’m kind of scared of ever lubing the chain…if there’s grease within 20 yards of me, I am bound to get it on the most expensive piece of clothing I’m wearing.  Long-term practical issue to look at.
9. The ride is surprisingly comfortable, even in dress clothes, with the stock saddle and the ‘firm’ suspension block.
10. I am enamored with the ability to whip it out of the back of my car, and pedal away.
11. College-age dudes think I look like a douche.  (No really.  I heard one say it).  I probably do.  I think I’m ok with that.
12. I wear a helmet.  A giant, white Bontrager that I can keep in my car.  It probably ups my douchey-ness quotient, but I’m definitely ok with that.  Helmet is non-negotiable for me.

We’ll see what happens.  More info over the coming weeks.  Will I be able to ride anecdotally?

There’s a petition on MoveOn.org, asking the State’s Attorney in Cook County, Illinois to not accept any plea bargain from a defendant who was charged with Reckless Homicide and Aggravated DUI after hitting and killing a cyclist…whilst driving with a 0.125 blood-alcohol content.  It’s being shared around the cycling world locally, and it’s one of those areas where bike life intersects with my professional life.

Insert all appropriate disclaimers.  Innocent until proven guilty.  State’s Attorney has her own discretion.  This is not legal advice.  Read “alleged” before every allegation.

Hypothetically assume that the driver was totally wasted, the cyclist was totally innocent, and the driver recklessly, or even maliciously, killed the cyclist.  (Those may be the facts, or may not.  I’m not close enough to the case to know.)

The petition is still wrong.  Here’s why:

1.  We don’t want State’s Attorneys to kowtow to public pressure on criminal prosecutions.  Do you want your Courts run by public referendum?  Folks, there are way more drivers of cars out there than cyclists.  If there were 10,000 cyclists who signed a “no plea deal for the driver” petition, and 1,000,000 drivers who signed a “dismiss the charges against the driver” petition, should the State’s Attorney count the votes and dismiss the charges?  No.  We’re not that far away from a time when public pressure lead to lynchings based on race or creed or a host of other factors that we don’t want taken into account in criminal prosecutions.  We’re not that far away from a time when public sentiment suggested that women were incompetent witnesses…or for that matter couldn’t own property.  I know our State’s Attorneys are elected, and are thus responsible to the electorate.  But when it comes to making legal decisions, we don’t want them to act on impromptu referenda…partially because that’s not how the legal system should work, and partially because of the perils of majority rule.  Listen to Atticus Finch.

2.  If there is a just plea bargain, it may be a better outcome than a trial.  With a plea bargain, the defendant goes away for a prescribed period of time.  If it’s done right, there’s no appeal.  No chance of reversal.  Done.  No burden of proof.  No fickle jury filled with drivers of cars who are compassionate to someone who ‘accidentally hit a cyclist that veered into the road in front of him.’  At a trial, the defendant has to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you understand how thin that margin is?  Any reasonable doubt.  Why take the risk of trial if the outcome can be the same?  People often assume that plea bargain means a reduced sentence…I think that’s likely the “bargain” part of the phrase that confuses people.  But that’s not necessarily the case.  If the prosecutor can get substantially the same prison sentence with a plea bargain as she would going to trial, she’d be foolish to not take a plea bargain.  Why run the risk of trial?  Why run the risk of years of appeals?  Why tie up the resources of the office preparing for a fact and time-intensive trial, when a plea bargain accomplishes the same result, and frees up prosecutors to pursue other criminals…or, in a perfect world, frees them up to research, draft and propose new ordinances and statutes to protect cyclists?  (Note–the risk argument is the one that you should really look at.  In a perfect world, the risk argument would be all that we discussed, because State’s Attorneys would have adequate resources to staff every case properly.  But in the real world, the resource allocation issue is one that has to be paid attention to).  Why do we demand a trial?

Because we want our trial–a public trial, in open Court, to determine his sentencing.

Why?  Do you get more satisfaction out of a public trial–with the inherent risks–than you do with a plea bargain?  Is the trial intended to be a part of the punishment?  We subject both innocent and guilty people to trials–and they’re all presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The trial should not be a part of the punishment, but rather should be a factfinding venture to determine the facts, and the resulting guilt or innocence.  We should not take satisfaction in the suffering of another human going through trial (and we should not design our trials to be public spectacles that punish the participants…unless you’re ok with punishing innocent people who are acquitted of charges).  Both the punitive and rehabilitative steps in cases such as this are supposed to occur in the post-trial process, through sentencing.  (Note: I’m excluding specialized matters like Drug Court or Mental Health Court that include an emphasis on rehabilitation).

I understand the outrage.  I get the anger.  I can empathize with the desire for a public ‘flogging’ of the defendant–the drunk driver who unjustifiably killed a cyclist.  (Allegedly–with some pretty darn strong allegations).  But the legal system shouldn’t function differently because we relate to the victim, and public influence shouldn’t steer the tactical decisions of the prosecuting attorney.

I mean no disrespect to those behind the petition–and Lord knows that I mean no disrespect to the fallen cyclist or his family.  (There’s a risk in writing something like this, that it will be misunderstood.  I’m running that risk because this is an important issue that I think people need to understand.)  We’re supposed to feel outraged.  We’re supposed to want to serve on the jury and throw the book at the defendant.  If someone in my family was killed by a drunk, I’d be giving the proverbial “give me a gun and let me administer justice myself” speech.  But our legal system cannot be run that way.  We cannot let passion and emotion drive our justice system.  The decisions have to be made with information, compassion, and reason…but not with vengeance or mob rule.

Don’t ask the State’s Attorney to abandon one of her best options for dealing with a conclusive case.  Don’t ask her to take unnecessary risks to satiate our desire for a public flogging.  Don’t ask her to waste resources proving what someone will agree to, because you relate to the victim.  What should we be asking for?

Justice.

The first thing that should come to mind is asking the State’s Attorney for justice for the rider, his family, and everyone out there who takes to the streets every day–whether in a car, on a bike, or on foot.  If there’s a plea bargain, so be it…but let it be a just one, that properly and adequately punishes (and hopefully reforms) the defendant.

Think about what you really want.  What if the State’s Attorney listens to the call for a trial, and reduces the charges to improper lane usage, but zealously and vigorously prosecutes that charge in a public jury trial?  Would that be satisfying?  Obviously not.  If the facts support the charge, ask that the State’s Attorney stick to the charge, rather than reducing the severity of the charge–with either a jury trial or a plea bargain.  It’s not the trial that people want…it’s justice that people want.

And if this does go to trial, ask for a jury of peers.  Think about how jury selection will go in this case.  The defendant’s attorney will likely want to strike any prospective juror who has a developed interest in cycling.  Is that fair?  Should we also strike any juror who has an interest in driving, or who drives a car, to prevent bias in favor of the defendant?  Ask the State’s Attorney to push for a true jury of peers.

Moreover, think beyond this case.  What keeps this from happening again?  Why be reactive?  Ask the State’s Attorney to support local, county or state regulations protecting cyclists.  Ask the State’s Attorney to support a statewide anti-harassment ordinance like the one that was recently supported by Axletree in DeKalb, Illinois.  Use this as an example to get laws, or bike lanes, or other improvements that will protect all users of the road in the future, and prevent future tragedies instead of being angered by future tragedies.

I get it.  I really do.  It’s human nature to want our pound of flesh.  But please don’t fall for the misconception that plea bargains are inherently lenient, unfair to the victims, or necessarily a bad idea.  When you can accomplish the same result with no risk…

The thoughts in this post are my personal thoughts.  Don’t confuse them with my professional thoughts or professional obligations.  But do consider them, and consider your preconceptions.  Think about what you really want.  Ask for that.