Epiphany on paceline etiquette and group rides

[Doug Taylor]

I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another thing
that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the rider who
thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby causing
their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the rider
behind, with obvious consequences. I guess it's just physics, but
"they" say that an experienced rider can push the bike forward as they
stand, counteracting this effect. "They" say that, but I ride with a
lot of old timers, current and ex-racers, experienced and good bike
handler all, but this is a rare skill. Very rare, in my experience. A
lot of us "think" we can do it - me included - but I have no clue
whether I actually do. Maybe I'm not as bad as some because nobody
has yelled at me lately, at least for THAT offense. But some people
are down right atrocious.

So I'm on a ride this weekend with a group of new people, and it was
cool, but not that cold, and rain was in the forecast. There's this
one guy on a touring bike wearing full winter tights, rain jacket, and
a balaclava, and of course I'm thinking, "who's this fred?" because
you could get away with shorts, and I had knee warmers, arm warmers,
and an undershirt on, and of course I had my "rain" bike, which is
just an older titanium racing bike but not my "new" one. No triple
for me, no sirree.

So we start off and after the warm up, as the pace picks up and the
groups start to form, I notice that "fred" is not getting dropped but
is hanging in there with the front group, and with no apparent effort.
I notice also on a couple of risers that when he stands, his bike
doesn't move one iota backward, and it makes me notice. So then it
starts to rain, and a lot of people wisely opt for a shorter route
homeward, but not "fred" and so, not me, "Mr. you can't out tough me"
and one other.

And then we get to the real climb. It start out gradual, and "fred"
is on the front. And the pace picks up, and I'm trying not to show
how my breathing is starting to labor, because "fred" sure isn't
puffing, and then the slope starts to pick up and I'm thinking "I'm
not going to get dropped, am I, I sure hope not." So I'm hanging on
by a thread, and then it gets dicey steep, and "fred" stands up, and
his bike does not move one iota backward as he drops me like a bad
habit, and the other guy drops me, as I'm putting out the maximum
wattage my old, egotistical and deluded body can.

So, as" they" say, "you can't judge a book by it cover" and it IS
possible for a good rider to stand on a climb and not push their bike
backwards.

I'm going to practice it till I get it down...

 

[Peter Cole]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
> and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another thing
> that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the rider who
> thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby causing
> their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the rider
> behind, with obvious consequences. I guess it's just physics, but
> "they" say that an experienced rider can push the bike forward as they
> stand, counteracting this effect. "They" say that, but I ride with a
> lot of old timers, current and ex-racers, experienced and good bike
> handler all, but this is a rare skill. Very rare, in my experience. A
> lot of us "think" we can do it - me included - but I have no clue
> whether I actually do. Maybe I'm not as bad as some because nobody
> has yelled at me lately, at least for THAT offense. But some people
> are down right atrocious.
>
> So, as" they" say, "you can't judge a book by it cover" and it IS
> possible for a good rider to stand on a climb and not push their bike
> backwards.
>
> I'm going to practice it till I get it down...
>

It's simple. Just watch the gap to the wheel in front of you as you
stand. It shouldn't increase.

 

[Sorni]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
> and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another thing
> that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the rider who
> thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby causing
> their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the rider
> behind, with obvious consequences.

It's the following rider's responsibility to avoid contact in that
situation. (Actually, always, but helps to know and trust your partner of
course. Overlap wheels with extreme caution.)

> I guess it's just physics, but
> "they" say that an experienced rider can push the bike forward as they
> stand, counteracting this effect. "They" say that, but I ride with a
> lot of old timers, current and ex-racers, experienced and good bike
> handler all, but this is a rare skill. Very rare, in my experience. A
> lot of us "think" we can do it - me included - but I have no clue
> whether I actually do. Maybe I'm not as bad as some because nobody
> has yelled at me lately, at least for THAT offense. But some people
> are down right atrocious.

There's no reason to be that close to someone about to stand, but if you are
then it's YOUR job to avoid contact IMO.

> So I'm on a ride this weekend with a group of new people, and it was
> cool, but not that cold, and rain was in the forecast. There's this
> one guy on a touring bike wearing full winter tights, rain jacket, and
> a balaclava, and of course I'm thinking, "who's this fred?" because
> you could get away with shorts, and I had knee warmers, arm warmers,
> and an undershirt on, and of course I had my "rain" bike, which is
> just an older titanium racing bike but not my "new" one. No triple
> for me, no sirree.
>
> So we start off and after the warm up, as the pace picks up and the
> groups start to form, I notice that "fred" is not getting dropped but
> is hanging in there with the front group, and with no apparent effort.
> I notice also on a couple of risers that when he stands, his bike
> doesn't move one iota backward, and it makes me notice. So then it
> starts to rain, and a lot of people wisely opt for a shorter route
> homeward, but not "fred" and so, not me, "Mr. you can't out tough me"
> and one other.
>
> And then we get to the real climb. It start out gradual, and "fred"
> is on the front. And the pace picks up, and I'm trying not to show
> how my breathing is starting to labor, because "fred" sure isn't
> puffing, and then the slope starts to pick up and I'm thinking "I'm
> not going to get dropped, am I, I sure hope not." So I'm hanging on
> by a thread, and then it gets dicey steep, and "fred" stands up, and
> his bike does not move one iota backward as he drops me like a bad
> habit, and the other guy drops me, as I'm putting out the maximum
> wattage my old, egotistical and deluded body can.
>
> So, as" they" say, "you can't judge a book by it cover" and it IS
> possible for a good rider to stand on a climb and not push their bike
> backwards.
>
> I'm going to practice it till I get it down...

Enjoyable read. I'd worry more about keeping up than pushing back, however.

 

[Sorni]

Sorni wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
>> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
>> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike
>> damage and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another
>> thing that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the
>> rider who thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby
>> causing their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the
>> rider behind, with obvious consequences.
>
> It's the following rider's responsibility to avoid contact in that
> situation. (Actually, always, but helps to know and trust your
> partner of course. Overlap wheels with extreme caution.)

Just to be clear, I know you weren't describing an overlap per se. That's a
separate danger -- someone can swerve to avoid something and YOU go down.
Wheels too close back/front carries similar risk if lead rider's back wheel
suddenly slows. (It doesn't literally "move back" you know; that would be
quite a trick!)

 

[Sandy]

Sorni a écrit :
> Sorni wrote:
>
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
>>> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike
>>> damage and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another
>>> thing that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the
>>> rider who thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby
>>> causing their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the
>>> rider behind, with obvious consequences.
>>>
>> It's the following rider's responsibility to avoid contact in that
>> situation. (Actually, always, but helps to know and trust your
>> partner of course. Overlap wheels with extreme caution.)
>>
>
> Just to be clear, I know you weren't describing an overlap per se. That's a
> separate danger -- someone can swerve to avoid something and YOU go down.
> Wheels too close back/front carries similar risk if lead rider's back wheel
> suddenly slows. (It doesn't literally "move back" you know; that would be
> quite a trick!)
>
>
>
Nothing, NOTHING will ever prepare you for following the dork who feels
like touching his brakes on a climb. Nothing. Want to hear a lot of
yelling ? Like Sunday. And he was plonked to the back of the file,
smartly.

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:20:20 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sorni wrote:
>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
>>> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike
>>> damage and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another
>>> thing that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the
>>> rider who thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby
>>> causing their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the
>>> rider behind, with obvious consequences.
>>
>> It's the following rider's responsibility to avoid contact in that
>> situation. (Actually, always, but helps to know and trust your
>> partner of course. Overlap wheels with extreme caution.)
>
>Just to be clear, I know you weren't describing an overlap per se. That's a
>separate danger -- someone can swerve to avoid something and YOU go down.
>Wheels too close back/front carries similar risk if lead rider's back wheel
>suddenly slows. (It doesn't literally "move back" you know; that would be
>quite a trick!)

IMO it's a two way street. Certainly the following rider has to be
attentive and not follow too close to be able to react - defensive
riding. As far as that goes, I've never hit the pavement as a result
of this issue.

But wouldn't etiquette dictate at least an effort not to throw your
bike backwards a wheel length or so when you stand? I think so. And
there are riders who are sloppy and careless out there, and riders
with finesse. I admire finesse (even if you are wearing a balaclava);
I disdain sloppiness and cluelessness.

 

[Sorni]

Sandy wrote:
> Sorni a écrit :

>> Just to be clear, I know you weren't describing an overlap per se. That's
>> a separate danger -- someone can swerve to avoid something
>> and YOU go down. Wheels too close back/front carries similar risk if
>> lead rider's back wheel suddenly slows. (It doesn't literally "move
>> back" you know; that would be quite a trick!)


> Nothing, NOTHING will ever prepare you for following the dork who
> feels like touching his brakes on a climb. Nothing. Want to hear a
> lot of yelling ? Like Sunday. And he was plonked to the back of the
> file, smartly.

Ah. Touching the brakes is a new element in the discussion, no? The
momentary deceleration when someone stands to climb (or hammer I guess) is
different -- at least in terms of anticipation (one should reasonably expect
it) as opposed to stupidity (no one expects braking on a climb).

Then again, I'm always down the hill looking up at the peloton, so I need no
worry about etiquette as much as preparing my excuses. ("Knee's bothering
me today"; "was out late"; "shouldn't have eaten that breakfast burrito",
etc.)

OAF Bill (old and fat)

 

[Sorni]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:20:20 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sorni wrote:
>>> Doug Taylor wrote:
>>>> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
>>>> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike
>>>> damage and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind.
>>>> Another thing that occurs all the time is the old age problem of
>>>> the
>>>> rider who thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby
>>>> causing their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of
>>>> the rider behind, with obvious consequences.
>>>
>>> It's the following rider's responsibility to avoid contact in that
>>> situation. (Actually, always, but helps to know and trust your
>>> partner of course. Overlap wheels with extreme caution.)
>>
>> Just to be clear, I know you weren't describing an overlap per se.
>> That's a separate danger -- someone can swerve to avoid something
>> and YOU go down. Wheels too close back/front carries similar risk if
>> lead rider's back wheel suddenly slows. (It doesn't literally "move
>> back" you know; that would be quite a trick!)
>
> IMO it's a two way street. Certainly the following rider has to be
> attentive and not follow too close to be able to react - defensive
> riding. As far as that goes, I've never hit the pavement as a result
> of this issue.
>
> But wouldn't etiquette dictate at least an effort not to throw your
> bike backwards a wheel length or so when you stand? I think so. And
> there are riders who are sloppy and careless out there, and riders
> with finesse. I admire finesse (even if you are wearing a balaclava);
> I disdain sloppiness and cluelessness.

Yes, I agree. As long as you've let the would-be miscreant know you're on
his (or her) wheel, then s/he should take care not to make a sudden
deceleration for any reason -- standing to climb included -- both out of
consideration AND self-preservation (I could probably manage to go down even
if the LEAD rider in that scenario)...

 

[dvt]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> But wouldn't etiquette dictate at least an effort not to throw your
> bike backwards a wheel length or so when you stand? I think so.

Here's the only way I can imagine to keep the bike moving at the same
speed when changing from seated to standing climbing...

If you stand to climb, you change the center of gravity (COG) of the
bike/rider system. Your COG continues to move up the hill at nearly the
same rate during the maneuver since your momentum resists slowing and
you continue to apply power. So the back wheel necessarily slows for a
moment.

The only way to avoid this is to crank harder, accelerating during the
transition from sitting to standing. I suppose you can achieve this with
some practice, but I don't think most riders will do so. I agree with
Sorni... it's generally the following rider's responsibility to avoid
contact.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

 

[cycledogg]

With my years of riding, I never put 100% trust in the rider up front.
No matter how experienced or how good a rider they may be. There is
always a chance something could happen, a sweaty hand may slip off one
bar, shoe may un-clip on a climb, they may suddenly see an object to
avoid...etc. I see it as the rider behind not to crowd the rider in
front or else take the sudden shift in speed as their responsibility.

As with driving a car, so does riding a bike, expect the un-expected
and ride safe.
Rick in Tennessee

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:30:02 -0400, dvt <[email protected]> wrote:

>Here's the only way I can imagine to keep the bike moving at the same
>speed when changing from seated to standing climbing...
>
>If you stand to climb, you change the center of gravity (COG) of the
>bike/rider system. Your COG continues to move up the hill at nearly the
>same rate during the maneuver since your momentum resists slowing and
>you continue to apply power. So the back wheel necessarily slows for a
>moment.
>
>The only way to avoid this is to crank harder, accelerating during the
>transition from sitting to standing. I suppose you can achieve this with
>some practice, but I don't think most riders will do so. I agree with
>Sorni... it's generally the following rider's responsibility to avoid
>contact.

Remember we are talking about paceline etiquette. Riders in back
certainly have to keep their own counsel and ride defensively. But
riders in front have certain, let's say, responsibilities. The faster
your company, the more important the observation thereof and the more
catastrophic the breach thereof. And the more disdain you'll get from
the pack for the latter

You DO point out obstacles. You DON'T make sudden squirrelly
movements. You DON'T brake suddenly. You DON'T decelerate suddenly
on climbs. AND, when you move to stand on a climb, you make an effort
to overcome the physical fact your bike momentarily will stop or go
backwards.

Good riders know all this and adhere to the "code". "Fred" in my
original post, on his touring bike and wearing his balaclava, probably
has a shitload more miles than a lot of us poseurs, wannabes and
know-it-alls, because that sucker's bike didn't move back a millimeter
when he stood, and that sucker dropped everyone on the climb. Maybe
he was a pro in "fred" disguise so he could get in some easy spinning
with the club riders.

 

[Sorni]

Doug Taylor wrote:

> Good riders know all this and adhere to the "code". "Fred" in my
> original post, on his touring bike and wearing his balaclava, probably
> has a shitload more miles than a lot of us poseurs, wannabes and
> know-it-alls, because that sucker's bike didn't move back a millimeter
> when he stood, and that sucker dropped everyone on the climb. Maybe
> he was a pro in "fred" disguise so he could get in some easy spinning
> with the club riders.

In which case, of course, /you/ were the only "sucker" involved! <eg>

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:40:21 -0400, Doug Taylor
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
>groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
>and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind.

[snip]

Dear Doug,

What would we hear on this newsgroup if we saw a dozen SUV's trying to
save gas by tailgating a foot or two apart at 20-35 mph on public
streets and then complaining about the occasional accident?

Someday, someone will explain to me why it's obviously dangerous and
stupid for a bicyclist to cling to the side or back of a car with one
hand at 30 mph down a public street, but sensible for a pack of
bicyclists to cling just as closely to each other in a blind pack.

Is there some magical quality about a horde of bicyclists unable to
see anything but the butt of the rider a yard or so in front of their
faces that is supposed to make the rest of the world (debris,
potholes, stray dogs, squirrels, children on bicycles, side traffic,
and so forth) simply vanish?

Possibly the "unfortunate rider behind" should remember who's
responsible for riding his bicycle?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:

> But wouldn't etiquette dictate at least an effort not to throw your
> bike backwards a wheel length or so when you stand?

But that's not what happens, and if you think it is then you are
misunderstanding the situation. As the rider gets out of the saddle,
the bike slows down momentarily because for a moment they are not
putting all their power into the pedals. Good technique will help the
rider slow down less, but they are still going to slow down.

Also note that when the group gets to the bottom of the hill, the riders
in from encounter the grade sooner than the riders in back. That means
the riders in front are slowing down but the riders in back aren't.

It is the responsibility of the following rider to avoid contact, not
the leading rider.

 

[[email protected]]

dvt wrote:
> Doug Taylor wrote:
> > But wouldn't etiquette dictate at least an effort not to throw your
> > bike backwards a wheel length or so when you stand? I think so.
>
> Here's the only way I can imagine to keep the bike moving at the same
> speed when changing from seated to standing climbing...
>
> If you stand to climb, you change the center of gravity (COG) of the
> bike/rider system. Your COG continues to move up the hill at nearly the
> same rate during the maneuver since your momentum resists slowing and
> you continue to apply power. So the back wheel necessarily slows for a
> moment.
>
> The only way to avoid this is to crank harder, accelerating during the
> transition from sitting to standing. I suppose you can achieve this with
> some practice, but I don't think most riders will do so. I agree with
> Sorni... it's generally the following rider's responsibility to avoid
> contact.
>

I just slowly raise my butt a few inches off the seat shortly before I
stand, trying to be smooth. I figure the butt-raise is adequate warning
to back off for those who might be too close. Usually I am the last one
to stand so it isn't an issue. This isn't to be confused with last man
standing, I'm usually down the hill with Bill anyway.

Joseph

 

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:56:04 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>Is there some magical quality about a horde of bicyclists unable to
>see anything but the butt of the rider a yard or so in front of their
>faces that is supposed to make the rest of the world (debris,
>potholes, stray dogs, squirrels, children on bicycles, side traffic,
>and so forth) simply vanish?
>
>Possibly the "unfortunate rider behind" should remember who's
>responsible for riding his bicycle?

There are two kinds of bicycle riders:

Those who ride in packs and *****-nilly learn the "etiquette;" and
those who don't.

It appears that the latter has a greater preponderance in this thread
than the former.

 

[Art Harris]

[email protected] wrote:
> Someday, someone will explain to me why it's obviously dangerous and
> stupid for a bicyclist to cling to the side or back of a car with one
> hand at 30 mph down a public street, but sensible for a pack of
> bicyclists to cling just as closely to each other in a blind pack.

I think you raise a valid point. I rode many miles of paceline over a
period of about 25 years, with many close calls but (thankfully) no
crashes. I chalk that up in large part to luck.

But what is the point of pacelines for recreational riders? Sure, you
can ride a little faster for a given effort, or expend a bit less
effort for a given speed than you would without the paceline. Is that
worth compromising safety? I don't think so (except possibly when
riding into a strong headwind, when you're going slow anyway).

I've given up on pacelines for a couple of reasons. I feel much more
relaxed not having to focus intensely on the tight pack. And I can more
fully enjoy the other sights and sounds around me.

Anyone who thinks they're not compromising safety when riding in a
paceline is kidding themselves.

Art Harris

 

[GaryG]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:40:21 -0400, Doug Taylor
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
> >groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
> >and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind.
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Doug,
>
> What would we hear on this newsgroup if we saw a dozen SUV's trying to
> save gas by tailgating a foot or two apart at 20-35 mph on public
> streets and then complaining about the occasional accident?
>
> Someday, someone will explain to me why it's obviously dangerous and
> stupid for a bicyclist to cling to the side or back of a car with one
> hand at 30 mph down a public street, but sensible for a pack of
> bicyclists to cling just as closely to each other in a blind pack.
>
> Is there some magical quality about a horde of bicyclists unable to
> see anything but the butt of the rider a yard or so in front of their
> faces that is supposed to make the rest of the world (debris,
> potholes, stray dogs, squirrels, children on bicycles, side traffic,
> and so forth) simply vanish?

In short, the answer is "yes"...there is a magical quality to riding in a
well-trained paceline. Last summer, I rode a century in Colorado and
averaged 21.7 mph thanks to some great pacelines with my friends and others.
I didn't do much sight-seeing that day, but I sure had a great ride (and won
the final town limit sprint to boot!).

Is it more dangerous? Probably. Do you see less scenery? Certainly. Is
it fun? If you like speed, and the feeling of working as part of a
group...Yes!

Of course, if you'd rather toodle along and smell the roses, or you're
training with aero bars for triathlons, then maybe pacelining is not your
cup of tea....and that's OK too.

GG

>
> Possibly the "unfortunate rider behind" should remember who's
> responsible for riding his bicycle?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

 

[gds]

Art Harris wrote:


> But what is the point of pacelines for recreational riders?

It's fun!


>
> I've given up on pacelines for a couple of reasons. I feel much more
> relaxed not having to focus intensely on the tight pack. And I can more
> fully enjoy the other sights and sounds around me.

And that's fun too. But moods are not always the same so different
things can be fun at different times.

>
> Anyone who thinks they're not compromising safety when riding in a
> paceline is kidding themselves.


I won't argue the statistics on this but my experience is that
recreational pace lines do not result in many crashes. Must less so
than club rides with a large pack- at least that is my experience. Much
fewer options to move around in a pack than in a pace line and seeing
obstacles in front is if anything more difficult.

 

[Mike Reed]

Doug Taylor wrote:
> I've read a few posts lately about the failure of riders riding in
> groups and pacelines to point out obstacles, resulting in bike damage
> and/or bodily injuries to the unfortunate rider behind. Another thing
> that occurs all the time is the old age problem of the rider who
> thrusts his/her bike back as they stand to climb, thereby causing
> their rear wheel to hit or almost cit the front wheel of the rider
> behind, with obvious consequences. I guess it's just physics, but
> "they" say that an experienced rider can push the bike forward as they
> stand, counteracting this effect. "They" say that, but I ride with a
> lot of old timers, current and ex-racers, experienced and good bike
> handler all, but this is a rare skill. Very rare, in my experience. A
> lot of us "think" we can do it - me included - but I have no clue
> whether I actually do. Maybe I'm not as bad as some because nobody
> has yelled at me lately, at least for THAT offense. But some people
> are down right atrocious.
>
> So I'm on a ride this weekend with a group of new people, and it was
> cool, but not that cold, and rain was in the forecast. There's this
> one guy on a touring bike wearing full winter tights, rain jacket, and
> a balaclava, and of course I'm thinking, "who's this fred?" because
> you could get away with shorts, and I had knee warmers, arm warmers,
> and an undershirt on, and of course I had my "rain" bike, which is
> just an older titanium racing bike but not my "new" one. No triple
> for me, no sirree.
>
> So we start off and after the warm up, as the pace picks up and the
> groups start to form, I notice that "fred" is not getting dropped but
> is hanging in there with the front group, and with no apparent effort.
> I notice also on a couple of risers that when he stands, his bike
> doesn't move one iota backward, and it makes me notice. So then it
> starts to rain, and a lot of people wisely opt for a shorter route
> homeward, but not "fred" and so, not me, "Mr. you can't out tough me"
> and one other.
>
> And then we get to the real climb. It start out gradual, and "fred"
> is on the front. And the pace picks up, and I'm trying not to show
> how my breathing is starting to labor, because "fred" sure isn't
> puffing, and then the slope starts to pick up and I'm thinking "I'm
> not going to get dropped, am I, I sure hope not." So I'm hanging on
> by a thread, and then it gets dicey steep, and "fred" stands up, and
> his bike does not move one iota backward as he drops me like a bad
> habit, and the other guy drops me, as I'm putting out the maximum
> wattage my old, egotistical and deluded body can.
>
> So, as" they" say, "you can't judge a book by it cover" and it IS
> possible for a good rider to stand on a climb and not push their bike
> backwards.
>
> I'm going to practice it till I get it down...

Back in 1992, Bob Cook Memorial Mt. Evans Hill Climb, some guy in
cuttoff shorts and a tank top, riding an old 70's 10-speed won the
citizens race with platform pedals and Vans. His time would have placed
him in the top ten for the 1/2/pros (1:58:00 or so?). He was just some
climbing mutant who lived in Aspen. Craziest thing I ever saw, as he
passed me while I suffered to a 2:29:00 finish as a Cat 4 :-/