Appendix B - More on Presta Valve Locknuts, aka Valve Rings

Introduction 

Obviously, just about anyone would read an essay of almost any length about Presta valve locknuts, aka valve rings. Even so, I deferred last week to the presumed minority of souls who are intimidated by vast tracts of text, and I actually shortened (!) my post. I achieved this via two means: a) moving a tangential discussion of tubeless setup to an appendix, and b) saving a second digression for this week. So, as a counterpoint to last week’s post and its Appendix A, I herein provide Appendix B. I had originally intended to use this post to present my brother’s input on the topic and my response—and I will get to that. But first, I’ve already received lots of reactions to the first post and I’ll tackle those now.

Feedback on the first post

It goes without saying that my first essay on valve locknuts generated immediate and impassioned responses. First was this commentary (from Anonymous) below the post itself:

Deep analysis of an important topic. I have shared with all my friends. I expect to have fewer of them shortly.

Next came a written apology from M—, who started this whole thing 13 years ago when (as recalled in last week’s post) he called my use of valve locknuts “a sign of novice nerd-dom.” In an email last Thursday he announced that he’d read my last post in its entirety—something he almost never does, but in this case, as he explained, his wife “was watching some PBS program about British royals so I had some idle time.” He went on to say, “ I apologize for the stinging remark about your moronic use of stem nuts.  I can be frightfully insensitive at times.” (And as you have seen, I can be frightfully moronic.)

Subsequently another member of our bike club, K—, emailed the group, “Dana, thanks for sharing the valve rings / valve stem nuts article. We chatted about it at the Sibley stop on today’s ride, then lo and behold what should B— spot but a valve ring in the wild!

I replied to K— and the group, “I hope somebody grabbed it for his or her stash, or maybe even valve, or at least to clean up litter,” to which K responded, “I did not grab it Dana. One of my valve stems ( the wheel in the picture) was unthreaded and the other … had a valve stem ring on it already! Also, I think the group’s feeling was that this was now a ‘wild’ valve stem ring, and it was best to leave it to its hard-earned freedom.” Fair enough!

That same day, another teammate, D—, wrote, “After reading your post I added valve rings and caps on the short stems in the low profile Mavic MA40 wheels on my 1970s Frejus — in support of ultimate loser dorkitude — certified M-approved.”

Look at that! Actual valve caps! Seeing those certainly throws you for a loop, don’t it? Unlike valve locknuts, these caps are so universally eschewed that actually seeing one is as unexpected as seeing a dog washing itself, or viewing an AI-rendered drawing of a person with three arms, or encountering a schoolgirl with sideburns (though none of those exemplifies dorkitude, I hasten to add). The first photo of this post, of the capped crooked valve ... ugh. Just ugh.

The next response was from L—, who inquired, “OK, but what about a bling driven setup where I have the nut and the cap because they are from Hope and bronze anodized to match my hubs?” He included these two photos:

I think in the case of extreme bling, a special dispensation should be granted. Nothing wrong with a little flair. L— has mentioned that he used to mountain bike in Hope, a place in Derbyshire near Sheffield (though Hope is also, confusingly, a manufacturing company in Barnoldswick, Lancashire). I shall hereafter always think of L— as The Man From Hope. (Well, okay, the other man from Hope.) Now, I’ll bet I know just what you’re thinking: wouldn’t one of those amazing gold anodized valve caps make a fine addition to M—’s collection? L—, if by some chance you’re reading this: you have been warned.

And now, I shall move on to my original topic, the invaluable input on valve rings from my brother. (If more responses to my previous post come rolling in, I’ll have to address them in another appendix or two.)

Uncle Bryan weighs in

When I originally solicited opinions about valve locknuts via email, I really wanted my brother Geoff to chime in. After all, it was my impasse with him that got this whole debate going, 36 years ago. Plus, he’s one of the best bike mechanics I know; his nickname when he was the mechanic for the Cal Poly Wheelmen was “Dr. Shimano.” I was known, to the members of his team and mine, as his loyal sidekick, Tecnova, named after the really shitty Panaracer tires that tended to come on Japanese road bikes in those days.

A note on those tires: I spelled the name wrong in a previous post. I’d put “Technova” but just learned it’s actually spelled “Tecnova.” So sue me. Anyway, here is a photo. Just look at how shitty they are:

This  probably won’t surprise you, but I had ChatGPT help me chase that down that photo. Have you ever noticed how when the chatbot is done servicing your request it always suggests something else it could do? It just doesn’t want to let go. It should be called ClingGPT. In this case it asked if I wanted it to provide a “high-resolution, clean copy” of the tire photo for me. I said sure. Here’s what it created:

Look at that! It bears no resemblance to the real tire! John Keats would be turning in his grave. (He’s the one who wrote, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty.”) What’s kind of frightening is that ChatGPT could have corrected my spelling but instead reinforced it. It even claimed that there’s disagreement about “Technova” vs. “Tecnova” and cites this very blog as precedent for “Technova,” even though the GPT knows I’m albertnet’s author. When AI ultimately replaces human companionship, nobody will ever be kept honest again. But they’ll be so cozy and satisfied with their sycophantic digital pals!

OMG, where was I? Oh, yeah, I’d reached out to Dr. Shimano for input on valve rings. Alas, I couldn’t get his attention, but I did get a nice response from his evil twin, Uncle Bryan. (Is Bryan evil? No, of course not, he’s just Geoff’s twin. But “evil twin” has such a nice ring to it! In reality “evil” applies instead to Geoff, because he is known to all his nieces and nephews as “Evil Uncle Geoff,” just as I’m known as “Evil Uncle Dana.” And are Geoff and I evil? Yes, definitely. Now, moving on to the “Uncle” bit, it just seems to me that as my brothers and I age and try to embody the gravitas we’re expected to have as full-on mature adults, we should have some kind of honorific to extend and embellish our names. I would enjoy being called Captain Dana, or Master Dana, or even Lord Dana, but of course I haven’t earned any of these. In certain contexts I get to be Coach Dana, but that doesn’t transfer very well to my everyday life, so I generally have to settle for Uncle Dana. Somehow among my brothers and me this “easy honorific” has become completely standard, to where it’s actually rare to leave off the “Uncle,” even if we’re just talking to each other without a niece or nephew in earshot.)

With no further ado, here is Uncle Bryan’s commentary.

First, the against. Do they really work? It’s hard to say if they work or not without knowing what it is they are supposed to do. I’m not prepared to answer that question at the moment. So the answer is yes, I think they do work, so that’s not really an against, except that some believe that they don’t really work. I’ll address that conundrum later. 

The other against that I can think of: weight. They add weight to the bike. I don’t care about that. The weight is negligible and if I were concerned about weight, well... there are other areas where that could be addressed with orders of magnitude of difference. Didn’t you once thread many valve rings on an opponent’s bike to add weight and annoy? And also fill his frame tubes with ball bearings? And was this the kid who would stop what he was doing every few minutes just to walk over to his bike and heft it, just to remind himself how light it was? At the Joke on the Hill? 

There is one real problem with valve rings that I can think of, though, and that’s that they often come loose. It seems to me that they rattle and annoy, though now I’m so deaf that I can’t hear if they are rattling, so maybe they don’t ... but I remember that they used to, but then again can I really remember anything? Am I just imagining all this? It’s like Dad when his front derailleur would be rubbing and driving us all mad but we were too shy to mention it most of the time. I did see a front derailleur that was ground almost all the way through, leaving this knife edge in the metal... was that Dad’s? He couldn’t have ridden enough to do that, could he have? No, it was Dad’s! I can totally see it in my memory! But then there’s that memory problem again... No, I’m sure it was! Now the tables have turned, of course. I was riding with [his son] John, maybe even when we did the STP, and he pointed out that my bike was making a clicking or ticking or popping sound, mostly in first gear, or at least in the lower gears where the tension was high and the wind noise low. I know it does this but can’t figure out what it is, so I just pretend it’s not happening. If I do that I pretty much can’t hear it anyway. I’m just too tired to care, and what can I do? So maybe the valve rings do rattle, and maybe that’s a problem, but not for me. The other problem with their coming loose is that they’re probably not doing what they’re supposed to be doing, whatever that is, if they’re loose. 

So what are the benefits of valve rings? Let’s see, I know there are some benefits, some reason that I “like” them, or at least use them. Okay, firstly, they keep the stem from disappearing in the rim hole when you shove the pump head on it. That’s handy, but of course there’s the down side that if you don’t shove the stem into the tire body before inflation you might end up with the tube next to the stem lifting the tire beads and blowing the tire off the rim as you inflate, and it’s hard to shove the stem in there with a valve ring blocking the way. I seem to remember that happening like fifty years ago, but I don’t think it happens anymore, or maybe it was all in my imagination, or a theory as to why the 500 PSI air compressor at the gas station blew my tire up in two seconds and the explosion right next to my head ruined my hearing. Either way I’m going with the rings. 

The other thing it does that I can think of is that it keeps the stem perpendicular to the rim, which is of utmost importance. There’s nothing dorkier than a valve stem that’s all cockeyed. I’m sure we used to argue that it was a safety issue as well, but then we argued all sorts of stupid stuff. And if you’ve got the tube misaligned with the tire too much the valve ring just isn’t going to save you, it can only do so much. 

Now it seems that there’s more... oh yes, if you don’t have a valve ring it’s like the stem is naked and you can see past it into its more modest regions, that place where it’s not polite to look. If the rim has a big valve hole this problem is even worse, and it also exacerbates the issue with the stem’s angle to the rim. Maybe back in the day we’d use a valve ring to cover up the fact that the rim was made for Schrader valves (or worse, reamed out for Schrader, by you!) and by extension you were a loser. You may as well have steel rims. So yeah, a valve ring can do that. It also looks like it’s protecting the stem somehow, maybe from getting broken off if it got bent too far in one direction. I don’t know how it would do that, but that’s the feel it gives. It just looks better, okay? Like a fork crown with a Dura-Ace brake on it, not naked; clothed, armored, even. 

One more thing... it’s just more stuff, more intricate parts, more little things to make the bike cool. Like those caps we’d solder on the cables, or cable goodies, or the Shark fin, or the little sack for the Suntour... what was that, power cam? Yeah, the power cam brake. I actually feel the same way about presta valve caps, but I guess valve caps are another blog post—probably your next one, in fact! 

My responses

So, starting with Bryan’s first question—what are these locknuts even for?—I think it’s remarkable that he even asked. I will assert (at the risk of antagonizing some readers) that most people form opinions without really bothering with the step of wondering. Instead they quickly discern what position their tribe has taken, and unquestioningly align with it.

Bryan is right, of course: valve locknuts do indeed hold the valve straight, though any competent mechanic should be able to get this right, and the crooked valve problem is more with Schrader valves on low-pressure tires because these valves are common among cheap-ass commuting bikes that get very little maintenance. I am convinced—and I’m happy to argue with you about it—that riding your crappy commuting bike with underinflated tires causes the valves to gradually get pulled crooked. So if anything, more Schrader valves should have locknuts. (I have only seen one such tube.)

Bryan’s memory of my threading “many valve rings on an opponent’s bike” is accurate; as described here, I once stacked like ten of these locknuts on each of my opponent’s valves. My opponent was of course was our evil brother Geoff; this was part our valve locknut war. But filling a frame tube with ball bearings … that wasn’t me. That was this kind of annoying guy I worked with at The Spoke, or (as my brothers called it) The Joke. It wasn’t The Joke on the Hill, though; it was the lame Joke in the Table Mesa Center. The Hill was the college community and that was The Joke’s flagship shop. Not only was “my” shop the lesser one, but I wasn’t even an hourly employee … I was just a lowly assembler, paid by the bike. My brothers scorned me because the shop we admired (and that we eventually all worked at) was the High Wheeler, or Thigh Feeler as we called it. It didn’t matter that my brothers didn’t even work there at the time—they could still mock me for my lesser affiliation. (As you can see, these twisted parasocial relationships actually predate social media.)

I distinctly remember the guy at the Joke whom Bryan referred to. He looked exactly like Jahn, the creepy, developmentally arrested ringleader of eerie children in the 1966 “Star Trek” episode “Miri.” Jahn, as you’ll surely recall, led the kids in calling the Enterprise crew “grups” and in ultimately attacking them, chanting, “Bonk, bonk on the head!” So uncanny was this bike shop guy’s resemblance, I felt nervous working around him. (I don’t remember his name, not that I’d give it to you anyway.) Where my memory fails is that this guy was either the perp or the victim of the ball bearing prank and doggone it, I just can’t remember which.

Anyway, the story is, somebody at the Joke (possibly the Jahn lookalike) had a beautiful Mercian road bike made with Reynolds 753 tubing, which was a really big deal in those days (this being around 1982). The thinnest part of the tubing wall was just 0.4 mm thick, and a mechanic with strong hands could actually see the tube compress if he pushed hard enough on it with his thumbs (or so it was said). This frame was built up with the lightest stuff, even the actual Campagnolo Super Record pedals with the titanium spindles (as opposed to the cheaper steel-spindle Superleggeri most of us had). Despite belonging to the employee, this bike was always on prominent display on the showroom floor. Its owner, who wasn’t even much of a cyclist, was in the habit of walking over to pick it up end enjoy how light it was. He did this multiple times a day and it drove the rest of us nuts. So finally the perp (possibly the Jahn-lookalike) waited until the bike’s owner went to lunch and then pulled out the bike’s seatpost, and filled the entire seat tube with ball bearings. He put the post back in and then we all went back to our posts and waited for the owner to get back from lunch and lift his bike again. When he did, he just about had a heart attack, and the rest of us almost died laughing.

Moving on to Bryan’s memory of our dad’s front derailleur rubbing constantly to the point it was destroyed … is that accurate? 100%! I remember it very well, because I felt so lame about being too timid to bring it to our dad’s attention. That’s how little rapport we had with the guy. His reward for being so aloof and unapproachable is that not only did the chain eventually grind all the way through the derailleur cage, turning the remaining piece into practically a blade, but eventually when he went to shift, that scalpel-like protuberance peeled the side plate of his chain like a damn can opener, as though the front derailleur had taken revenge! No, I wasn’t there when this happened, but for some reason my dad loved telling people all about it. The way he regaled his friends, colleagues, and probably even complete strangers, it was like he thought it a heroic tale!

Regarding Bryan’s next observation, “if you don’t have a valve ring it’s like the stem is naked and you can see past it into its more modest regions, that place where it’s not polite to look,” this is beautiful, deathless prose and I have nothing to add.

“Like a fork crown with a Dura Ace brake on it, not naked, clothed, armored, even.” He’s referring to the modern fork of a bike with disc brakes, so the fork crown is totally naked, no cool-looking brake caliper like we’re used to seeing.

Now, the Power Cam brake he mentions was a total disaster invented by Suntour. It really should have been featured in road.cc magazine’s feature on Design Blunders. The brake had these little rollers and a specially shaped cam that was supposed to give you great braking power without tight pad/rim tolerances. There were three main problems with this. One: it was a pain in the ass to adjust properly given the variety in rim widths and the weirdly shaped cam. Two: as the pads wore down, the wrong part of the cam would engage, so the brake worked poorly. Three: the brake was mounted to the underside of the chainstays (supposedly because they flexed less than the seat stays), so it tended to get packed with mud, which would gum up the cam rollers and foul up the brake further. In response to this third issue, a company called Overland made an after-market ballistic nylon jacket for the entire assembly. This was pretty hokey, although arguably more important than a valve locknut and certainly more beneficial than a valve cap. Evidenly Bryan actually liked this little jacket; I guess he just had a weakness for all the little bits you could add to bikes.

Speaking of little bits, he misremembers soldering little caps on the end of cables. There were little caps, which fell into the category of accessory we called “cable goodies” at the bike shop (which category also included little rubber donuts that a brake cable gets threaded through to stop it from dinging on the frame tube). We did solder the ends of cables, with a little torch, which I will never forget because one day Bryan let a blob of molten solder drop right off the end of a cable onto the head mechanic’s bare toe, causing him to howl such a powerful stream of profanities to make a man’s blood run cold. But the caps Bryan is evidently recalling were these cool little cable caps that Shimano included that were actually made of solder, so all you had to do was hold a flame to them. Clever, huh? And then there were the little aluminum caps you could just crimp on there, still prevalent today, which we called cable titties.

And the Shank Fin? That was a chainstay protector that had a little fin on the front to keep your chain from getting sucked into the tire. I recall these fins working pretty well and I don’t know why they no longer exist, other than to say the chain is more prone to getting sucked up from the bottom. A skilled mountain biker can hear and/or feel when this is happening and quickly backpedal, just a quarter turn, to release the chain; with e-bikes there’s no such feedback and the chain ends up breaking, which is why you see e-bikers on the side of the trail peering into their smartphones to try (usually in vain) to learn how to fix a broken chain. O brave new world!

Well, I hope you’ve enjoyed this plunge into bike arcana. I know I strayed pretty far from the point here, but isn’t being beside the point kind of the point? (It is for me, anyway...)

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

The Case Against the Metric System

Introduction

It’s easy to argue the merits of the metric system—its ubiquity in the developed world, the ease and elegance of doing calculations with it, etc.—but this is not very interesting. Meanwhile, proponents of the metric system (aka “metricites”) have often struck me as very secure in their position, to the point of smugness. My dad—a gruff, dyed-in-the-wool engineer—was this way, and after decades of sucking up to him, trying to gain his approval, I became disgusted with myself and looked for ways to occasionally nettle, annoy, and provoke him instead. Toward this end, I discovered that praising the imperial system of measure worked great. The withering, disgusted look he gave me, bordering on anger, was priceless. Ever since, I’ve been pondering the advantages of the imperial system and planning a more widespread assault on the metric. Here it is.

(A semantic note: in this country, the measurement system developed by the British, generally referred to as the imperial system, often goes by the term “US customary system.” I’ll use the term “customary” in this sense throughout this post.)

Leadership vs. subservience

Because some metricites will write off the customary system purely because most of the developed world has, I’ll start there. The prevalence of the metric system cannot be denied: look at this map of who uses what system.

Look at how many nations are on the metric system! Could this many people be wrong? Sure! Keep in mind that almost 3 billion people worldwide waste their time, ruin their privacy, and compromise their emotional health by using Facebook. And when they do, the vast majority use a terribly antiquated and inefficient keyboard layout. Don’t look to your fellow man for the best way to live a perfect life.

Meanwhile, consider that the map shown above would probably bear striking resemblance to a map of where you can get a good taqueria-style burrito, and what nation creates the best movies, software, and rap music. The US is not traditionally a follower on the world stage. We’re probably much of the reason English is the lingua franca of world trade, and our dollar is also the foremost global currency. Don’t look at that turquoise coloration and think “outlier.” Think “leader” (or at least “leadership potential” since, admittedly, the rest of the world doesn’t always follow us).

Temperature

This is an easy one. The fact of Celsius having zero as the freezing point of water and 100 as its boiling point is admittedly cute, but not actually very useful. My brother Bryan, solicited for comment on this debate since he’s an engineering sort but also an expansive thinker, has eloquently pointed out:

As elegant as the Celsius scale is, I find it’s a bit crude for actual measurement of the human condition. Most of our experience takes place between really cold and really hot, which is to say from well below the freezing point of water to a bit above 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Much above 100 F, you’re kind of toast anyway; once your flesh starts burning it doesn’t really matter what the number actually is. It’ll never get anywhere near 100 Celsius, so that part of the scale [38 to 100] is just wasted. And if you want to talk about it being really cold with C, you have to use negative numbers, which is kind of awkward, especially if you want to compare temperatures.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Meanwhile, the other obvious benefit of Fahrenheit is that the units are smaller so it’s more precise.

Distance

No matter how handy calculating with base-10 may be, there’s no arguing that 60 mph—that is, a mile a minute—is a really handy mnemonic, since it’s roughly the speed we drive on the highway (the >60 mph speed limit being offset by roadside stops, etc.). If our destination is 300 miles away, it’ll take about 300 minutes. The kilometer cannot offer any similar trick. And since the typical speed limit on a city street is 35 and on a residential street it’s 25, we can estimate the time for a non-highway trip by just doubling the miles … so a five-mile drive across town will take roughly ten minutes. (If your community is more congested than this, leave your car at home and use your bike. In fact, do that anyway.)

Another benefit to miles is the word “mileage.” This is a very useful word, both literally and figuratively (e.g., “Your mileage may vary”). There is no equivalent in the metric system: “kilometerage” is not a word and if it were, it would be a dumb word used by nobody ever. Same with the word “milestone.”

Weight

As with temperature, the larger weight units in the metric system make it less precise, a kilogram being 2.205 pounds. But the lack of precision isn’t the only problem; it’s also the case that since a majority of humans would like to lose weight, this larger unit is demoralizing. Imagine eating right and foregoing fattening snacks for a whole week and then having to express your weight loss with a fraction: “Oh, boy, a lost a whole half-kilogram!” That kind of discouraging scale (no pun intended) is the last thing America needs.

Liquid measure

Actually, this is one area where Americans do dabble in the metric system: although we measure most liquids (fuel, beverages) with customary units (gallon, pint), there’s one product that’s sold in metric units: wine. How fitting, since so many wine lovers are annoying and pretentious. Humbler, more down-to-earth Americans drink beer, which is of course measured in ounces (excepting some small and/or lazy overseas breweries that don’t bottle or label their product specially for the American market).

Why does it matter that wine is sold in metric units? It’s because Americans have no sense of milliliters, so we can’t keep ourselves honest when drinking wine. It’s hard to develop a sense of volume with an ungainly basis like the liter, as it’s too large, and nobody ever uses deciliters—they’re too small (less than half a cup)—and there’s nothing in between a liter and a deciliter. With beer, you can keep track pretty easily: whatever vessel you pour that can or bottle of beer into, it’s a known entity: 12 ounces, one drink. From a temperance perspective, the 750-ml wine bottle is a black box: the servings vary with your glass and how much you fill it; the milliliters are like Monopoly money; you just pour and pour, and you wake up hung over and overweight. This is what happens when Americans indulge the metric system.

Another benefit to the customary system: when you go out for a beer, you can say to your pal, “Shall we go grab a pint?” This has a nice ring to it. What would you say in France? Perhaps “Allons-nous prendre un demi-litre?” (literally, “Shall we grab half a liter?”) That sounds terrible—how do you grab half of something? And “Allons-nous prendre un litre?” sounds like you have a drinking problem—I mean, drinking beer by the liter? Yes, I know the French wouldn’t actually say this; they’d say, “Allons-nous boire un verre de vin?” (literally, “Shall we grab a glass of wine?”). I rest my case.

Air pressure

When it comes to inflation, you can’t beat the pounds-per-square-inch (PSI) unit, because the proper inflation for a road bike tyre is a nice, round 100; for a commuter bike it’s a nice, round 50; and for a mountain bike it’s a nice, round 25. What are the metric equivalents? That would be 6.895, 3.447, and 1.724 BAR, respectively. Nothing nice or round about that. (Apparently some Europeans prefer kilopascals, which is just fricking goofy. Imagine pumping your bike tires up to 690 kPa, or 690 of anything, for that matter … I’d be afraid!)

Meanwhile, the giant size of the BAR presents an obstacle to precision. I can input my weight, tire width, and riding style into a handy-dandy mountain bike tire pressure calculator and it gives me a nice precise inflation number: in my case 25 PSI for the rear tire. Since the calculator is trying to be metric-friendly it also gives me 1.8 BAR … but that’s not right—that’s actually 26 PSI, which could be the difference between great handling and merely good. To be sufficiently precise we have to go into the hundredths, with 1.72 BAR, and who can remember that?

(Arguably air pressure measurement isn’t that important, but it’s simpler than some of the next few categories.)

Construction

As detailed here, much of American industry does use the metric system (which, I hasten to point out, is no reason everyday Americans need to do so in their personal lives; after all, it’s not like web developers speak in HTML at the dinner table). One standout is the construction industry, and for good reason. As my brother Bryan explains:

Using inches is really handy for doing the mental arithmetic associated with carpentry. When a carpenter uses inches, he’ll keep track of the bit smaller than an inch using fractions, with as much resolution as is necessary for the application at hand. For example, if he needs to cut a two-by-four to use as a brace while framing a house, he may only need to cut it to within an inch. If he’s cutting a piece to be used as part of an internal structure for something, he may need it to be accurate to half an inch. If it’s a finishing piece, he may want it to be much more accurate, say a sixteenth of an inch. Using fractions, you can decide before you start cutting what units you’ll use—half inches, quarter inches, and so on. Each division is twice as precise. It’s easy to adjust the accuracy of your calculations as you go, too. For example, if you find that ¼ isn’t accurate enough, say you want slightly more than a ¼ inch, you just go to eighths of an inch: ¼ is 2/8, so a smidgen more than that is 3/8 (three of them instead of two), and so on. The tape measure shows these gradations elegantly with longer and shorter ticks, making it easy to visualize these fractions as well. So in ‘merican, you have all these units to choose from that we’re all familiar with and that are easy to convert among: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, and even 1/32. In metric all you have are centimeters and millimeters, which are significantly different in size, so if a centimeter isn’t enough resolution, you have to jump all the way to millimeters and keep track of a bunch of them.

Another thing that carpenters often must do is find the midpoint of a piece of lumber or whatever. So if a carpenter’s board is 21-½ inches long, he can calculate half of that easily: 21 divided by 2 is 10-½" for the whole part, plus ½ divided by 2 which is ¼ for the rest. It’s easy to add the ½ and ¼, since ½ is 2/4, making ¾” for the fractional bit and thus 10-¾” for the whole thing. Dividing that in two is 5 & 3/8”, which is easy to compute since dividing a fraction in two is just doubling the denominator. I feel like doing this kind of mental arithmetic keeps us closer to the numbers and to their scale, while just plugging numbers into your phone and tracking them to four significant digits makes you lose touch with reality.

Yeah, exactly! This guy knows what he’s talking about ... he even holds a math degree!

Firearms

Okay, that was a lot of math so this next category will be simpler: guns & ammo. This is another area where Americans are dabbling in the metric system. Traditionally, firearms were described in customary units, such as the .45 Colt, the .308 Winchester, and the .30-06 Springfield (all of which numbers indicated the bullet diameter in inches). These are all old school, and American. Now, your more worldly guns, like the Uzi and the Glock, use the metric system with their 9-millimeter round. Which is better? From a practical standpoint there can be no difference because the utility of a firearm, for civilians, is essentially zero. To split hairs we’ll have to consider the matter culturally. In that vein, I have to admit that the modern automatic weapons heralded in rap songs sound cooler and more sophisticated (e.g., “slapped a clip in my nine”) than older American standards—and that’s exactly why the metric system is a bad choice. America has a huge gun problem and the last thing we need is to be glamorizing firearms of any kind. If the .45 Colt and John Wayne seem anachronistic, that’s good … because guns are, too. The wild west days are over and (to paraphrase Ice-T) your best weapon now is your mind.

Shoe sizing

It’s pretty normal when thinking about the metric system to lump the European shoe sizing standard into it. Thus Americans are tempted to think that European shoe sizing, with its smaller units, is both a) metric, and b) more precise. In actuality, European sizing is a disaster. As explained here, this sizing is based on the “length of the last, expressed in Paris points,” which are 2/3 of a centimeter. There is absolutely nothing elegant or sensible about this, and even with this smaller unit of measure I’ve bought cycling shoes in half sizes (e.g., 45.5). Any perceived benefit of greater shoe sizing precision is an illusion, because with shoes you simply must try them on as the fit will vary widely across manufacturers (shoe size expressing only one dimension to begin with).

So why is this a mark against the metric system? Because Americans who have been brainwashed that the metric system is superior will automatically assume that European sizing is a) metric, and thus b) better. If Americans stuck to their guns (an unfortunate turn of phrase, I’ll admit) about our customary units, we’d probably kick this silly European shoe sizing basis to the curb as well. At least our size 12 shoe is approximately 12 inches long … give me one good reason why 45 makes more sense.

Let’s put this base-10 thing to rest

Naturally the metricites among my readership are all saying, “But wait, none of the above matters because base-10, base-10, base-10! Elegant calculations! Engineering! Stuff that matters!” Even if I indulge this by pretending that the industrial world is more important than the quotidian doings of your average joe, I take issue with base-10 being obviously better. Why? Because the base-10 system lacks sub-multiples. To explain this, I will quote from my friend Peter’s son’s friend, a recent high school grad named Kellen Sisco (who may or may not be ready for the worldwide fame he’s about to achieve through this blog). Kellen, in an anti-metric essay he decided to write (totally unconnected to this post, by the way), explains:

In base ten, there are two sub-multiples: 2 and 5, and these are both prime, inconvenient numbers. Now, contrarily, base twelve is good, as there are eight sub-multiples: 2, 3, 4 (which divides by 2), and 6 (which divides by 2 and 3). So, at least four times as many sums in base twelve will [yield] convenient numbers. Base 24 has 19 sub-multiples! Number 16 is a particularly liked number amongst mathematicians because it is good for halving and doubling. As one can see; number 10 is not a distinctly good number; numbers 12, 16, 24, and 60 are considerably better numbers.

Now, I don’t expect you to take this young man’s word for it that mathematicians like the number 16, or that 12, 24, and 60 are better than 10; instead, I’ll give you some real world examples. Consider mathematicians … what do they even do and why do we even care? Well, you like money, don’t you? And what math is lucrative, besides the boring engineering that goes into, say, building bridges? Answer: the Internet. Mathematicians do crazy-ass stuff like string theory which you assume is useless until they suddenly solve some Internet routing thing and become gazillionaires, etc. And I’m here to tell you, Internet engineers just dig hexadecimal, which is base-16, just like Kellin said. A classic dot-com interview question, when hiring engineers, is a pop quiz on network subnetting, which requires the kind of in-your-head division I described above in the construction example; it’s fractions, not getting out your phone and calculating to several decimal places. So beloved is hexadecimal among engineers, I had a boss who balanced his checkbook with it! Sometimes network guys will use octal (for arcane reasons), and when constrained by electrical engineering requirements around on/off (i.e., 1 or 0) they’ll use binary, but they don’t tend to use decimal unless they’re pressed into financial projections (the least fun part of the job).

And what about 12, 24, and 60? Well, it’s no coincidence we use those to describe time, whether we appreciate all the sub-multiples involved or not. We can say “Meet me at quarter past nine” and that’s really easy to grasp (and to visualize, clocks being as elegant as they are). With a base-10 time system we would all be totally screwed. Decimal time has a 10-hour day, so the units are impossibly huge: the minute is 1.44 times the size of ours, and the hour 2.4 times the size, so you’d always have to use decimals since you wouldn’t have handy fractions to play with. Just look at this preposterous base-10 clock:

I’ve tried to figure out how to express 9:15 a.m. in a base-10 time system, and my head exploded—and I’m no slouch at math (being well versed in binary, octal, and hex, and being nerdy enough to blog about daylight saving time, leap years, and leap seconds). If my head explodes contemplating base-10 time, surely billions of heads would explode worldwide if we tried to adopt it. And of course nobody has (except, briefly, the French, who abandoned it after less than a year … ‘nuff said).

Since we thus acknowledge base-10 is not necessarily superior, I think we can agree the metric system doesn’t automatically get a huge benefit from it. So to the STEM types promoting the metric system on this basis, I have this to say: you talk dog farts.

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Father’s Day Focus - Are Parents Interchangeable?

Introduction

It has become traditional, or more to the point inevitable, that on Father’s Day I reflect on my role as a parent. This year I was also plunged into reflection by a Culture Desk essay I read in the paper titled “Celebrating mothers who taught me how to father.” I’ve blogged before about whether fathers are necessary and what fathers are for and realized I’m not done grappling with these questions. In planning this post I reached out to my brothers, my wife, and my kids, and their feedback is incorporated in what follows.

(Above: the card one of my kids made me this year.)

The Chronicle essay

The essay in the San Francisco Chronicle is by Kevin Fisher-Paulson and describes how he learned how to be a father from three friends who are single mothers. These women, he asserts, have to be “mom, dad, coach, buddy, the works” and are thus in a great position to share their wisdom. I like the article but it left me a bit confused, because Fisher-Paulson is gay, thus his kids have two dads … so don’t they have to fill the role of mom, too? Aren’t he and his husband really learning how to father and mother from these women?

I was also a bit puzzled by Fisher-Paulson’s fairly traditional sense of what makes a father, given how nontraditional his family is. He cites a number of fathering skills the women taught their sons: barbecue, lacrosse, screen defense, how to install an outside heater. He concludes, “Some days I worry that I will not have taught my own sons how to be a father, that my boys will grow up without knowing how to change the furnace filter” but that “Deirdre, Jill and Sarah taught me that a son does not need instruction as much as he needs support.”

I came away with more questions unresolved than answered. The essay challenges—but also reiterates and thus runs the risk of reinforcing—stereotypes about which parent does what. (I don’t mean this as a criticism: challenging the reader without resolving everything is often what a good essay does.) So I’ve been pondering the matter of whether there is any consistent, demonstrable difference between the nurturing and other resources bestowed on a child by a father vs. a mother. Are parental roles interchangeable? Does the average kid get A, B, and C from Mom and X, Y, and Z from Dad, or is it totally mix and match?

Some obvious parental differences

Clearly there are fundamental biological differences I won’t ignore. To newborn babies, fathers fall into a large category (comprising about 7 billion people) of “not Mom,” meaning they’re not just useless, but in fact barely exist. My brother Bryan echoes this, describing how his wife “certainly had the upper hand initially,” as “it would be many months before the child even realized who I was and that I had anything to do with her at all, while she knew right off the bat where her milk came from.”

I don’t think this is a huge deal, though, in terms of the overall relationship between parents and kids. After all, the breast feeding generally happens before the child is capable of forming long-term memories. And while breast feeding is important, it’s not the be-all, end-all.

There are of course more minor differences. Moms are certainly more valuable in the realm of purses. As a single man, one of the things I looked to marriage for was to have access to my wife’s purse—not to put a lot of stuff in or anything, but because when I need, say, chapstick or a toothpick, there’s a chance it’ll be in there. Kids benefit from this too and in fact it’s far more likely they’ll want something—gum, loose change, cosmetics, a hairbrush—that’s in there. For all the societal changes we’ve seen, it’s almost unheard of for a man to carry a purse.

Many men, meanwhile, still know how to tie a necktie. I taught my younger daughter, in fact, when she needed a necktie for a costume. And men are still on the hook for doing the household jobs that require brute force and drudgery, as detailed here.

But seriously

Okay, I had a little fun there … just seeing if you’re still awake. Of course there are many more noteworthy differences. One, which my wife and both daughters agreed on and which I’ll concede I know myself to be true, regards physical safety. My wife is far more concerned with safeguarding our kids than I am. I’m not talking about home invasion or anything (though I keep a big Maglite next to my bed and fantasize about one day getting to use it) but about keeping the kids out of dangerous situations in general, whether it’s bad neighborhoods or risky activities.

(Speaking of home defense, I once sneaked out of the house in the wee hours of the morning, and just as I made it to the driveway the front door burst open, and there was my mom, in her nightgown, with a large frying pan in one hand and an iron skillet in the other, yelling, “Who’s out there?!” while my father stayed in bed, no doubt sleeping peacefully.)

Here are a couple of examples from my own parenting life. When our kids were very young, my wife found it tiresome taking them to the playground because she feared they’d fall off the slide or jungle gym or whatever, so she would supervise them closely which was exhausting. When I took them, I’d bring a paperback. Or there was the time I had my brother’s family over to visit and their three-year-old went straight to a giant pile of Lego my kids had out, and I asked, “Should I be worried about her choking?” In the same instant my brother replied “no” and his wife replied “yes.”

Another example of this different risk management approach: when I was coaching my daughter’s high school mountain bike team, we were all descending Mount Tam one morning and my daughter was riding more aggressively than usual. Not terribly surprisingly, she crashed. My reaction was twofold: as a father of course I was somewhat alarmed, but as a coach I was glad to see her pushing it a bit to improve her skills. (She wasn’t hurt.)

My wife contends that if the men had to carry those babies around for nine months in our wombs, we’d be a lot more vested. I think it’s also possible that, convinced as we males are of our own invincibility, we may well project that onto our kids.

Now, in terms of sports, math, home repair, and other activities traditionally associated with males, my family members all agreed that the teaching of these things simply falls to whoever is most capable. My brother Bryan described how, as a math major working in tech, he was naturally the one who taught the kids “how to employ the quadratic equation in real life scenarios.” (I hope this was a joke.) He also has the role of fixing broken things around the house, so he said “it was natural for me to show the kids how to take apart the dishwasher or zip-tie something together.” He was quick to add, “I did not discriminate when it came to these sorts of lessons, I was more than happy when the girls wanted to learn something ‘manly’ or fix something. In fact, I would often recruit them just because they were girls.”

Similarly, in my household I do the computer and IT stuff, am more helpful with math problems, and fix the bikes, and I do as much as I can to teach these things. My wife does most of the cooking and gardening, and thus the kids learn these from her. But it could easily be the other way around, in my family or any. My brother Bryan pointed out, “If our roles were reversed and [my wife] was the one running in the rat race, she may have had more practical influences on the kids (how to treat coworkers, how to get ahead of your peers, that kind of thing).”

This being said, it’s not hard to find lots of examples of fathers handling the math, home repair, and sports end of things. Could these truly be a man’s domain? It’s sometimes tempting to think so; just watch small children play and you’ll see predictable gender differences. When our family randomly came to own a toy B-52 bomber (maybe from a garage sale?) they didn’t exactly play war with it. I caught one of them tucking it under the covers of her bed and she announced, “I’m putting my little plane-y to bed.”

But really, can we call this an innate preference when society has been ramming domesticity down girls’ throats for generations, and destroying their confidence in their intellects, particularly where math is concerned? (It’s shocking how often my wife and I heard, growing up, that “girls can’t do math.”) I’m certainly seeing a lot of changes around these attitudes now. Whereas my mom was called a dyke for playing field hockey in high school, my daughters’ high school has a very robust girls’ sports program, particularly their champion girls’ wrestling and mountain biking teams. My older daughter is more science-y than I am, and she and her two best friends crushed it on the math section of the SAT. I don’t think anybody can make a credible case anymore that kids need to learn fix-it stuff, sports, and math from their dads.

A more complex suggestion

The most intriguing feedback I got on this topic was from my younger daughter. She proposed that perhaps a child learns shame from his or her father. This gave me a jolt, needless to say. “Do I make you feel ashamed?” I asked, incredulously. No, no, my daughter said, and went on to explicate the idea: she doesn’t mean it as a criticism; it’s more like the father wants to be more stoic, even to the point of denouncing shamelessness. The mother, on the other hand, may be more freely emotional, and is more likely to model tact than to confront people.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what my daughter meant—this conversation was in a loud restaurant, and we got interrupted, and I have a hard time keeping my teenagers on such a topic for long—but it’s a good jumping-off point for me. It ties into my visceral sense that there’s a traditional male behavior that does need to be modeled, now more than ever as it’s somewhat under assault, and it has to do with keeping a stiff upper lip. I’m not holding up stoicism as a major virtue; it’s more than I’m pretty fed up with this whole emo thing.

Now, I’m not an expert on the exact meaning of “emo” but I’m talking about guys who think being really modern by eschewing traditional male traits like fortitude automatically makes them better. It’s as though appearing vulnerable, and freely describing their feelings, gets them off the hook for suffering from arrested development and other versions of age-old male prickdom. I’d rather see guys bravely facing the music than begging for forgiveness because they can’t.

The singer Lana del Rey illustrates what I’m talking about. In her song “Norman fucking Rockwell” she totally rips on her “man-child” boyfriend, complaining, “Your poetry’s bad and you blame the news/ But I can’t change that and I can’t change your mood.” The fact of his writing poetry isn’t the problem; it’s that the poetry is bad, and moreover the boyfriend is too self-absorbed to realize it. She goes on, “Self-loathing poet, resident Laurel Canyon know-it-all/ You talk to the walls when the party gets bored of you.” Del Rey continues in this vein on the next song on the album, “Mariner’s Apartment Complex,” complaining that this boyfriend took her sadness (which is temporary) out of context, equating it with his own (which is perennial). But she offers him support: “You lose your way, just take my hand/ You’re lost at sea then I’ll command your boat to me again,” and concludes, somewhat surprisingly, “I’m your man.” No, this is not some gender change-up; the persona in this song is very much a woman. More to the point, I think she’s saying, “If you can’t man up, I will.” Just like the single moms in Fisher-Paulson’s essay, perhaps. If all moms were like Lana del Rey, perhaps my daughter wouldn’t equate such fiery criticism with fathers.

Does any of this even matter?

In response to my inquiry about parents’ roles, my brother Max took a step back and challenged whether there aren’t more important matters to contemplate:

The question about parental gender roles may need to be further contextualized. The question as you put it asks about the average kid. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 45% (2.8 million out of 6.1 million) pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended in 2011. Of these, 58% ended in birth. So the question isn’t whether a kid typically gets A, B, and C from mom and X, Y, and Z from dad. The average kid, if lucky, may get A from mom and Y or Z from dad, but rarely A, B, C, X, Y, and Z. The average kid has to grow up navigating a minefield of parental indifference and/or incompetence. 

I’ll add to this that more and more families don’t have two parents to begin with. According to the US Census Bureau, “Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children living in families with two parents decreased from 88 to 69.” So almost a third of children don’t have the luxury of wondering what resources derive from which parent. They only have one.

Max went on to say,

So the short answer is that gender roles in child rearing have much less bearing on the success of the child being raised than the child itself. It is ultimately the work of the kid that will determine success or failure. Sometimes researchers use twins to dig down into these matters, as a control group sort of tactic. … [One] example would be that of Remus and Romulus in ancient times, twins raised by wolves. Remus was eventually killed by Romulus, who of course, went on to found the city of Rome and the Roman kingdom. Although they both grew up with exactly the same advantages (although the sexes of the wolves have not been determined) one was wildly successful, while the other, poor old Remus, wound up dead … most would agree, less than successful.

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

From the Archives - Brutal Bicycle Training Contest - Part II

Introduction

If you read my last post, you were left hanging, your interest (ideally) kindled about who ended up winning the 2005 Albert training competition. (If you didn’t read my last post go do that first.) This post provides the electrifying conclusion of the protracted, wrenching, ego-drenched battle between brothers. By way of review, the brothers in question are Bryan (at left in the photo below) and Geoff (at right).

Where we left off, I led the competition—after 362 days—by a mere 3.5 points over Geoff. To emphasize how close this was, that’s just 0.12% of my total score to that point. Geoff and I were absolutely neck-and-neck, and both already fried from three brutal weeks on the bike.

Thursday, Dec 29

GEOFF (before riding, and remember, he’s 9 hours ahead of Dana and Bryan): As I look over the [training competition] spreadsheet for inspiration, less than half an hour before I suit up for my final effort of the year, I feel a sense of doom, not unlike that feeling I had when Dad was going to spank the whole lot of us, and I was sent around to friends’ houses to round everyone up. I know I’m going to have to do great things here in the next few hours, and this causes my bowels to constrict with fear. I wonder what will happen... By the time you read this I’ll probably have posted my score. I hope it’s a big one.

GEOFF (42.0 points, indoor – 2 hrs 25 min): In an attempt to demoralize and crush the opposition, I have produced this score. I felt pretty good and decided to shoot for two hours above the [heart rate target] zone. After 1:45 above the zone, I just fell apart. I got off, caffeinated, drank apple juice, emptied my bladder and soaked my head, which got me through another turbulent five minutes, but then it just ended. My legs would go around in circles no longer. I threw in the towel and started cleaning up and warming down.

But then I decided to try again, as this is the end of the year, and climbed back onto the torture rack, made my best effort to turn the pedals around some more, but no, it just would not happen. I was knackered. Had the stuffing completely knocked out of me.

So there it is, 42 points. Dana, if you can top this effort, why, you deserve the win. Who knows though, maybe I’ll feel inspired on Saturday, and will get back on the bike. I doubt it though....

DANA: You bastard! I have no time to ride today and no energy anyway. But I’ve been checking the FTP site all day, waiting to see what you did, and fantasizing about a sub-30 score, the natural result of the fatigue that I hoped would finally catch up to you. But no, instead you get medieval on my heinie, you just shock-and-awe me, with this grotesquely monstrous score. You are a bad, bad man. D’oh. I’m already terribly dreading tomorrow’s hammerfest. It’ll be doubly painful given the obvious futility of my attempt...

[SITUATION: GEOFF AHEAD BY 38 POINTS]

[Here’s a photo from 2006, of the three of us studying our ride data together. We were data slaves long before Strava even existed.]

Friday, Dec 30

BRYAN [catching up from Thursday]: Man, Geoff! What in tarnation are you? The Terminator? Look at these scores! Look at the slope of that graph! Every stinkin’ ride is over 30 points! And getting back on after throwing in the towel, that’s heroic! But I happen to know that Dana’s out there right now, putting the hammer down, even as I sit here waiting for the next round of nausea and the next mad dash to the toolit to puke my guts out. I’m thinking Saturday’s calling your name...

DANA (40.4 points, indoor – 2 hrs 5 min): NO GIFTS.

BRYAN: Good grief, the mother of all mother scores! Look at that score-per-hour number! Only two hours, and an hour and a half of it above the zone! Well, this is certainly going to be a battle. NICE RIDE, DUDE!

DANA: Thanks! I only wish it didn’t totally wreck me. At the dinner table afterward, I was almost too tired to chew. In fact, I became too tired to eat before I was really full. I just couldn’t stay vertical another minute, and collapsed to the floor on my back. Even typing this note is a serious chore.

GEOFF: Well shoot, you certainly are an ornery little cuss, aren’t you? Man, 40 points. Now of course I have no choice, I have to ride again. I only hope I can do something great. Man, nice effort! An ‘A’ for effort! Of course you’re going to dig deep tomorrow and I just know that you’re going to pull ahead again, and that on New Year’s Eve I’m going to have to make myself suffer again, and that it will be in vain. Oh well, I’ve never been so close to the victory before. I guess that’s worth something.

DANA: If you had any first-hand knowledge of how badly I suffered for these points, you wouldn’t be worried at all...

[SITUATION: DANA AHEAD BY 2 POINTS]

Saturday, Dec 31

GEOFF (39.7 points, indoor – 2 hrs 12 min): Well there it is, my final effort. I somehow outdid myself. At the time, it felt as if I had given it all I had. Yet I didn’t fall off the bike. Nor did I have to crawl around afterwards, I was still able to walk. Shoot, my lips didn’t even turn blue. Now I’m feeling like such a wimp. Why oh why didn’t I stay on just another ten minutes? I could have shattered through the magical 40 Point Barrier.

Oh well, I guess I should be proud of myself. It was a near death experience, after all. At one point my eyes filled up with tears and overflowed for almost no reason. At another point my pulse sailed up above 160, where it stayed for what felt like an hour, though in reality it was only a few minutes. I was sure that I’d died and been relieved of my suffering, and decided that I’d stay on the bike for the rest of the year [i.e., until midnight]. Then of course my pulse plummeted again, and it was back to reality.

So there it is, almost 40 points. Will it be enough? Will age and treachery overcome youth and skill? Or will Dana pull it off yet again? We’ll soon know. The ball’s back in your court. Punish me, young man!

DANA (pre-ride): MAN! I’m so impressed, I can’t even bring myself to call you a bastard. That’s amazing! Look at that score-per-hour, right on the heels of your 42-point MegaTour! I’d also like to point out that you took the world record for score-per-month of all time, besting my 400.2 mark from 2003! You also got the second-biggest week of all time (second to your own record, of course). Now, I’m going to swing my leg over the bike today, but I can’t imagine I’ll have the strength to even begin to convince myself that victory is possible. You’ll know soon . . . perhaps very soon, if things go badly enough for me! Nice ride, dude!

BRYAN: What an incredible finish! I’d say that you really wanted this one. An incredible week, an incredible month, shoot, an incredible year! Nice work. We’re all very proud of you over here!

DANA (10.6 points, indoor – 1 hr): Today’s ride was horrible, but at least it was brief. That is, it took me just an hour (actually 59:45, which was as close to an hour as I could get) to ascertain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there was no way I could score enough points to win. I’ve attached the final graph, because it tells a poignant tale. About 35 minutes into the workout, my spirits faltered and my pulse dropped to about 145. This angered me, and I hammered as hard as I could and finally crossed the [target] zone threshold. At this point I had all the grace of a fish flopping on the floor of a boat, being murdered with an ice pick. After about 90 seconds of this I was actually crying. I blew up, and my heart fell to just over 130.

I was getting ready to climb off the bike when I had my Tom Simpson moment. Remember, just before he died on Mount Ventoux, when his famous last words were “Put me back on my bike!”? That’s what I’m talking about. Reflecting on the absurdly short duration of my ride, and motivated by an equally absurd refusal to accept defeat, I decided to try to recover and go a bit longer.

And so, 48 minutes in I decided to try one more time to burst over the zone threshold, and (I foolishly hoped) somehow pin myself there [i.e., above my heart rate target zone—that is, redlined]. And as the graph shows, I actually did get it up there for awhile. When I finally detonated for good, which of course was inevitable, I decided to just keep hammering as much as I could despite the extreme, piercing, shattering pain. At this point I was uttering strange animal noises, somewhere between groans and screams but really more like yelps (given my lack of breath). And then something really strange happened: after maybe 30 seconds of this my heart rate began to soar. It got into the upper 160s and stayed there awhile, for about 45 seconds, and then suddenly I not only couldn’t pedal anymore, but couldn’t hold myself up on the bike. I crumpled into the handlebars and it was all over. Good thing I was on the [indoor] trainer or I’d have stacked!

So, not a great score, but it did get me above the 100-points-in-a-week barrier, for a personal best. It also got me above the prestigious 300-points-in-a-month barrier. It also brought my margin of loss down to less than a percent, which I have to be happy about. Best of all, it’s finally over.

BRYAN: Well shoot, Dana, my condolences. It was a valiant effort, I must say, as your last ride’s data attest. I believe you’re the better man for it, however, and I fear what you will do in the coming year. Did you realize that you shattered your previous total scores, as well as your best week? Very impressive...

GEOFF: Well Dana, your description of your final ride has filled my head with all sorts of thoughts. First of all, there’s respect and admiration for your grit and determination and your ability to torture yourself. My hat’s off to you! Then of course there’s the enormous sense of relief that you didn’t actually die trying. Erin would have killed me! There’s also the recognition of having been right there with you, having experienced exactly the same emotions. There’s a common bond here which I’m sure many people will never know. Oddly enough, I seem to be missing the thrill of victory. Maybe it just needs to sink in.

[FINAL SCORE: Geoff 2,941; Dana 2,914; Bryan 1,567.]

Final commentary

BRYAN: Gentlemen, nicely done. I am impressed and awed at your biking prowess. It’s a privilege to be crushed into oblivion by you.

DANA: I tried. That’s all I can say. Of course that’s not true—I can always say more. For example, nice job Geoff! I’m actually not that bummed about losing this year, because I lost to such a gritty opponent.

GEOFF: Well, I can scarcely believe that I actually won. I honestly thought it was impossible to beat Dana on the bike. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made this victory possible, including the artists whose music made it possible to dig a bit deeper, my parents for providing me a genetic gift for determination, my equipment suppliers whose gear stood up to the task, the promoters and producers of this great sporting event, and of course my unwavering fellow competitors, whose dedication and guts are an inspiration to us all. So, what am I doing after the celebration? I’m goin’ to Di’neylan’!

--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---~--

For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.