Is resistance to change always such a bad thing?

[Chance]

A few comments in various recent threads makes it seem there is a general assumption that when people resist change it’s because they are not progressive enough. No doubt that may play a large part in it. Our unwillingness to try new things. Also we may be a little skeptical of why the new thing exists in the first place. And so on. But what if the change isn't so great?

Given time many new designs are accepted. Some even jump off the shelf. Think smart phones and tablets. Initial resistance is quickly replaced with acceptance and it quickly seems everyone wants one. In bike speak it’s index shifting, dual caliper brakes, brifters, and so on.

On the other hand not every new “whatever” has been successful. Some A-frame houses look great to me in certain settings but they didn’t catch on in great numbers. There are probably many reasons why it can’t compete with a simple box. And it’s reportedly not about costs. Maybe it’s just hard to fit furniture inside an oddball space. And according to recent articles electric cars may be headed in that direction too. For the second time. Maybe it’s a little too early to tell but it’s not looking good so far.

To keep this ON TOPIC, what are some of the bicycle related innovations that came out and didn’t catch on after lingering for a while. Some may have been obsoleted by even newer designs (8-speed replaced 7, but 9 replaced 8 kind of thing), and in a way that doesn’t count. It’s more entertaining to think back on designs we tried and just couldn’t fully accept because we preferred the old stuff, setup, or design better.

So, what new idea or thing have you tried and gave up on because it didn’t work for you as expected? Maybe something you wish you wouldn't have tried at all because it was a bad idea or inferior product.

[Chance]

To start: For me one idea was tri-bars on a road bike. Initially it seemed a great idea that every non-racing bike should have one installed just in case you needed them. Weight wasn’t a factor for me and they are faster when riding alone into the wind, but so what? Can justify them but can’t force myself to like them on a road bike no matter what.

[William]

http://www.cinelli.it/memorabilia/big/022.jpg

[William]

Biopace.






William

[christian]

Elevated chainstays.

[christian]

Scott Pedersen SE self-energizing brakes. U-brakes in general, actually.

[AngryScientist]

http://www.parktool.com/uploads/images/blog/repair_help/Di2_993.jpg

[jr59]

Zap! Now Di2 is all the rage!

[fiamme red]

Another innovation that never caught on were Scott Drop-In handlebars. I still see a bike with them every now and then.

http://www.velobase.com/ViewComponent.aspx?ID=B91C9427-7624-4F33-AA4B-B582C2F8D429&Enum=112&AbsPos=79

[William]

Bike speedo.

http://www.elbrasil.com/jpgfiles/piggpowerpic.jpg

[zap]

Ummmmmm, yes ZAP :rolleyes:

When was that again '93-'94.

I liked it and did some tt's plus 15,000+ miles until I retired zap 4 years ago. Biggest pita was when the zap rear derailleur got wet.

[christian]

Integrated bar-stems are pretty much DOA too.

And those little tire rubber loopy things they had in the 70s.

[old_fat_and_slow]

Zipp had some awesome looking composite bikes with a top-tube beam cantilevered from the head tube, with no seat tube came out in the early 90's (i think). That sled was impressive.

There was a knock-off version too (Softride ?) that looked pretty crappy and kludgey. Never liked that one, but the Zipp version was sweet.

I never heard the reason why the stopped making 'em. Riders don't like bouncing around, excessive product failure, liability issues, insufficient profit margins ??? Don't know.


http://velospace.org/files/Zipp3001TRISETUPsw.jpg

http://velospace.org/files/zipp_010_nickl001.jpg



The NERVE of "some people" ! ! ! Puttin' Heds on a Zipp bike. Huge Faux Pas!




.

[johnnymossville]

Many of the things in our life that need changing (engine oil, tires, girl friends, diapers, for example) are either a PITA, expensive, or both.

Why change something that works for something that might not?

As far as bike related. I'd say buying a triple crank set for a road bike was kind of a stupid thing to do and I regretted it later. Didn't really need it and went back to a double on that bike later.

[Chance]

Integrated bar-stems are pretty much DOA too.

And those little tire rubber loopy things they had in the 70s.
Before my time. What were they used for? :confused:

Integrated bar-stems are a good example. They have many advantages but compromises are also many.

[veloduffer]

Electronic shifting - first Mavic's Zap and now Campy/Shimano electronic shifting. No reason to change as the benefits are minor or non-existent.

One change I don't like still was the quill stem to threadless. It forces the owner to cut the steerer and narrows the range to make changes (ok, you can buy a new fork but that gets expensive). I have both and don't turnover the stable much, so it isn't a big issue for me.

I am also resistant to carbon wheels. I can see their application for aero wheels (greater than 38mm in rim height), but other than that there is little or no benefit from alloy rims. They're more expensive, heavier, potential braking issues (long downhills, rain) and probably shorter life (due to brake/rim wear). But they do look good! :bike:

[old_fat_and_slow]

Scott Drop In bars were pretty stupid.

What about Spinergy Rev - X's

[old_fat_and_slow]

I am hoping the integrated seat post dies soon.

[Mark McM]

To keep this ON TOPIC, what are some of the bicycle related innovations that came out and didn’t catch on after lingering for a while.

- Eliptical chainrings (they've appeared and disappeared several times)
- URT (Unified Rear Triangle) rear suspension
- 1 1/4" headsets
- drop platform pedals (platform below the spindle)
- 18mm wide tires
- Radial tires
- Raised center ridge tires
- Airless tires
- Delta brakes
- Linear action direct pull brakes (i.e. parallelogram V-brakes)
- Cam actuated crank/chainring linkage (Rotor was one, but not the only).
- Dual downtube frames (e.g. Colnago Bi-titan)
- Cantilever beam frames (Soft Ride, Trek Y-Foil, etc.)
- Hard anodized rims
- Carbon fiber while spokes (before Mavic R-Sys there was Fiber Flyte)
- Suspension forks on road racing bikes
- Reverse action derailleurs (e.g. Shimano Rapid Rise)
- etc., etc.

[christian]

Before my time. What were they used for? :confused: Apparently they still exist:

http://www.loosescrews.com/Products/UB-TS1.html

You should be able to figure out usage from the description and picture, but basically you attach this around the brake bolt and then it drags on your tire, dislodging any debris and preventing you from having to wipe the tire.

Jobst doesn't like these, obviously. :)

[bargainguy]

Houdaille EXO PowerCam.

Had one, everyone thought it was great, nearly killed my knees from the slower cadence.

First mistake: Buying one. Second mistake: Riding one. Third mistake: Selling it for dirt cheap. Now they're collector's items.

Don

[Plum Hill]

Roller cam brakes.

[Gummee]

Ummmmmm, yes ZAP :rolleyes:

When was that again '93-'94.

I liked it and did some tt's plus 15,000+ miles until I retired zap 4 years ago. Biggest pita was when the zap rear derailleur got wet.I loved my Zap stuff. Especially the button under my index finger that I could pop when sprinting. Oh, and the climbing shifters too! Can't forget them even tho I climb for S#%t. Only had the battery die once.

While the new D/A stuff is whiz bang, I have this fear that S is going to bring out a new, improved D/A electronic group that instantly makes the old stuff no longer compatible. ...As they've had a tendency to do over the years. Breaking something and HAVING to buy another complete gruppo doesnt' appeal. :nono ...and almost any moron with a cable/housing cutter can replace parts on a mechanical shifter...

M

[Bob Loblaw]

Hah! I remember those. In my circle, they came and went pretty quickly. If there was ever a harder brake to get and keep right...

I am waiting for everyone to discover that external cup BB's are a step backwards. So far, no dice, but I know the day is coming.

Carbon rims/spokes scare me, but that might be my issue. I have seen enough carbon wheel carnage up close to put both my internal OSHA and financial experts firmly in the "NO" camp.

BL

Roller cam brakes.

[Kontact]

Everything about Dura Ace AX, road bike suspensions, 650c time trial bikes, one piece aero bars, tri spoke wheels, internal mechanism calipers, sealed rear derailleurs, Cello tape, seat shifters (shown on Pigg's bike above), lateral float pedals, titanium spokes, carbon/kevlar frames are all examples of once fashionable things that have gone away.

Were you smart if you got on the bandwagon at the time, or only foolish when you look back?

[54ny77]

http://foolery.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451972669e200e553bc20618833-800wi

[fiamme red]

Suspension forks on road bikes. Although I thought that using them in Paris-Roubaix made a lot of sense.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_T3QwYwbcmts/RhJBC-egC5I/AAAAAAAAAow/48mgowvum1s/s400/Andrei_Tchmil_G.jpg

[Chance]

Thanks to all who contributed.

The point of course was to show that resistance to a specific change is sometimes justified and doesn’t mean we are against change in general. As Yogi would say, maybe those who resisted some of the above goofy ideas were just smarter than the average bear.

[Germany_chris]

Most of the above change provide little benefit..

Disc brakes do provide a benefit..

Resisiting change on GP is not good..

[christian]

I am waiting for everyone to discover that external cup BB's are a step backwards. So far, no dice, but I know the day is coming. Yeah, they're an awful kludge. Bigger bb's are probably coming, but for now square taper is still the best...

[dumbod]

Many years ago, James Thurber wrote a book called "Fables for Our Time" in which he updated a number of the traditional fables.

Without going into great detail, the moral of one fable is germane here:

"He who hesitates is sometimes saved."

[gdw]

Bar-end shifters for mountain bikes.
Vetta gel saddles.
Suspension stems - Girvin, Softride
Suntour Symmetric shifters - automatically trimmed the front derailleur as you shifted the rear.
Browning Automatic Bicycle Transmission - electric shifting marketed by Suntour.
K2 Smart Shocks - shocks with a "brain"

[cfox]

Hah! I remember those. In my circle, they came and went pretty quickly. If there was ever a harder brake to get and keep right...

I am waiting for everyone to discover that external cup BB's are a step backwards. So far, no dice, but I know the day is coming.

Carbon rims/spokes scare me, but that might be my issue. I have seen enough carbon wheel carnage up close to put both my internal OSHA and financial experts firmly in the "NO" camp.

BL
I can understand/agree with resistance to a lot of stuff, but why external BB's? I just replaced a square taper the other day and noted what a pain in the cajones it was vs newer, outboard BB's. I do hate press-fit BB's and the multiple new "standards" that seem to come out every week, but for good old threaded BB's, I like the outboard stuff.

[tv_vt]

Some of the things mentioned here, like the Spinaci add-on bars, would still be around if not for UCI. They were selling like hotcakes until they were banned. Likewise with some of the beam-type frames - banned by UCI...

[Kontact]

I can understand/agree with resistance to a lot of stuff, but why external BB's? I just replaced a square taper the other day and noted what a pain in the cajones it was vs newer, outboard BB's. I do hate press-fit BB's and the multiple new "standards" that seem to come out every week, but for good old threaded BB's, I like the outboard stuff.
Because they make the cranks wide, cutting into ankle clearance?

People think I'm foolish for liking BB30, but it is the only oversized axle standard that gets the cranks back to internal BB dimensions.

[Bob Loblaw]

IMO, cartridge BB's are the apex of BB technology. Easy to install, light weight, long wearing, minimal Q factor. It's cheap and easy to change them out without changing the cranks if you need a shorter/longer spindle. Facing the BB shell is no longer necessary.

External cup BB's have the bearings exposed to the elements, much more susceptible to infiltration by grit and water. They widen the Q factor. Getting a longer or shorter spindle (when possible at all) requires changing the entire crank. Every one I have ever worked on (FSA, Shimano, Campy, SRAM) has noticeable seal drag.

The alleged benefit is increased stiffness. I don't even know how to respond to that. The seal drag alone has to offset whatever infinitesimal efficiency is gained by the alleged increase in stiffness.

BL

I can understand/agree with resistance to a lot of stuff, but why external BB's? I just replaced a square taper the other day and noted what a pain in the cajones it was vs newer, outboard BB's. I do hate press-fit BB's and the multiple new "standards" that seem to come out every week, but for good old threaded BB's, I like the outboard stuff.

[christian]

The alleged benefit is increased stiffness. I don't even know how to respond to that. I've always thought this was really specious. Looking at the bb itself it's easy enough to imagine how it's stiffer - the axle is larger, after all.

But looking at the bb-bicycle system, it's much harder to discern how this would be true. Basically the wider "q" equates to a longer lever arm to torque against the bike, and the tube junctions to the bb are the same as on a square taper bike.

If you want a stiffer bb-bicycle system, you need a bigger bottom bracket. External cups are a kludge.

[Germany_chris]

I wasn't a roadie when I was young so I never experienced low Q. Because of the that lower Q feels funny to me..

[Chance]

But is Q actually wider or are bearings just set further out on axle?

Haven't looked them up in a while but it seems the Q factor for most modern cranks is about the same. Not much difference in any case. The difference is partly made up with the shape of the crank arms. Also going by memory the chainline is about the same which implies placement of the foot relative to frame can't be that different by comparison.

[Ti Designs]

Oh, and the climbing shifters too! Can't forget them even tho I climb for S#%t.

I clearly need better dancing shoes...

[Kontact]

But is Q actually wider or are bearings just set further out on axle?

Haven't looked them up in a while but it seems the Q factor for most modern cranks is about the same. Not much difference in any case. The difference is partly made up with the shape of the crank arms. Also going by memory the chainline is about the same which implies placement of the foot relative to frame can't be that different by comparison.
Q is a function of chainline plus crank arm thickness. Many current cranks have thick arms because they are hollow. The cranks with the smallest Q had forged aluminum arms.

Ankle clearance is a function of the BB width plus the depth of the spindle/crank interface.

BB30 cranks aren't going to have better Q than a similar GXP or Hollowtech crank, but the ankle clearance is dramatically different. Almost as good as the Dura Ace 7410 crank, which actually was inset into the BB shell with its 103 spindle and cartridge only BB.

I'm sure ankle clearance doesn't matter to some people, though.

[54ny77]

Kontact: how much farther out is Q these days on, say, 7900 vs. days of old (80's with Campy BB's/cranks, etc.)? I would think you'd have to either be ultra-sensitive or really far outside the proportional bell curve to notice such a thing (or suffer as a result, esp. if you have narrow hips).

FWIW, I hated the cartridge Octalink BB on my early generations of DA BB's. They wore out so fast, and forget about hosing crank off with even indirect water spray while cleaning. Ultegra was much better (steel everything, perhaps?), but by the time I figured that out, along came outboard BB cups....

[Kontact]

Kontact: how much farther out is Q these days on, say, 7900 vs. days of old (80's with Campy BB's/cranks, etc.)? I would think you'd have to either be ultra-sensitive or really far outside the proportional bell curve to notice such a thing (or suffer as a result, esp. if you have narrow hips).

FWIW, I hated the cartridge Octalink BB on my early generations of DA BB's. They wore out so fast, and forget about hosing crank off with even indirect water spray while cleaning. Ultegra was much better (steel everything, perhaps?), but by the time I figured that out, along came outboard BB cups....
I think the lowest were something like 138, and the biggest are around 150, for road. 7900 is around 146 to 148.

Octalink BBs are durable, with the exception of the overhaulable DA version.

[cfox]

The Q is the same on my square taper campy and my external shimano BB. With an old BB, you get a new Q factor every time you take off and re-install your cranks as the bore widens out on your crank arm.

[old_fat_and_slow]

Sorry to be so "behind the times" (I'm still a square taper cartridge BB guy), but are outboard BB's sealed bearings, or do you have access to the bearings for maintenance and replacement, specifically Campy outboard BB's?

Thanks

[Bob Loblaw]

AFAIK, and others may have better info, those bearings are replacable but not serviceable.

BL

Sorry to be so "behind the times" (I'm still a square taper cartridge BB guy), but are outboard BB's sealed bearings, or do you have access to the bearings for maintenance and replacement, specifically Campy outboard BB's?

Thanks

[cfox]

Sorry to be so "behind the times" (I'm still a square taper cartridge BB guy), but are outboard BB's sealed bearings, or do you have access to the bearings for maintenance and replacement, specifically Campy outboard BB's?

Thanks
the bearings on Campy outboard are press fit onto the crank arms themselves. The "BB" is really just a set of aluminum cups (no bearings) that the crank/bearing combo fits into. The bearings are replaceable, but they need to be pulled off the crank arms with a bearing puller and pressed back on with a bearing press. The bearings can be flushed out and re-greased while still on the crank arm if they aren't in need of a full replacement.

[Kontact]

Sorry to be so "behind the times" (I'm still a square taper cartridge BB guy), but are outboard BB's sealed bearings, or do you have access to the bearings for maintenance and replacement, specifically Campy outboard BB's?

Thanks

It depends. Most of the ceramics can be re-lubed. The rest are cartridges that are well sealed and are simple thrown out when worn - in many cases along with the cup they're in. Cfox mentioned Campy's method - a bit like CK headsets.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a cartridge bearing exposed - look at Phil Wood hubs. When BBs wear quickly I usually suspect quality, mounting or adjustment of the unit, rather than contamination.

[oldpotatoe]

IMO, cartridge BB's are the apex of BB technology. Easy to install, light weight, long wearing, minimal Q factor. It's cheap and easy to change them out without changing the cranks if you need a shorter/longer spindle. Facing the BB shell is no longer necessary.

External cup BB's have the bearings exposed to the elements, much more susceptible to infiltration by grit and water. They widen the Q factor. Getting a longer or shorter spindle (when possible at all) requires changing the entire crank. Every one I have ever worked on (FSA, Shimano, Campy, SRAM) has noticeable seal drag.

The alleged benefit is increased stiffness. I don't even know how to respond to that. The seal drag alone has to offset whatever infinitesimal efficiency is gained by the alleged increase in stiffness.

BL


You wrote, "Facing the BB shell is no longer necessary."

Not true. As long as a cup 'face' sits against the frame, making that surface flat is essential. Just like cart bearing headsets, for HS and BB longevity.

AND cart bearing BBs, internal to the hub shell, have seal drag also.

You are right, external BBs answered reliability and longevity issues with ocatlink and ISIS, not any issues with weight or stiffness.

Like threadless HS', it happened and marketeered into a benefit, 'lighter/stiffer' mantra with most of the crank makers..

I think the lighter/stiffer crowd ought to look at 'more reliable and longer lasting', BB bearings and chainrings, particularly the way over priced, not very long lasting 'ceramic'...

[William]

Some of the things mentioned here, like the Spinaci add-on bars, would still be around if not for UCI. They were selling like hotcakes until they were banned. Likewise with some of the beam-type frames - banned by UCI...


Honestly, I had a pair of Spinaci's (I might still packed away) and I liked them. Added another hand position and worked well for hammering into the wind on the flats. But they died off like a lot of things.





William

[Gummee]

I wasn't a roadie when I was young so I never experienced low Q. Because of the that lower Q feels funny to me..Mmmm Dura Ace...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3633479119_a218fa4ba6.jpg

M

[Gummee]

But they died off like a lot of things.
William
Legislated out of existence by the UCI. :nod Pros couldn't ride em so no one else did either.

M

[William]

Mmmm Dura Ace...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2426/3633479119_a218fa4ba6.jpg

M

I still sport those. :cool:

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h420/SodaFuel/Fixie%20wheels/IMG_1330.jpg

[djg]

Nothing? A couple of "ergonomic" bar shapes?

I've used a few things that came and went, but it's hard to think of many innovations I've tried and abandoned. One possible candidate is deep profile carbon-rimmed cyclocross wheels. There are some great wheels out there -- I like mine, actually -- and I don't reject them in any general way, but for this horse and his courses I haven't seen as much benefit as I might like. As an alternative, I might rather optimize brake pad selection for alloy rims on both main race wheels and spares. Assuming that the recovery (some physical issues) progresses well, and that I'm tolerably fit, I think I might just use alloy rims next season.

I don't tend to be an early adopter, and that might partly explain why I haven't abandoned much. I'm not opposed to new stuff. I have one bike with a carbon frame and a couple of sets of carbon hoops. I'll be trying 11 speed this spring. I like cool toys. It's just that I don't tend to have a burning desire for the latest/greatest. Once consequence of that is that I tend to buy lots of my bike stuff after many folks in the market -- including some that I know -- have tried it.

[54ny77]

resistance is futile...

http://images.wikia.com/aliens/images/4/44/Borg-cube.jpg

to think, it all began so innocently right here...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_u-51r48y78c/TPPV4j9zJfI/AAAAAAAAKZo/VCjzVRD8fNw/di2wiringcolors.jpg

[witcombusa]

So, what new idea or thing have you tried and gave up on because it didn’t work for you as expected?

Brifters....hate them
Sloping TT.....my eye will never accept how they look
300mm seat posts......your bike is too small!
Carbon anything......it's plastic
Disc brakes on road bikes......why?
External cup BB......hey, keep it in the frame
Stacked spacers above headset.....your bike is too small
10s, 11s......give me an undished rear wheel and 8 good cogs, please
Electric shifting.... ????????

[William]

resistance is futile...

http://images.wikia.com/aliens/images/4/44/Borg-cube.jpg

to think, it all began so innocently right here...

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_u-51r48y78c/TPPV4j9zJfI/AAAAAAAAKZo/VCjzVRD8fNw/di2wiringcolors.jpg


You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.




William ;)

[witcombusa]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

William ;)


Not a chance in hell!

[Kontact]

You wrote, "Facing the BB shell is no longer necessary."

Not true. As long as a cup 'face' sits against the frame, making that surface flat is essential. Just like cart bearing headsets, for HS and BB longevity.

AND cart bearing BBs, internal to the hub shell, have seal drag also.

You are right, external BBs answered reliability and longevity issues with ocatlink and ISIS, not any issues with weight or stiffness.

Like threadless HS', it happened and marketeered into a benefit, 'lighter/stiffer' mantra with most of the crank makers..

I think the lighter/stiffer crowd ought to look at 'more reliable and longer lasting', BB bearings and chainrings, particularly the way over priced, not very long lasting 'ceramic'...
I don't see how a UN72 or the equivalent is going to have a problem if the fixed cup is screwed into an unfaced shell. Those cups are not going to warp the steel tube the bearings and spindle are pressed into.

I would always choose to face a BB shell, because the cup isn't really locked down tight if it has only partial contact with the face of the shell, but I agree with Bob that it doesn't affect the bearings.

[Gummee]

I don't tend to be an early adopter, and that might partly explain why I haven't abandoned much. I'm not opposed to new stuff. I have one bike with a carbon frame and a couple of sets of carbon hoops. I'll be trying 11 speed this spring. I like cool toys. It's just that I don't tend to have a burning desire for the latest/greatest. Once consequence of that is that I tend to buy lots of my bike stuff after many folks in the market -- including some that I know -- have tried it.I don't have the budget to be an early adopter. :nah I have to wait for the second round before I can afford the first. It sucks, but its the way it is.

Took me a LONG time to go 9sp. Took even longer to go 10sp. In fact, it wasn't till just 18mos ago or so that I went from 9sp to 10sp. I still have 9sp cranks on a couple of bikes.

M

[Ti Designs]

Took me a LONG time to go 9sp. Took even longer to go 10sp. In fact, it wasn't till just 18mos ago or so that I went from 9sp to 10sp. I still have 9sp cranks on a couple of bikes.

I'm proud to be the slowest in something...

[Gummee]

I'm proud to be the slowest in something...For JRA type riding 7sp had about the perfect jumps between gears. :nod

If there was a way to have STI/Double Tap and 7sp it'd be about right *for most folks.*

M

[old_fat_and_slow]

Has the whole "ceramic bearing" lovefest expired, or does it still exist for those with too much cash in their pockets.

I think DT Swiss still offers those 190 hubs at astronomical prices? Others still hanging around? Has anyone found any application, in cycling, where they are worth the extra dinero?

[oldpotatoe]

Has the whole "ceramic bearing" lovefest expired, or does it still exist for those with too much cash in their pockets.

I think DT Swiss still offers those 190 hubs at astronomical prices? Others still hanging around? Has anyone found any application, in cycling, where they are worth the extra dinero?

Not at all. Remember ceramic balls are for high pressure, high speed, high temp applications or electrical applications where you need non conducting bearings.

Most ceramics for bicycles, like the sram ones, are made of really hard ceramic balls, in pretty soft steel cups and cones and they actually have worse reliability and longevity than just stainless steel bearings.


BUT the marketeers really like them. Save yer $.

[fiamme red]

To keep this ON TOPIC, what are some of the bicycle related innovations that came out and didn’t catch on after lingering for a while. Some may have been obsoleted by even newer designs (8-speed replaced 7, but 9 replaced 8 kind of thing), and in a way that doesn’t count. It’s more entertaining to think back on designs we tried and just couldn’t fully accept because we preferred the old stuff, setup, or design better.Power Pedals.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40365317@N06/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7078/7070430955_29b12b7bd4_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7241/7070444545_9c9f1ca055_c.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5331/6924365204_20f95683b3_c.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7123/7070445119_cf4995fe91_c.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5461/7070445355_a7cff732f8_c.jpg

[old_fat_and_slow]

...