The Oregon Manifest troubles me...

Sometimes I worry that I'm becoming a curmudgeon. For example, take my reaction to the Oregon Manifest. Here is an event that, on the face of it, people like me should be wholeheartedly in support of. (I know, don't end your sentences with prepositions.) But still, I find it troubling. Bear with me as I explore the reasons why:

First, what is the Oregon Manifest? It's a three-weekend series of bike related events in October and November. There appear to be two main events: The Oregon Manifest Constructor's Design Challenge is a framebuilders' competition aimed at [inspiring] "frame builders and designers to develop considered, integrated, and spectacular solutions for the everyday rider". Complementary to this is the second major event, the Constructor's Race, wherein "Design Challenge builders (or their designated proxies) will put their entries to the test braving dirt, gravel, elevation climbs, and urban technical trials on the route to Bike Victory."

The judging criteria for the Design Challenge is truly broad and deep. From the entry form, it reads like this:

1. Truly sensational solution: A genuinely unique and innovative solution for transportation use. Amaze us.
2. Handling: The bike must handle equally well with and without load. Both options will be tested against turning and straight pedaling.
3. Integration: Design solutions should be integrated into a complete and harmonious whole, rather than a checklist of details.
4. Presentation and Execution: Fabrication refinement and final presentation are important indicators of skill and thoughtfulness. Extraordinary craftsmanship can be displayed equally well in the simplest brazing or the fanciest lug. Individual design solutions should build to a single visual and functional whole.
5. Overall response to the course and challenges: Entry bikes must take into consider all elements of the race course, the 10 design considerations and the overall challenges they present.
6. Load carrying: Bikes must accomodate and securely carry the rider’s award ceremony party attire, a provided 6-pack of beverage (in glass bottles), and a provided small container of party snacks.
7. Security: Bikes must be protected from theft while unattended. A smart, easy solution for securing the bike under different conditions is expected.
8. Portage: Bikes must accommodate being carried by its rider over a section of the course.
9. Utility: Bikes should accomodate the expected need for changing weather, lighting conditions, and visibility. We know that you know what this means.
10. Quality and Rattles: If elements are loose, rattling, or otherwise inoperable at the race finish, points will be deducted for each failure.

So, there you have it. Everything from "Amaze us" (and "us" is a distinguished group of judges) to "smart, easy solution" for security to "accommodate weather" to "no rattles". You will agree that that's a broad portfolio for design and execution, no?

You know, I do believe that issuing a tough challenge is a good way to get results. I've participated in (and, on occasion, won) design challenges under tough, even unreasonable, conditions. So, what problems could a Practical Cyclist have with such a challenge? I think my problem is with the assumptions that this event appears to make about the state of affairs "for the everyday rider" (and I feel that, as a bona fide "everyday rider" and as a blogger who cares about bicycle design I get to weigh in on this stuff):

Assumption 1: The reason people don't use bikes for transportation is that the bikes themselves aren't good enough, nicely-enough designed, practical enough, or (especially) convenient enough. This is a seductive assumption: "Hey, if we could just make bikes convenient, like cars, people would use them!" Well, I hate to be the one to break this news, but it's just not going to happen -- bikes will never be as convenient as cars, and we'll just have to live with that. The truth is, the not-so-little problems with bike "convenience", to wit,

• safety in traffic
• weather
• security
• comfort
• physical stamina
• efficient power utilization
• perspiration

..can be addressed by physical bicycle design only to a limited degree. The problems that can't be addressed by design will have to be overcome by preparation and motivation to ride, and I assert that it is lack of motivation to ride that keeps people off bikes, because, frankly, bikes are pretty wonderful as they are. Making them 2 or 3 or even 5 percent more wonderful is nice, but hardly a revolution.

Assumption 2: A 77-mile cyclocross race is a predictor of a successful transportation system. Look, practical transportation needs are in the range of 20 to 30 miles a day, maximum. And they don't involve portage or dirt trails. (They do involve carrying lunch and a change of clothes, however, which is admittedly also part of the challenge.) Cyclocross races, especially ones with extra "degrees of difficulty", are fun, for sure, but suggesting that an event like this has anything to do with the "everyday rider" is muddying the waters.

Assumption 3: The engineering and fabrication required to solve the problems stated in the design brief can be done in 2 months. I've built frames before; 30 years ago in Houston, I had the great privilege to be an apprentice to the late, great Roman "Ray" Gasiorowski, maker of Romic bikes. From my personal experience, to even begin to solve these problems, you're talking about a month of pencil-and-paper work. Then fabrication of special components, then assembly and testing. The timing is such that what you're going to get is a bunch of beautiful, well-engineered, fast cargo bikes. This is not a bad thing, mind you, but not "velorutionary". (Here's a prediction: several of the entrants, and probably the winner, will use a Rohloff Speedhub, because of its superior transmission capabilities.)

Conceptual problems aside, though, I do see one other problem, or should I say potential conflict, and that is this: The listed Director of Oregon Manifest is someone named Jocelyn Sycip, and one of the listed entrants in the design competition is Sycip Design of Santa Rosa, California. Is this a conflict of interest, or am I to believe that the Sycips of Oregon and California are unrelated?

Yep, all these years and miles of bicycle commuting are turning me into a curmudgeon. No doubt about it.

Cycling Movies

There haven't been that many English-language dramatic movies about bicycling made since the 19th-century "Ritchie the Tramp Bicyclist" (1899, UK, silent).

The late screenwriter Steve Tesich wrote a couple of movies in the late 1970's and 1980's.

"Breaking Away" (1979) was an (I guess you'd say) "sweet" kind of coming-of-age movie, set in a small Midwest college town. One of a group of four friends gets caught up in the romance of bike racing and the movie follows him and his buddies through the changes of late adolescence. The protagonist is Dennis Christopher, backed up by a very young Dennis Quaid, 4 years before he found a broader audience in The Right Stuff. Here's the Netflix entry. Tesich won an Oscar for the Breaking Away screenplay. (Rating: 7.6, imdb)

(PS: Check out the poster at right: What's wrong with this picture?)


Six years later, Tesich wrote "American Flyers" (1985) starring Kevin Costner, 2 years before he found a broader audience with Untouchables, and Jennifer Grey. I haven't seen American Flyers, so I can't give you a personal plot synopsis, but here's what Internet Movie Database has to say: Sports physician Marcus persuades his unstable brother David to come with him and train for a bicycle race across the Rocky Mountains. He doesn't tell him that he has a cerebral tumor. While David powerfully heads for the victory, Marcus has to realize that the contest is now beyond his capabilities. / Features great views of the Rockies and an insight in the tactics of bicycle races. Here's the Netflix entry. (Rating: 5.9, imdb)


Now the movie that inspired this post: "The Flying Scotsman" (2006) starring Jonny Lee Miller and the versatile Scots actor Billy Boyd of Lord of the Rings fame. This is the fascinating true story of Graeme Obrey, the Scotsman who held two world records in the 1-hour track time trial (on a bike of his own design and fabrication) and was World Pursuit Champion in 1993 and 1995. This is a dramatic and engaging story that has it all: competition, desire, conflict (Obrey and the World Cycling Federation were in conflict for years over his unconventional methods and designs) and (even) mental instability. I wholly recommend this movie.

You'll note that I qualify in the first sentence of this posting the "English language". Let me warn you that (especially for the American ear) parts of the dialogue in Flying Scotsman in in such a thick brogue you may need to turn on the subtitles in English (yes, they have English subtitles in a Scottish movie!) Here's the Netflix entry. (Rating 7.1 imdb)

Lost in the Fog

I greatly admire George Vecsey, the sportswriter for the New York Times. Here's a link to his coverage of the Olympic men's bicycle road race (152 miles).

An excerpt is a quote from Jacques Rogge, the president of the International Olympic Committee, (IOC):

“The fog you see is based on the basis of humidity and heat. It does not mean to say that this fog is the same as pollution. It can be pollution, but the fog doesn’t mean necessarily that it is pollution.”

It's tempting to say that Rogge doesn't have a superb command of English, and that would explain the ambiguity of this statement. Me, I think it's rubbish. Rogge is trying to say something that is less than a bald-faced lie, and not succeeding at it.

The cyclists call it pollution, and I tend to believe them. "Grandpa" George Hincapie said these were the worst conditions under which he had ever raced.

This is a scandal, and the IOC's and the US Olympic Committee's (USOC) transparent responses to pressure from their Chinese hosts is disgraceful. Consider this story: The USOC issued the specially designed masks to protect athletes from the potentially harmful air in Beijing. Randy Wilber, the USOC's main exercise physiologist, advised the athletes to wear the masks on the plane and as soon as they stepped foot here. Which is precisely what the US Track-cycling team did (see photo). Then, after being scolded by USOC officials who told them "the Chinese were mad," they apologized to the press. For doing what is (1) prudent and (2) what they were advised to do. This sucks big time. I'm probably going to boycott TV coverage of these Olympics because it angers me so. (Update: I didn't. It was good to see the American swimmers and roundball players rock.)

Vecsey describes the air as "Hot and furry and persistent". Ugh. I'll leave it at that. Put on your masks, people.

Update: Here's a followup in the NYT from a pulmonologist.

Photo Copyright© 2008 The New York Times Company

How will Jeannie Longo Deal with China's Air?

Bike racing isn't really the focus of this blog, but this is an interesting article brought to my attention by my brother Willie:

Jeannie Longo is almost 50, and competing in womens' cycling in her 7th consecutive Olympics. Wow. I don't have words to express my admiration for this kind of stamina and strength. This NYT article details a little more of her amazing successes: over 1,000 career wins. Wow, again. The picture at left is of Jeannie winning a hill-climbing contest in 2004.

However, one of her self-attributed success factors is avoidance of non-organic food and "chemicals" to which she says she's allergic. This raises an interesting point: How will she deal with air pollution in China?

I don't know the French equivalent for "You, go, girl.." so I'll just say, «Allez, Jeannie!»