20 Years of #BikeMS

So, it was 20 years ago this summer that #BikeMS brought me back into cycling. Ted & Michelle Hopfner hooked me into their FedEx BikeMS team, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Since then there have been a ton of stories, riding in every imaginable weather, being joined by my Wife and Daughter, and meeting amazing, beautiful, human beings.

But why? Why have I spent many winters (especially as I've gotten older) doing painful things on an indoor cycling trainer? Why have I ridden literally thousands of miles in training and events? Why have I endured sunburn, windburn, saddle sores, cramps, exhaustion, and sometimes absolute frickin' misery?

Because Multiple Sclerosis is a horrible <expletive> disease, that has caused far more suffering to friends and family than I have ever suffered.

Multiple Sclerosis is an autoimmune disorder where the immune system attacks the myelin surrounding nerves in the brain and central nervous system. The effect is a lot like having the insulation in a complex wiring system stripped away in random locations, creating short circuits and open circuits.

Pain, numbness, vision issues, brain fog, emotional effects, paralysis, difficulty with basic body functions like eating and breathing are all possible symptoms that can come and (sometimes) go at almost any time.

This year, the symptoms of MS took Lynne Metro, a dear lady who welcomed Marcy's brother Jeff, and us into her already huge family. She will be missed. May her memory be for a blessing.

#BikeMS is the largest charity cycling event series in the world, and it has made a huge difference. When I started 20 years ago, MS was considered "idiopathic," which is Doctor-speak for "We have no idea what causes this." Today, we know that it is an autoimmune disorder, and have begun to identify the exact biochemical mechanisms and triggers. This knowledge had brought treatments, and will, we hope lead to a cure.

That progress has been funded by events like BikeMS, by people like you who have sponsored cyclists like me. Sponsorships are tax-deductible, and every penny goes to support research and services for those afflicted.

I'll update this blog with event and training updates. For those willing to sponsor me, the simplest way is to donate at this link:

https://events.nationalmssociety.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donordrive.participant&participantID=580889

If you want to sponsor me in some other way (cash, check, whatever) you can reach out to me at chris(dot)kotting(at)gmail(dot)com.

A cyclist thinking about chain wear.

Probably one of the most quietly contentious discussions in cycling is chain wear.

(Other areas of contention, such as chain lubrication and doping in the pro peloton are more contentious, but not nearly so quiet.)

In an attempt to limit my written meanderings to those areas where I can provide more light than heat, I offer answers to some common questions about chain wear.

Q: What is "chain stretch"?

A: A very inaccurate term for a common issue.  Chains to not "stretch", at least not in the same way that Lycra does.  They do, however, elongate, or change functional dimension, as a result of wear.

In a modern bicycle chain, there are two places that wear occurs:

1. Between the side plates and the pins.
2. Between the rollers and the "shoulder" on the side plate that they ride on.  (In older chains, the roller rides on the pin.  However, in every modern chain I've seen, the roller rides on shoulders formed on the inner side plates.)

As the side plates pivot around the pin, there is wear between the side plate and the pin.  This wear enlarges the hole in the side plate, and reduces the diameter of the pin. This creates an effectively "longer" chain.

As the roller pivots around the pin, it wears on the side plates, allowing slop in the roller's position.

These two factors cause the chain to mesh with the chainrings and rear cog(s) less precisely. Less precision means that the load on the chain is borne by fewer teeth, increasing the wear on the chainrings and rear cog(s).

Chains are relatively inexpensive, chainrings and rear cassettes are relatively expensive, so it is worthwhile to replace the chain early.

Q: How do you know when a chain is worn out?

A: There are a few different tests:

• Use a good ruler. Measure 12" from the center of a pin on the chain. If the center of the pin 12" away is past the 12" mark, you have measurable chain wear. I replace chains at 1/16". If it's a 5,6,7,8 or 9 speed chain (if in doubt, count the rear cogs) you can go a little further.
• Use a chain wear gauge. Use a gauge that is intended for the number of rear cogs. (Past 9 speeds, the chains start getting significantly narrower, as do the cogs, making the wear more of an issue.) There are 2 tests on the gauge;
• the first (usually marked .05) means that you can reasonably replace the chain,
• the second (marked .75 or 1.0, depending on the type of chain it's meant for) means that the chain is done, finis, kaput. You can keep riding it, but be ready to replace the cassette along with the chain, and maybe the chainrings.
• Abbey Bike tools makes a chainwear gauge that uses a different approach, but if you are far enough into bicycle tech to buy a $45 gauge, you probably don't need this article!
  
• Shift into the big ring, grasp the chain where it wraps around the front of the chain, and see if you can pull the chain away from the ring. If you can discern movement, you are looking at replacing the chain. If you see light between the link and the chainring, look at replacing the cassette as well.

Q: What about just running the whole drivetrain until it's absolutely toast, then replace the whole thing? 

A: People do that, and some claim that it's a wash (higher cost, but less frequent). I admit, I'm picky about shifting quality, and a worn chain (and worn cassette) don't shift as well. It's also a PITA when you're on a long tour and you have to source replacement parts. (Ask me about replacing cleats in the middle of South Dakota sometime.)

Q: How do I minimize chain wear?

A: Keep the chain clean. 

• Wipe it down after a long ride, or once a week if you do a lot of short rides. 
• Periodically take the chain off the bike and give it a thorough cleaning in a solvent bath or ultrasonic cleaner. (I'm picky, I do both.  Water based degreaser in an ultrasonic bath, followed by agitation in denatured alcohol, which does double duty in getting the last remnants of gunk out and in getting the water out.)
• Use fenders. Most of the damaging crud that hits a chain from the outside is thrown onto the front chainring by the front wheel. I have fenders on my "daily driver" bike.

    Use a good (i.e. appropriate to the use) lubricant. This is a very contentious issue among cyclists, but here are the broad categories with some guidance for their use:

• Oil-Based. TriFlow, Boeshield T-9, any lubricant that is called a "wet" lubricant.
• Best choice for dealing with wet / rainy conditions. 
• Downside is that the oil will tend to hold dust and dirt, so not so good for dusty conditions. 
• The worst thing you can do here is use too much. Apply a drop to each roller, let it sit for 15 minutes, wipe off any excess with a dry rag.
  
• Dry Lubricants. Generally either described as "dry", the Rock 'n Roll brand is common. 
• These have a solvent with a wax or other dry lubricant in suspension. The solvent evaporates, leaving the lubricant behind. 
• Great and convenient for dry conditions, and often serve to clean the chain in the application process. (Read the directions.)
  
• Often require you to wait overnight between lubing and riding. 
• Can get expensive.
  
•  Wax
• Involves completely stripping any existing lubricant off the chain and immersing the chain in melted wax.
• Definitely holds the least dirt and grit, and often has the lowest friction.
• Downside is that it is a hassle, and has to be redone as often as every 200 miles. For me, that would mean doing it at least every week on-season. (I'm anal about chain wear, but not that anal.)
  

I use Boeshield T-9 on my endurance events bike and my daily driver, both of which see getting caught in the rain. I use a Dry Lubricant (Rock 'n Roll Extreme Dry) on the bike that sits on the indoor trainer. It not only never sees rain, but the dry lubricant keeps the trainer and the floor cleaner.
 

The Modern-Day Molech Machine - Part II

 About a dozen years ago I wrote a Blog post titled "The Modern-Day Molech Machine" about how distorted ideas about beauty were distorting us, and our children, in the name of the almighty dollar.  Well, here's Round 2, this time about Media, and particularly Social Media.

My Bachelor’s degree is in Mass Media and Organizational Communication, and I have been a lifelong student of Media and Society. Most people (myself included) do not use media wisely, especially Social Media. A tool that can (and should) create connection between people instead created division and contentiousness. I’d like to explore some of the mechanisms behind that.

The primary thing that one has to remember is that the product of the Media, whether print, broadcast, streaming, or social is NOT the media itself. Content is not the product. You and I are the product, or, more precisely, our attention.

Media content is a farm, and the crop is eyeball/seconds.

This fact drives all of media, and business decisions in media. Remember “soap operas”? Originally, those (radio, at the time) shows were actually produced by the advertiser, generally a laundry soap, hence the name. They didn’t do so to entertain housewives, but to get their attention, and to present a world where any housewife who was worthwhile used the advertised detergent.

Of course, this was at the time when advertising hadn’t passed much beyond the “billboard” stage, where the advertiser didn’t know much about the audience. Today we have “big data” of which A.G. Nielsen was a big pioneer in the media world.

You know Nielsen if you’ve ever heard about “Nielsen ratings” which is a measure of how popular a program is, and that is a direct measure of how big a “crop” the “farm” has. However, Nielsen’s audience research goes far beyond just counting eyeballs.

Nielsen developed audience analytics, where “how many” is important, but “what kind” is equally important. Nielsen began early on characterizing the audience, so a show would have a rating, and a view of the demographic of the audience. Certain shows were more popular with certain advertisers, because those shows drew an audience that the advertiser wanted. That particular “crop” became more profitable, so that kind of show proliferated.

A sidebar: Many Conservatives have decried “liberal media bias”. I’m sorry, but that’s a thing. Media as a whole has developed a liberal / progressive bias. While many think that this is a vast conspiracy, I see a simpler, and more likely¹, cause. People on the liberal / progressive end of the political philosophical spectrum are more likely to try something new, including trying a new product. Advertisers will pay more for an audience that will, on the whole, be more likely to buy. This creates a natural financial push towards that political philosophy, which creates a hiring bias (after all, you hire people who will make you more money), which leads to newsrooms filled with people who think alike. Those staff writers grow up to become Editors, who hire people who think the way they do, and the newsroom becomes an echo chamber. 

This isn't a conspiracy, it's financial incentives plus human nature. For more on this, I highly recommend the book Republican like Me, written by the former President of NPR.

That also explains Fox News, because some products are favored by politically and fiscally Conservative people. Fox News and other conservative media draw those advertisers.

Nielsen created “audience segmentation”, and it affected every aspect of broadcast programming, even the news. You have probably seen the internet meme about Walter Cronkite, and how he “just read the news”. Well, there was media bias and market segmentation back then, too. “Uncle Walter” appealed to political conservatives, and this was a result of on-air demeanor, how the stories were written, and what stories were reported on, and for how long. Liberal / Progressive households (like the one I grew up in) favored Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, as well as PBS for news. Those in the middle, tended to watch ABC news.

The social divisiveness we see today is a natural progression from audience segmentation, and it’s logical extension into Social Media, where the “audience” is also the “content creator”. Social Media faces the same financial pressures as any other form of media, and responds in the same way, with audience segmentation. Audience segmentation in social media, becomes audience polarization. Again this is a natural outcome of the financial pressures and the business model.

However, with social media, the process of audience segmentation is automatically performed by the algorithm. Remember, making money is driven by getting, and keeping, attention. The algorithm is designed to identify the content people are attracted to, and presenting that content to them, on an ongoing cycle. This self reinforcing process (feedback loop) creates polarization, because what people see is more and more biased towards their preconceived notions of truth and reality.

The natural tendency and outcome of these processes is to divide us. Resisting that outcome takes effort, because tribal identity is so easy and comfortable.

But resist it we must.