Does anyone have a biking route from northern Westchester to
Southbury, CT?  Thanks.
Harvey

A friend is looking for a road Bike, ideally 47cm, to purchase used.
It's a gift for a young teenage female triathlete so HIGH quality is
not critical at this stage.  Please get back to me ASAP at 914 397-8564
or nyburbs@... if you have any leads on a used road bike.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.
John Petti

What a great opportunity the leaderless ride provided.  I jumped out to
the front, and rode with the quick group for the first 20 miles
(Actually the first 18.5 miles... They dropped me on a hill close to
the deli stop.)  Anyway after the break I hooked up with the C group
and totally enjoyed the home half of the ride.  There was no way I was
going to keep pace with the quick group for 40+ miles, but I could do it
(close to vomitting) for 20.

Bottom Line... Great chance to push youself without having to bother
about getting back alone.

Looking forward to the next one!

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, "ajpnyc1015" <ajpnyc1015@...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone riding the trails this week after work?
>

I'd be interested in joining you for a ride on the trails.  this week?
  to be a scorcher so not sure.  which trails are you referring to by
the way?

in lower Westchester I've primarily been to Graham and know it pretty
well.  I unfortunately know it better than I can ride it...:(

Let me know your interest and maybe we can work something out.

Matt

Is anyone riding the trails this week after work?

Scott,
You're awesome, the wheel is mine - I emailed you separately.  Just
wanted to give you proper respect here!
Thanks!

-Josh

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, Scott Higgins <shiggi7@...> wrote:
> If you left your wheel in the parking lot after you put your bike in
> your car, call or me -- (914) 761-2264 shiggi7 at gmail.com. It's a
> very nice wheel and I'm sure you want it back.
>
> Scott Higgins
> 914.761.2264
> scotthiggins.com
>

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, "Josh Salit" <jsalit@...> wrote:
>
> If Bruce really meant SPD's (dual-sided, geared towards MTB) and not
> SPD-SL's (single-sided, for road use), then I certainly agree.

Yes, I was referring to the original MTB version of SPD.  They have a
small cleat that puts too much pressure on one part of the shoe.  The
small platform means they don't transfer power well to the pedals, too
much flex is involved.  They are hard to engage due to the small cleat
area. They jam up frequently.  The only reason they are at all
successful is they are well supported by Shimano.  Any other company
would have gone belly up with this design, but they persevere simply
because they are Japanese and don't want to lose face by admitting it
is a horrible design.

Also, Shimano changed the original road version of the SPD once Lance
said he would not use them, so they copied the highly successful Look
design.  Pretty embarrassing when you star rider won't you use one of
your products and used old Look equipment he personally owns.  It's
got to be a pretty junky product when you can't pay someone to use it.

I'm curious what makes SPD so bad.  I use SPD, but it is all I have
ever used, so I didn't realize there was something better.  I'm
wondering what advantages I could get by switching.
Thanks,
Mark



--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, "brucekwells" <bkwells@...> wrote:
>
> I have used/use the following systems:
>
> Original Looks, pretty similar to the current system
> SPD, worst pedal system out there
> Campy, similar to Look, but now discontinued I think
> Speedplay Frogs (MTB)
> Bebop
>
> The Bebops are the best by far.  They take some practice to get in and
> are probably not as easy to get in as normal speedplays, but they are
> dual sided.  You also don't need cleat covers (a major PITA) and the
> cleats don't wear out since they are all metal.  Other non-metal cleat
> systems (Look, Campy, etc) need cleat covers.  Bebop cleats need to
> oiled every few months, but it is easy to do.  They are also one of
> the lightest systems out there once you factor in cleat weights, not
> just pedal weights, and they do this with a steel axle, not Ti as most
> light pedals use, so you don't have to worry about shearing off your
> pedal on a climb.  The cleats don't clog up with dirt, as they were
> designed to be a MTB and road pedal, so they work great in mud and
> junk, where as other pedal systems don't work if the cleat gets dirty.
>
> http://www.bebob.com but they have not updated the web site in years.
>  I think they got bought recently.  Apparently distribution is spotty,
> so they may be hard to come by.
>
> Bruce
>

Kevan

I have used/use the following systems:

Original Looks, pretty similar to the current system
SPD, worst pedal system out there
Campy, similar to Look, but now discontinued I think
Speedplay Frogs (MTB)
Bebop

The Bebops are the best by far.  They take some practice to get in and
are probably not as easy to get in as normal speedplays, but they are
dual sided.  You also don't need cleat covers (a major PITA) and the
cleats don't wear out since they are all metal.  Other non-metal cleat
systems (Look, Campy, etc) need cleat covers.  Bebop cleats need to
oiled every few months, but it is easy to do.  They are also one of
the lightest systems out there once you factor in cleat weights, not
just pedal weights, and they do this with a steel axle, not Ti as most
light pedals use, so you don't have to worry about shearing off your
pedal on a climb.  The cleats don't clog up with dirt, as they were
designed to be a MTB and road pedal, so they work great in mud and
junk, where as other pedal systems don't work if the cleat gets dirty.

http://www.bebob.com but they have not updated the web site in years.
  I think they got bought recently.  Apparently distribution is spotty,
so they may be hard to come by.

Bruce

Hello drewpyperc,

I have speedplays, and he's right, they do collect dirt easily, then need to be cleaned out.  The solution is simply, get and use rubber cleat covers, they're around $10 and protect your cleats.

Thursday, July 26, 2007, 9:31:47 AM, you wrote:

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, "pauljbenanti" <pauljbenanti@...> wrote:
>
> I am thinking about purchasing speedplay pedals because I like the
> double sided entry.  I presently have look single sided pedals and I
> keep having to look down to clip in.  I find it uncomfortable
> especially on occasions when I have to do it quickly. I would
> appreciate any input on the speedplay system and various types.  Thanks
> for your help.
>

I have Speedplay X2s, and they're nice. The cleats get stuff in them pretty
easily though if
you're walking around much. Most people don't while road biking, but just a
thought. Be
careful not to walk through mud or tall grass if you can avoid it, because
you'll end up
having to dig that stuff out to get the cleats to work. The Speedplay Frogs use
a different
cleat, so I don't think they have the same issues.

You might also check out some other double-sided pedal systems that are a little
more
tolerant of walking around on the cleats. Bebop pedals are very similar to
Speedplays from
what I understand, but the cleat isn't as finicky. I believe they have them at
Bicycle World in
Mt. Kisco, and you can find them on eBay and various online retailers by doing a
search.
Crank Brothers also make some nice pedals. Their Egg Beaters are very popular
for
mountain bikers, and there are some road versions they make based on the Egg
Beater
engagement system with a platform.

Hope that helps!
Andrew

I am thinking about purchasing speedplay pedals because I like the
double sided entry.  I presently have look single sided pedals and I
keep having to look down to clip in.  I find it uncomfortable
especially on occasions when I have to do it quickly. I would
appreciate any input on the speedplay system and various types.  Thanks
for your help.

Thanks a lot.  Those thoughts are very useful!

As someone who has had foot issues most of my life, I have found that
you really need to be pro-active in finding the right pair of shoes.
It took a bit of research and a couple of wasted purchases to finally
discover how best to manage my particular problem.  You may need to
visit several shops as not all shops carry all brands.  Many brands
run smaller or larger and you'll need to bring your own socks,
preferrably the bulkiest you would typically wear.  It's possible to
pare down, but very difficult to make room if you don't leave room for
expansion on a ride. Also, go at the end of the day when your feet are
the most puffy. Once you've decided what shoe you would like to try,
find out what the store's policies are.  Will they order your size if
they don't have it?  Will they take back the shoes if they don't work
after a trial ride?  Danny's on Central Ave. worked with me until I
was completely satisfied.  Also, be prepared to spend some bucks.
Foot problems can cost a lot to accommodate, but in the end it's
really worth it to be comfortable on a ride.  Finally consider
replacing the insert that the shoe comes with with a custom orthotic
or a generic insert like Superfeet.  These can be very helpful
controlling pronation, both on and off the bike.

Good luck,

Roz

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, bomar kane <mystarexplorer@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.  New here, and relatively new to cycling.  I injured a
plantar nerve recently, had a couple days straight of constant foot
numbness, and the doc says I need to try changing shoes.  Can anyone
recommend a bike shop in Westchester that is especially good with
cycling shoes and shoe fitting?
>
>   Any advice much appreciated.
>
>   Bo
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Got a little couch potato?
> Check out fun summer activities for kids.
>

I just wanted to introduce myself to all.  My name is Brady Rogers, I
live in Atlanta, Georgia.  You may ask, why would I join a group in New
York.  Well, my great grand father was Denslow Dade, and he was one of
the founding members of the COuntry Cycle Club.  I myself, am an avid
cyclist and racer, as well as work in the cycling industry, so I
thought it would be neat to join your group, as a form of carrying on a
legacy.  I will be joining the Westchester Cycle Club as well.  I will
have pictures and newspaper articles about him to share, in the
follwing weeks.  I look forward to the interaction with all of you.

-Brady

---

To: WCCChat@yahoogroups.com
From: kfull@...
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:45:10 -0700
Subject: RE: [WCCChat] Re:Ride Category Has anyone else noticed the change?

 

Hey folks?

 

Need your help for a fellow cyclist.  This guy has plans for riding from NYC up to Windsor Locks CT.  Now...I'm not expecting anyone to have that specific queue sheet, but I do seem to recall one of us advertised a year or two ago a ride leaving Westchester to someplace near Springfield or Amherst MA with the intention of attending a bike show up there.  Maybe, just maybe, this guy can tailor a route from something similar to that.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Yes, I told him about the trains.

 

Thanks!

 

Kevan

Kev,
I've ridden most of that route. Some parts I don't have. But here's what I'd do
-
Get from NYC to Route 22, perhaps going up Central Ave to White Plains as on the
Gimbels.
Take 22 north to Patterson.
Right on Haviland Hollow (as on Tour de Bresnan)
Take 37 North through Sherman.
Take 7 South to New Milford.
Take 202 north through Litchfield, Harwinton, and continue on 10/202 to Granby.
Take 20 East toward Windsor Locks.
At some point in East Granby, 20 become limited access, so he'll have to figure
out the final 5 miles or so on local roads
202 thrpugh Litchfield in a good road - a main road, but not excessive. A steep
hill in Harwinton. Othwrwise, not too bad.
- dave
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Full, Kevan" <kfull@...>

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:16:17
To:<WCCChat@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [WCCChat] Anyone know the way to Windsor Locks?


Sorry...needed a subject reference:
 



 
Hey folks?
 
Need your help for a fellow cyclist.  This guy has plans for riding from NYC up
to Windsor Locks CT.  Now...I'm not expecting anyone to have that specific queue
sheet, but I do seem to recall one of us advertised a year or two ago a ride
leaving Westchester to someplace near Springfield or Amherst MA with the
intention of attending a bike show up there.  Maybe, just maybe, this guy can
tailor a route from something similar to that.
 
Any suggestions?
 
Yes, I told him about the trains.
 
Thanks!
 
Kevan

B,
  I agree with everything you stated.   The definitions
I got are from the website.
  http://www.westchestercycleclub.org/rideschedule.php
  Just scroll down to the bottom of the page.  Maybe
the definitions should be on top so riders can know in
advance what and A - D ride is.

Experimenting with category changes can be good to
figure out what works best for all riders.  But iIf
the board voted to change the ride types, it is a good
idea to notify the public of the changes.

I guess everyone else is fine with the speeding up of
the rides?

A.
--- Bruce Wells <bkwells@...> wrote:

> Adrienne,
>
> The board voted to change the speed of the ride
> categories a few
> months back.  I think the web site has not been
> updated, but I don't
> specifically see where you are quoting from. I for
> one was opposed to
> the change.   I believe the newsletter is correct.
>
> While bikes have gotten better and speeds have
> increased, I think it
> is the riders that should move up to another level.
> I went on a B+
> ride earlier this year and it was an A ride for
> about 1/2 the riders.
> It was sad to see that that true B+ riders were
> being dropped, but
> that is what happened, the "A" riders where in the
> lead group, and the
> B+ riders where trailing behind, and I was not in
> front, but helping
> the B+ rides to stay with the lead pack.
>
> I think I convinced some of the "A" riders to ride A
> now and two are
> now leading A rides, as they should be, since they
> are very strong
> riders, but most of them I am sure are still pushing
> the pace on the
> B+ rides.  The tendency is for riders to continue to
> ride with the
> same group they started with, rather than move up to
> a faster level.
> I started as a C rider.  I still see those people at
> parties, but I
> don't ride with them any more.  I've moved up with
> my skill level.
> Everyone else should do the same and stop torturing
> riders who are
> riding at the advertised pace.
>
> The sad fact of the matter is we need to keep slower
> levels slower for
> new riders, and should not make category jumps so
> large that it is
> impossible to move up one level.  One mile per hour
> difference in
> average speed is a large jump at the higher levels,
> not so much going
> from D to C, but what I see is more experienced
> riders still riding at
> the lower paced rides and destroying the ability to
> get new members to
> keep up when they should be able to.  It is just
> plain selfish to ride
> on a ride below your level and be at the front of
> the ride.  If you
> want to ride at a lower level, help the riders in
> the back keep up
> with the pack, don't push the pace just so you can
> think you are some
> sort of "super" rider.  In cycling there is always
> someone faster than
> you.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Bruce
>
> >                  Ride Category Has anyone else
> noticed the change?
> > Posted by:      "Adrienne"
> adriennedsp@...
>           adriennedsp
> >        Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:28 am        (PST)
> >              I participated in a great ride on
> Sunday.  The cue
> >  > sheet, scenery and people on the ride added to
> the
> >  > enjoyment.   I found that combining two ride
> >  > categories with 2 leaders is a great concept
> which can
> >  > help catch those riders who get flats  or want
> to slow
> >  > down a bit.   I got a flat, and ended up riding
> with the C- folks
> >  who caught up to me as I was ready to start
> again. (Thank you Renee
> >  for staying & helping me)
> >  >
> >  > The ride was  was labeled C+ and C-.  It seems
> that  some  C- folks
> >  who enjoyed the company and scenery,  found some
> of the hills such as
> >  Whipoorwill, Taylor, and Sheather as too
> challenging.  There were
> >  quite a few hill walkers on the ride.
> >  >
> >  > So tonight I decided to research the club
> website to  find
> >  > out the  definition of the new C+ and C-
> categories that defined
> >  these  two rides. The below are definitions of
> the C and C+ paced
> >  rides that  I extracted in verbatim from the
> website.
> >  >
> >  > "C+     Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph,
> average speed on
> >  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20
> miles
> >  > C       Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph,
> average speed on
> >  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20
> miles"
> >  >
> >  Both C categories sound the same to me.  Now that
> we have  C and C+
> >  and C-, categories, can anyone figure out what's
> the difference
> >  between them?
> >   Terrain?
> >  Thanks, Adrienne
> >
> >
>




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

Great response Bruce,

Very well put--in fact I have been saying the same things for years.
The saddest thing is that new members are presented with a set of
ride descriptions that they use as a gauge to decide on their very
first experience with the club.  If that experience is not a
supportive one, they may be discouraged from joining future club
rides.  Sam refers to "truth in advertising" and has become an
advocate of multi-level rides as the solution.  I understand these
multi-level rides are a lot of fun.  They are essentially a take-off
of the Flings concept which I also find a lot of fun.  But ordinary
club rides are still the backbone of the Ride Schedule and the club
has wrestled with the pace issue for years.  (I also know that other
clubs do the same wrestling and haven't come up with any simple
solutions).  Obviously the honor system doesn't work and true pace-
policing would be tyrannical.

I think though Adrienne's question also includes the practical
concept of terrain.  The hills she refers to used to be considered  B
or B+ terrain.  Hills are not unheard of on C rides and in
Westchester are rather hard to avoid, but are very doable if done
slowly.  I can still do those hills, bad knees and all, but I can't
hammer on them.  The point being that if I were expected to keep up
with the group that was pushing the pace on a C ride that included
these hills, I'd be an unhappy camper.  I like the idea of the C+
category in reference to pace, but I too noted in the newsletter that
there is no differentiation between terrain on B, C+, and C rides.
My experience with hills on C rides was vastly different than it was
with B rides.

That's 2 more cents.

Roz

--- In WCCChat@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Wells" <bkwells@...> wrote:
>
> Adrienne,
>
> The board voted to change the speed of the ride categories a few
> months back.  I think the web site has not been updated, but I don't
> specifically see where you are quoting from. I for one was opposed
to
> the change.   I believe the newsletter is correct.
>
> While bikes have gotten better and speeds have increased, I think it
> is the riders that should move up to another level.  I went on a B+
> ride earlier this year and it was an A ride for about 1/2 the
riders.
> It was sad to see that that true B+ riders were being dropped, but
> that is what happened, the "A" riders where in the lead group, and
the
> B+ riders where trailing behind, and I was not in front, but helping
> the B+ rides to stay with the lead pack.
>
> I think I convinced some of the "A" riders to ride A now and two are
> now leading A rides, as they should be, since they are very strong
> riders, but most of them I am sure are still pushing the pace on the
> B+ rides.  The tendency is for riders to continue to ride with the
> same group they started with, rather than move up to a faster level.
> I started as a C rider.  I still see those people at parties, but I
> don't ride with them any more.  I've moved up with my skill level.
> Everyone else should do the same and stop torturing riders who are
> riding at the advertised pace.
>
> The sad fact of the matter is we need to keep slower levels slower
for
> new riders, and should not make category jumps so large that it is
> impossible to move up one level.  One mile per hour difference in
> average speed is a large jump at the higher levels, not so much
going
> from D to C, but what I see is more experienced riders still riding
at
> the lower paced rides and destroying the ability to get new members
to
> keep up when they should be able to.  It is just plain selfish to
ride
> on a ride below your level and be at the front of the ride.  If you
> want to ride at a lower level, help the riders in the back keep up
> with the pack, don't push the pace just so you can think you are
some
> sort of "super" rider.  In cycling there is always someone faster
than
> you.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Bruce
>
> >                  Ride Category Has anyone else noticed the change?
> > Posted by:      "Adrienne"
adriennedsp@...                                          adriennedsp
> >        Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:28 am        (PST)
> >              I participated in a great ride on Sunday.  The cue
> >  > sheet, scenery and people on the ride added to the
> >  > enjoyment.   I found that combining two ride
> >  > categories with 2 leaders is a great concept which can
> >  > help catch those riders who get flats  or want to slow
> >  > down a bit.   I got a flat, and ended up riding with the C-
folks
> >  who caught up to me as I was ready to start again. (Thank you
Renee
> >  for staying & helping me)
> >  >
> >  > The ride was  was labeled C+ and C-.  It seems that  some  C-
folks
> >  who enjoyed the company and scenery,  found some of the hills
such as
> >  Whipoorwill, Taylor, and Sheather as too challenging.  There were
> >  quite a few hill walkers on the ride.
> >  >
> >  > So tonight I decided to research the club website to  find
> >  > out the  definition of the new C+ and C- categories that
defined
> >  these  two rides. The below are definitions of the C and C+ paced
> >  rides that  I extracted in verbatim from the website.
> >  >
> >  > "C+     Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph, average speed on
> >  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20 miles
> >  > C       Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph, average speed on
> >  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20 miles"
> >  >
> >  Both C categories sound the same to me.  Now that we have  C and
C+
> >  and C-, categories, can anyone figure out what's the difference
> >  between them?
> >   Terrain?
> >  Thanks, Adrienne
> >
> >
>

Adrienne,

The board voted to change the speed of the ride categories a few
months back.  I think the web site has not been updated, but I don't
specifically see where you are quoting from. I for one was opposed to
the change.   I believe the newsletter is correct.

While bikes have gotten better and speeds have increased, I think it
is the riders that should move up to another level.  I went on a B+
ride earlier this year and it was an A ride for about 1/2 the riders.
It was sad to see that that true B+ riders were being dropped, but
that is what happened, the "A" riders where in the lead group, and the
B+ riders where trailing behind, and I was not in front, but helping
the B+ rides to stay with the lead pack.

I think I convinced some of the "A" riders to ride A now and two are
now leading A rides, as they should be, since they are very strong
riders, but most of them I am sure are still pushing the pace on the
B+ rides.  The tendency is for riders to continue to ride with the
same group they started with, rather than move up to a faster level.
I started as a C rider.  I still see those people at parties, but I
don't ride with them any more.  I've moved up with my skill level.
Everyone else should do the same and stop torturing riders who are
riding at the advertised pace.

The sad fact of the matter is we need to keep slower levels slower for
new riders, and should not make category jumps so large that it is
impossible to move up one level.  One mile per hour difference in
average speed is a large jump at the higher levels, not so much going
from D to C, but what I see is more experienced riders still riding at
the lower paced rides and destroying the ability to get new members to
keep up when they should be able to.  It is just plain selfish to ride
on a ride below your level and be at the front of the ride.  If you
want to ride at a lower level, help the riders in the back keep up
with the pack, don't push the pace just so you can think you are some
sort of "super" rider.  In cycling there is always someone faster than
you.

Just my 2 cents.

Bruce

>                  Ride Category Has anyone else noticed the change?
> Posted by:      "Adrienne"             adriennedsp@...
adriennedsp
>        Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:28 am        (PST)
>              I participated in a great ride on Sunday.  The cue
>  > sheet, scenery and people on the ride added to the
>  > enjoyment.   I found that combining two ride
>  > categories with 2 leaders is a great concept which can
>  > help catch those riders who get flats  or want to slow
>  > down a bit.   I got a flat, and ended up riding with the C- folks
>  who caught up to me as I was ready to start again. (Thank you Renee
>  for staying & helping me)
>  >
>  > The ride was  was labeled C+ and C-.  It seems that  some  C- folks
>  who enjoyed the company and scenery,  found some of the hills such as
>  Whipoorwill, Taylor, and Sheather as too challenging.  There were
>  quite a few hill walkers on the ride.
>  >
>  > So tonight I decided to research the club website to  find
>  > out the  definition of the new C+ and C- categories that defined
>  these  two rides. The below are definitions of the C and C+ paced
>  rides that  I extracted in verbatim from the website.
>  >
>  > "C+     Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph, average speed on
>  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20 miles
>  > C       Fast - average speed 11 - 13 mph, average speed on
>  > flats 15 - 16 mph, breaks every 15 > to 20 miles"
>  >
>  Both C categories sound the same to me.  Now that we have  C and C+
>  and C-, categories, can anyone figure out what's the difference
>  between them?
>   Terrain?
>  Thanks, Adrienne
>
>