tubing guages and durability
charlie
bikes plus others and wonder what the actual difference in durability
is between a .8x.5x.8 tubed frame compaired to a .9x.6x.9 frame? What
are we really talking about in terms or long term durability? Can a
heavy rider ride a lighter guage frame with appropriate wheels and
tires and not crack the frame in half? Is there a 10% shorter life or
20% or what exactly? I'm not even sure what my old bikes are and I
ride the beans out of them plus they are 25+ years old and probably
are not made with heat treated chrome moly. Just wondering how much
of a concern it is, if ones weight is on the edge of the reccomended
limits and you ride with finess while losing the extra flab. Am I just
being paranoid?
Grant Petersen
back to 1972, to pick a date that sounds arbitrary, but at least can
represent a time when engineers and not salespeople designed tubes; a time
when steel was all there was, with no pressure to compete in weight against
materials that are inherently less dense.
In the tube dimensions that follow...to save typing slashes and zeroes and
dots and spaces and x's, it goes like this:
0.9 x 0.6 x 0.9 will by typed 969, and so on. The three numbers refer to the
wall thickness of the tube at the butt, the belly, and the other butt. The
butts being the ends. In this case, each butt is 0.9mm, with a belly
(unbutted part) of 0.6mm,
171 means 1.0 x 0.7 x 1.0. Butts are always thicker than bellies, and
usually by 0.3mm.
Columbus recommended 171 main tubes for racers over about 160lbs, and 969
for lighter riders. The tubes of the day were 1/8-inch smaller in diameter
than "oversized" tubing, which came about around 1980 or so.
Columbus "SL" tubes, the standard on lightweight road frames, were 969.
Reynolds had some 858. Columbus "heavy" tubes, for stout guys who were over
160 pounds, were 171,
The weight difference between two tubes of equal length, a 171 and a 969, is
about 2 to 3 ounces, depending on the length of the butts.
A typical Atlantis top tube is 969.
Other RBW bikes, usually 858.
The not yet born Bombadil, 1.2 x 0.9 x 1.2. Same as early mountain bikes.
1970 Fork blades: Heavy, 17 (single butted, because they taper, and as they
taper the wall gets thicker, so they start out as a 24mm diameter round tube
with a butt of 1.0m and a long belly with no butt at the end, of 0.7mm.
1970 fork blade LIGHT: 96.
Atlantis fork blades: 1.2 x 0.9. They are longer, carry more weight, should
be like this.
Most other RBW fork blades: 1-6.
Lightest butt on a fork blade that we'll use if we braze on cantilevers:
1.0.
Lightest some builders will do that to: 0.9.
Lightest seat stays we'll braze canti's on: 0.8.
Why the diff? Forks are more threatening in a failure.
Today's lightest steel tubesets: 0.65x0.4 x 0.65.
Other factors: Wall thickness-to-diameter ratio. This affects dentability.
In the old days, this rarely exceeded 50 to 1, but a tube today with an 0.4
belly and a 31.7mm diameter reaches 79 to 1.
That tube has a great torsion-strength:weight ratio, but dents easily. It
contributes to an impressively light frame that can't take a hit.
Think of a metal pipe in a sword fight against a three-foot long beer can.
That's an exagerration, but exagerrations make the point.
I'd say a 969 heat-treated tube that's 31.7mm and has an 80 to 100 mm butt
length is pretty stout and good, but it's also a tube that few makers these
days will touch, because it is heavy in a modern context.
Thickness also affects fatigue strength or life, and that's a huge deal in
bike frames, since fatigue is what kills them. A heat-treated 858 is good
(I'd say) for riders up to 200 pounds or so, and maybe a bit more. But
truly, if there were NO pressure to compete--and believe me there is, and
I'm affected by it, and if there were none we wouldn't even be having this
discussion, so there's no denying it---then we'd use 171 where we now use
858 and 969, and we'd say, "Hey, lose weight, pal. Come on. Get a
perspective, what's going on here, is the anchor the frame or the gut?"
But outside of a slightly frustrated comment made in pajamas (at best!) in
the wee hours, that's not an acceptable answer, and so....our tubing guages
split the difference between sane and insane, and we make up some ground by
using lugs that don't concentrate stress, and heat-treated tubes that are
not only stronger, but are alloyed in such a way that the heat from brazing
doesn't affect them.
People tend to be "bottom liners" in that they want the weight and don't
look at what it adds or takes away. You can buy a 62cm steel frame that
weighs 3.5 pounds, and if the discussion and thought stop there, then you
buy that instead of the 4.8 pound frame.
There is a fellow out there who calls often and is not on this list and I
won't name him anyway....he weighs 270 and wants a QB, but is concerned that
it weighs too much. It has 858 top and down tubes, a 1.0x0.6 seat tube, and
0.8 chainstays (like what Eddy Merckx rode). It doesn't make sense, but when
talking about frame weights, we're not allowed to talk about the rider's
frame weight. It's just risky.
All things equal, a heavier frame will last longer. How much longer is hard
to say, but the old racing frames were expected to be raced a year, then
retired from racing and used for training. That sounds ridiculous by our
standards, and yet it's right out of the old Masi catalogue.
One builder I know has no qualms about selling superlight frames to
superheavy riders. He says, "They'll never be ridden. If these guy rode a
lot , they wouldn't be so heavy. So...no problem."
That is a realistic way to look at it, but we're more conservative.
Anything can break. That's not what you want to hear from anybody, but it's
true. Determining the source or blame for the break can be tricky. Is it the
maker, who wouldn't have sold the frame if it were any heavier? Or the
rider, who wouldn't have bought it? Fatigue brought about by daily flex, or
precipitated by a severe blow one day, that brought it on unnaturally fast?
Bike frames should makes sense, but sometimes when they make sense they
don't sell. So it's really a game of compromises and risks....and Rivendell
tends toward conservatism. We're not the final authority, we're not stupid
or smart, we're just doing it the way that lets us sleep and sell frames at
the same time, sort of.
I realize this sounds full of attitude, but I don't say any of it with
disgust or too much frustration. Not none, just not too much.
I'm not even sure whether I answered the question....probably didn't!
G
MichaelH
I guess I'm one of those who still pay attention to frame weight. I
ride 62-64 cm frames and am at the top of the recommended weight
range for my height. I seems to me that the issue is not frame weight
per say, but the perception & assumption, that the lighter frame will
accelerate faster and probably "plane" better. That has been true in
my experience, but is probably not universally true.
My 1988 Marinoni stage racing bike, with Columbus SL tubing, feels
amazingly like my Rambouillet when it comes to climbing and planing. I
suspect the bare frame and fork weights are also very similar. Any
advantage I might experience with the former is probably entirely due
to lighter wheels & tires. My 1984 Trek Touring frame, built with
Reynolds 531 main tubes & stays also planes very nicely and feels
lively. On the other hand my SOMA Doulble Cross is built with
Reynolds 630 tubing and is tig welded with oversize tubes. It's a
great commuter and I suspect would do fine under heavy touring loads,
but even unloaded when I start uphill I can feel it bog down more than
the other frames. I tend to attribute this to frame weight And added
stiffness. But perhaps that's my immagination.
My dream bike would be as comfortable and lively as my Rambouillet,
take 35mm tires and fenders for dirt roads of Vermont like the SOMA,,
carry touring loads without complaint, and be as easy to lift onto the
roof rack as my Marinoni! Oh yea, be as beautiful as the Rambouillet
and as affordable as the SOMA!
Maybe not in this life, eh.
Michael
Westford, VT
> on 6/12/07 11:32 PM, charlie at charles_v...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I keep reading about weight limits and tubing guages regarding Riv
> > bikes plus others and wonder what the actual difference in durability
> > is between a .8x.5x.8 tubed frame compaired to a .9x.6x.9 frame? What
> > are we really talking about in terms or long term durability? Can a
> > heavy rider ride a lighter guage frame with appropriate wheels and
> > tires and not crack the frame in half? Is there a 10% shorter life or
> > 20% or what exactly? I'm not even sure what my old bikes are and I
> > ride the beans out of them plus they are 25+ years old and probably
> > are not made with heat treated chrome moly. Just wondering how much
> > of a concern it is, if ones weight is on the edge of the reccomended
> > limits and you ride with finess while losing the extra flab. Am I just
> > being paranoid?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bruce
Sort of related, but not exactly, I showed up at an LBS Sunday afternoon for a family-friendly relaxer ride. A guy there was trying to figure out the problem with his all carbon B-stay Colnago. The problem turned out to be a vertical crack on the centerline of his fork crown. His comment, no pun intended, was "well, we know this frame isn't all it's cracked up to be." I thought to myself. "No, the problem is you're trying make a limited duty racer be your everyday ride bike, and it isn't made for that. Using the wrong tubes for a steel frame can yield equally unsatisfactory results. I also have a lightweight (3.2 lb) Reynolds 853 frame with fat tubes built up as a racer. (It's for sale now to help fund a Saluki I just bought). No chances yet to test your soda can theory of tube damage, and hopefully not at least until I sell it. I can tell you that the race bike, at 18.5 lbs complete is a whopping 0.1 mph faster in avg speed (and noticeably less comfortable to ride) than the Rambouillet over the same routes. Something about the same legs pedaling both bikes...
Btw, on last night's local hill climb, a long drink of water on a Scott Carbon rig pulled up and said about my Ram, "that is a neat looking bike!" :)
Bruce
Grant Petersen <gr...@rivbike.com> wrote:
It's good to have some kind of historical framework, going into this....
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Ray Shine
message at 0430 hours! (It truely is lonely at the
top!). Anyway, I have never weighed, and do not know,
the weights of my Canti-Rom, QB, now-on-order
Atlantis, or Dahon folder. The only weight I watch on
a regular basis is mine. So far, so good.
RS
--- Bruce <fully...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ---------------------------------
Philip Williamson
>
> on 6/13/07 5:51 AM, bourne_...@cox.net at bourne_...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > So, if I understand you, you /won't/ say this to the guy's (telephone)
> > face, but you will say it here? And not just in general terms. Instead
> > you choose to single out this 270lb guy and, is essence, mock him.
> > What if he lurks on this list? What if he is me? Great PR. Wake up,
> > alot of overweight but well heeled guys pay your rent. 160lb, 5% body
> > fat cyclists don't buy your stuff.
>
> THE SOURCE:
>
> There is a fellow out there who calls often and is not on this list and I
> won't name him anyway....he weighs 270 and wants a QB, but is concerned that
> it weighs too much. It has 858 top and down tubes, a 1.0x0.6 seat tube, and
> 0.8 chainstays (like what Eddy Merckx rode). It doesn't make sense, but when
> talking about frame weights, we're not allowed to talk about the rider's
> frame weight. It's just risky.
>
>
>
> I've been as frank and direct with him as I feel comfortable, thanks. This
> is why I post once a month, and I should've picked another thing to post
> about. Sorry if I came on harsh, Weight permeates almost every topic in
> bicycles, and it gets old. I'm over my post limit!
> Grant
I replied to this email instead of another one because I'm still
trying to avoid top-posting to this list and the other message took
too much rearranging to maintain flow. I give that fantasy three more
weeks.
a) All my bikes weigh 25 lbs. I do not know why this is, but it's
true. 9sp Bontrager hardtail, Ross 1020 fendered fixedgear, QB with a
rack and a basket. I weigh them by standing on my extremely accurate
doctor's scale with and without the bike. 25 lbs.
I notice in the Dirt Rag reviews that a LOT of bikes weigh 25 lbs,
including ones twice as expensive as any of mine. Hardtail
singlespeeds, even.
b) Sounds like an opportunity for that guy to invest in some serious
Quickbeam upgrades! Titanium-railed saddle, light (or just
fancy-looking) wheels, a Soba bar, light tires, titanium BB spindle...
or just carbon parts out the yin-yang. He' could have the lightest QB
in the world, and a bike like no one else.
c) only posting once a month is the way of true genius. I wish I could do that!
Philip
Murray Love
On 6/13/07, bourne_...@cox.net <bourne_...@cox.net> wrote:
> So, if I understand you, you /won't/ say this to the guy's (telephone)
> face, but you will say it here? And not just in general terms. Instead
> you choose to single out this 270lb guy and, is essence, mock him.
> What if he lurks on this list? What if he is me? Great PR. Wake up,
> alot of overweight but well heeled guys pay your rent. 160lb, 5% body
> fat cyclists don't buy your stuff.
Personally, I thought this was a helpful example of pressures bike
mfgrs face when designing frames--helpful not just to me, but to
anyone interested in a practical bike. The only "waking up" that
needs to happen is among those purchasing frames based on weight
because they want to be fashionable. I prefer PR that gives me
detailed analysis of an issue, including real world examples.
Chris
Well said. It's remarkable what people will take umbrage at, nowadays.
In any case, this (tube diameter and gauge) is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. All my bikes over the past 13 years or so have been OS steel ( 28.6 TT and ST, 31.8 DT), of mostly unknown gauges. I do know that my current road bike is 858 in the main tubes (85 in the ST), while my allroad bike is 969 (96 in the ST). My weight varies between 197-210 lb, depending, and my bikes are 62cm in size. I cruise at 17-21 mph at an average cadence of 80-90 rpm, I often climb hills out of the saddle, and I usually carry a saddlebag full of commuting gear. So it's safe to say that between my weight, my load, and my riding style, I put a fair bit of stress on the frame. Nothing excessive, but I'm at probably on the cusp of the Clydesdale classification. So in an ideal, take-no-offense world, Grant would probably advise me that I should prudently opt for thicker tubing, say 171, like the old Columbus SP.
But I've noticed that, although my road and allroad bikes have relatively similar geometries (though different wheel sizes), and the allroad is arguably a faster bike under most circumstances, the bike with thinner-gauge tubing is more pleasant to ride on hills and when out of the saddle. It seems to allow me comfortably to maintain a higher gear, while the thicker-tubed bike forces me to downshift in the same conditions. (This may or may not be the planing behaviour of which Jan speaks--it is certainly a consistent observation on my part.) So (I reasoned), if a little frame flex is good, would more flex be better?
To this end, I bought a 63cm 1984 Specialized Sequoia frame and fork (non-OS tubing throughout: 25.4 TT, 28.6 DT and ST--I'd love to know the tube gauges but I expect 969), and transferred over the parts from my road bike. The geometry isn't wildly different from my other bikes except for the ludicrous 74° ST angle (but I don't use a Brooks anymore so that worked out OK), and I've only ridden it about 70 miles so far, but holy cow, does this ever appear to be a successful experiment.
As I said, I haven't ridden a non-OS steel bike since 1994, so I had no firm memory of what I'd been missing. I do remember what was probably my last ride on a non-OS bike (my '92 RB-1) after several months riding an OS bike exclusively, and being astonished at how *nicely* it rode: more comfortable on 700x25s than my OS bike on 26x1.5s, much, much quicker to accelerate, and just somehow "easier" to ride. The Sequoia revived that astonishment: while not as light as the RB-1, and with longer chainstays, it rides beautifully. It seems to ride more smoothly than my road bike on the same wheels, the pedalling action feels pleasantly "softer" for a given speed, and although significant BB flex is visible under hard pedalling, the extra flex doesn't seem to detract from power transfer at all; quite the opposite. I also expected some shimmy due to the longish skinny TT, but no sign of that so far. Of course, I need to ride it a lot more to come to any final conclusions, but so far, I'm coming firmly down on the side of more flex, which (at my frame size) means non-OS tubes.
To bring this back to the original topic, the whole size-vs-durability thing is therefore a dilemma. If I listen to the industry consensus (which in this case includes Grant, no offense intended), there's no way a guy like me should be riding on non-OS 969 tubes (if those are in fact what the Sequoia is built from). But then, I may be sacrificing the ride qualities I prefer. And tons of big guys are out there riding on 25 year-old non-OS bikes, so how bad can it be? I suspect the answer is just to live with the possibility of frame failure (probably at a relatively non safety-critical location like the BB junction, and enjoy the ride!
Murray
Victoria, BC
Bill Gibson
seem to learn something from Grant & Co. (this list included) both in
general and specifically. The web is how I connected with Rivendell,
and today I'm learning some very interesting factoids about bikes in
general and my Quickbeam in particular, and I'm very happy and
grateful for it.
I, too, don't sense that anyone was mocked, and I hope if they felt
that way they get over it. No secret some of us are concerned and
sensitive about weight and health! What could be better than buying
that shiny new bike, then riding it all the time, and ahem eating less
(sorry that's the way it is at first on the way back from overweight)?
I hope the customer listens to the advice of the designer, and finds
something they will enjoy often with confidence.
Lately, I've become interested in what's going on in the ultralight
backpacking world, and there are some amazing and epic adventures in
progress. There is more to that movement than the weight of stuff.
Sometimes the ultralight backpacking is about leaving stuff behind,
and sometimes the stuff they take is so light it doesn't last for more
than a few weeks of daily use, then it shreds and/or leaks. Experience
can teach you when you need real toughness and durability, and when
you don't. Some things must not fail suddenly on a bike at speed! And,
I like stuff to last long enough to aquire some patina, beausage, etc.
I do believe that Grant et al. are on to something wonderful with
S24Os. Less <is> more sometimes, especially if it you get out <more>
often, as in riding for daily errands vs. the epic journeys of a
lifetime. The little stuff adds up. But limiting yourself to only one
post a month...just fire away when the spirit moves you, Grant,
please!
On 6/13/07, Grant Petersen <gr...@rivbike.com> wrote:
>
> on 6/13/07 5:51 AM, bourne_...@cox.net at bourne_...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > So, if I understand you, you /won't/ say this to the guy's (telephone)
> > face, but you will say it here? And not just in general terms. Instead
> > you choose to single out this 270lb guy and, is essence, mock him.
> > What if he lurks on this list? What if he is me? Great PR. Wake up,
> > alot of overweight but well heeled guys pay your rent. 160lb, 5% body
> > fat cyclists don't buy your stuff.
>
> THE SOURCE:
>
> There is a fellow out there who calls often and is not on this list and I
> won't name him anyway....he weighs 270 and wants a QB, but is concerned that
> it weighs too much. It has 858 top and down tubes, a 1.0x0.6 seat tube, and
> 0.8 chainstays (like what Eddy Merckx rode). It doesn't make sense, but when
> talking about frame weights, we're not allowed to talk about the rider's
> frame weight. It's just risky.
>
>
>
> I changed one fact that didn't change the point and didn't use his name.
> I've been as frank and direct with him as I feel comfortable, thanks. This
> is why I post once a month, and I should've picked another thing to post
> about. Sorry if I came on harsh, Weight permeates almost every topic in
> bicycles, and it gets old. I'm over my post limit!
> Grant
>
>
> >
>
--
Bill Gibson
Tempe, Arizona, USA
charlie
opposite problem in that, I am more concerned if a side pull braked
Romulus, still new in the box, that I want to buy ( from someone on
this list) is heavy/sturdy enough!
I know I need to lose the extra fat and thats why I am riding as much
as I can plus trying to limit my intake. Its a tough balancing act to
manage with a sedentary job and not alot of time for riding. I'm
managing however and the weight and good habits are starting to make a
difference since I was 278 not long ago and now 263. I suppose it is
a difficult thing to fight the frame "weight wars" in the bicycle
manufacturing arena also. I'd imagine its a toss up between making
something competitive and light enough and still have it hold up to
alot of use without failing. Of course it doesn't help that we
Americans (me) are even fatter on average than ever before.
Grant, I appreciate your taking the time to write a long response to
my question. I'm still a little confused and want to believe that the
59cm Romulus I may buy will hold up while I ride my way to a slim new
me.
The comment by the one builder that heavy guys won't ride their bikes
much is not very smart in my opinion since I know I manage around 2500
to 3000 per year now and I know some who do even more and they are not
under 200. Americans are bigger and fatter now than in 1960 and those
same guys who were 170 pounds way back then are now 240+ and want to
get back into an old pastime that they once enjoyed before work and
family demands kept them on the job 10-12 hours a day . Twenty years
of jelly donuts and take out food forced them to look in the mirror
and say wow! your are one fat dude!......hey! what about starting up
bicycle riding again? Remember how much fun it was......then you find
it difficult to get something that will hold up and don't exactly have
money to burn yet. So.... you go on the scouting trip to find
something that the budget will allow because you want something nice
and have questions about durability etc. You know of course that the
question puts the designer/builder in an awkward position since its a
bit of an unanswerable one.
At this point in my life, I'd welcome a lugged 171 tubed road frame
that fit and would last twenty years even if I stayed at 225 and
carried 50 pounds of camping stuff every summer for two weeks. Nobody
really makes one of these unless you spend the big cash and wait years
in some cases. Theres a whole marketing campaign and a customer base
that might be cultivated or ....not. Back to square one I guess.
On Jun 13, 8:49 am, "Chris Jackson" <chrij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/07, bourne_scep...@cox.net <bourne_scep...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > So, if I understand you, you /won't/ say this to the guy's (telephone)
> > face, but you will say it here? And not just in general terms. Instead
> > you choose to single out this 270lb guy and, is essence, mock him.
> > What if he lurks on this list? What if he is me? Great PR. Wake up,
> > alot of overweight but well heeled guys pay your rent. 160lb, 5% body
> > fat cyclists don't buy your stuff.
>
clyde canter
on 6/13/07 5:51 AM, bourne_...@cox.net at bourne_...@cox.net wrote:
> So, if I understand you, you /won't/ say this to the guy's (telephone)
> face, but you will say it here? And not just in general terms. Instead
> you choose to single out this 270lb guy and, is essence, mock him.
> What if he lurks on this list? What if he is me? Great PR. Wake up,
> alot of overweight but well heeled guys pay your rent. 160lb, 5% body
> fat cyclists don't buy your stuff.
zei...@optonline.com
never spontaneously combusted underneath me.It's from around '83-'84.
It doesn't get ridden as much as it used to, but was never a problem.
I'm beginning to think ignorance is bliss.
Bob Zeidler
BOB#318
On Jun 13, 7:28 am, Grant Petersen <g...@rivbike.com> wrote:
rb212
tubing gauges and I have recently begun to wonder about it since I
have a custom Rivendell on order and I plan to use it for occasional
loaded touring. I am curious as to how Grant will spec the tubes.
It was nice to hear from him on this post and get all that background
information.
Charlie, I can't imagine that the Rom you are looking to buy is going
to give you any problems due to your weight. But admittedly, my
opinion is based only on my own anecdotal evidence.
I have toured on regular road bikes for years, as has my wife and many
of our friends. And I mean heavy loaded tours. As one of the posts
suggests, ignorance has been bliss and I think the thousands of riders
like me that have toured on whatever bike they owned in the 70's and
80's can probably back me up that they never noticed any consequences
of putting a lot of weight on a lugged steel frame. Some (like me)
probably are still riding those bikes.
I usually carry between 60 and 70 pounds of gear and although I
weighed 175 back in the 70's, I am up to 215 now. I have ridden
stretches of dirt tracks on 28c tires in Costa Rica, maneuvered along
endless stretches of gravel in Alaska, and mashed my pedals in one
gear (due to a broken derailleur) across the Alps. I can't imagine
putting more stress on a frame, yet my 1972 Gitane and the bikes I had
in the 80's (Dawes and Bianchi) were always as strong and resilient as
they needed to be.
Fast forward to 2002. My wife who also tours with me (I won't mention
her weight but with gear she is probably close to Charlie's weight as
well) purchased a Rambouillet and it has been on 3 tours already - New
Zealand, British Columbia and Australia (yes we are very lucky). She
has also put on a couple thousand miles a year outside of those tours
and often commutes the 10 miles to work with her laptop, a change of
clothes, and a bunch of other junk. Her Rambouillet is still as sweet
as the day it arrived. I seriously have never even trued a spoke.
So when Grant sits down to spec my tubes, I hope he doesn't feel he
has to design a Bombadil or a mountain bike for me. I don't even want
canti brakes, I am expecting a bike every bit as "road" as a Ram or a
Rom, but that I will still throw a lot of gear on and take to an
exotic place every other year. I am clinging to the belief that I can
continue to have my cake and eat it too. You can see a few choice
photos at http://users.sisna.com/emassist1/ramb
Bruce
rb212 <pjs...@emassist.com> wrote:
You can see a few choice
photos at http://users.sisna.com/emassist1/ramb
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
charlie
said it and not him! I see what you are saying and it makes sense. I
realize a builder/designer can't outright give an ironclad guarantee
since that unfairly puts them into a corner with no control over
maintanance or use of the product. I've been riding some pretty old
iron the last couple of years and no problems so my concerns are
looking excessive. I'll probably get the bike I planned on and will
carefully ride it along with a couple of others, to divide up the
carnage, all the while eating smaller portions and telling myself,
"stop! you don't get extra just because you rode your bicycle 40 miles
today." Thats the hard part and requires that a new way of thinking
has to take place. I'm going to smell the roses! Peace out!
> photos athttp://users.sisna.com/emassist1/ramb
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Marc Nolte
Thanks for posting the pictures.
Very inspiring lifestyle.
I liked the post, too.
Best,
Marc
--
Marc Nolte
Calgary, Alberta