stock vs. custom frames

Mark Heiple said:

I've been riding a 2000 Lemond Tourmalet (Reynolds 525
frame, 57cm) now for about 4 years and been thinking of
upgrading.

Quoted message said:

To make a long story short, when I first got the bike, I
was ignorant about how it was supposed to fit. I went to
the wrong bike shop, who was more interested selling bikes
then making sure I got what I needed. I'm convinced now
that my frame is too small, so now I'm looking around for
new one. I've tried installing longer seat posts and
stems, but I don't think it is quite right.

Quoted message said:

I think my first step is to find a bike shop with a fit
kit, take my bike with me, and figure out if it really is
a problem.

Good idea. Unless you are very tall/short or have unusual
proportions, a custom bike should not be necessary. But
that doesn't mean that any frame in "your size" will fit
right. All "60 cm" frames are not alike. The Lemonds are
known for their slack seat angles, which may or may not be
right for you.

Quoted message said:

If it isn't right, my first choice would be to look at
another lemond. I really like the way the lemond handles,
but their bikes have changed. The new frames are
steel/carbon or ti/carbon, and I hesitant to trust a
version 1.0 design. Anyone know how they are holding up?

Quoted message said:

I also noticed their geometry isn't the same - the
chainstays (and therefor wheelbase) are shorter. How much
would this affect the handling? I've tried short, compact
frames before (Giant) and didn't like it - very squirrely.
Do the short stays restrict my tire size choice? Right now
I'm running GP 3000, 25c.

Short chainstays reduce comfort and stability, and don't
offer any real advantages except being in sync with the
current fad. Don't buy a bike that limits your tire options.

Quoted message said:

I know I need to go out and start test riding bikes again,
but how does one test ride a custom bike when there aren't
any in your area and a frame built to your measurements
doesn't exist? Seems like an expensive gamble to build a
bike that you have never ridden.

It is a gamble. I've seen more than one "custom" bike up for
sale because "it didn't fit."

Quoted message said:

I'm a lot more comfortable riding now compared to 4 years
ago, so maybe I don't need the extra stability of the
lemond any more.

Stability is a good thing. I've rarely heard someone
complain that their bike was too stable.

Quoted message said:

I'm 6'2", 225 lbs. I think have long legs & arms, short
torso for people my size. I don't race and never will. I
have my handlebars set about 1.5" below my saddle. I don't
really need nor want an ultra-light weight weenie bike.
With all he stuff I carry in my saddle bag, my tourmalet
weighs about 26 lbs.

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your current
Lemond seem too short? The main criteria should be top tube
length and seat tube angle. What stem length are you using?
The fact that you can get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you,
I'd try to fine tune the fit on your current Lemond before
giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your
current Lemond seem too short? The main criteria should be
top tube length and seat tube angle. What stem length are
you using? The fact that you can get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you,
I'd try to fine tune the fit on your current Lemond
before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in the
drops, I feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should be
stretched out more. I went to a bike shop with a pretty good
rep and asked him about the size, and he had me ride around
a bit while he watched. He said that in the drops, my elbows
and knees overlap a lot more than they should - there should
be an inch or so gap between the elbow and knee when my foot
is at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to replace
the one I just broke. I'm not sure how long my handlebar
stem is, but it is really long and sticks up quite a ways. I
think it is fairly long horizontally also, and I've been
warned that going too long will compromise
handling/stability.

Thanks.

Mark Heiple said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your
current Lemond seem too short? The main criteria should
be top tube length and seat tube angle. What stem length
are you using? The fact that you can get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were
you, I'd try to fine tune the fit on your current
Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in
the drops, I feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should
be stretched out more. I went to a bike shop with a pretty
good rep and asked him about the size, and he had me ride
around a bit while he watched. He said that in the drops,
my elbows and knees overlap a lot more than they should
- there should be an inch or so gap between the elbow and
knee when my foot is at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to
replace the one I just broke. I'm not sure how long my
handlebar stem is, but it is really long and sticks up
quite a ways. I think it is fairly long horizontally also,
and I've been warned that going too long will compromise
handling/stability.

Longer stem should /increase/ stability, but "handling"
(steering) will be a bit slower.

Just an idea: try rotating your handlebar "out" a little
bit, making the drops farther away. (You might have to move
the hoods/levers down afterwards, if you don't like their
new orientation.) Should stretch you out a tad more...

Bill "talking out his butt, but worth a try" S.

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Heiple said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your
current Lemond seem too short? The main criteria
should be top tube length and seat tube angle. What
stem length are you using? The fact that you can get
the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were
you, I'd try to fine tune the fit on your current
Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in
the drops, I feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I
should be stretched out more. I went to a bike shop with
a pretty good rep and asked him about the size, and he
had me ride around a bit while he watched. He said that
in the drops, my elbows and knees overlap a lot more
than they should
- there should be an inch or so gap between the elbow
and knee when my foot is at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to
replace the one I just broke. I'm not sure how long my
handlebar stem is, but it is really long and sticks up
quite a ways. I think it is fairly long horizontally
also, and I've been warned that going too long will
compromise handling/stability.

Longer stem should /increase/ stability, but "handling"
(steering) will be

a

Quoted message said:

bit slower.

Just an idea: try rotating your handlebar "out" a
little bit, making the drops farther away. (You might
have to move the hoods/levers down afterwards, if you
don't like their new orientation.) Should stretch you
out a tad more...

Bill "talking out his butt, but worth a try" S.

Good point, but the OP may also consider going to classic
round-bend bars if he's using anatomic bars now. He'll get
more room in the drops for the same reach to the hoods and
tops - that's why I avoid so-called "anatomic" bars. Some of
them are awful! It'll require some measuring and comparison
shopping, but if the scrunch is his only issue, it's a lot
less trouble and expense than a new bike.

As for the other's points about geometry and sizing, the
thing to focus on is weight distribution. Front center and
chainstay length should combine with your build and position
to give you good balance, which should hit around
45%front/55%rear when you're seated and in the drops.
Basically, if you tend to have your seat slammed way back
behind the bottom bracket, you'll need longer chainstays and
a shorter front end, and the opposite if you sit more
forward. The forward inside edge of your bar hooks should
fall over the front axle as closely as possible as well. If
your long stem puts you way out in front of the front wheel,
you probably need a larger frame (with a longer front end),
which from the sound of it (long stem, xtra long seatpost)
may be the case. Not necessarily custom, just a bit bigger.
Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small for
someone who's 6'2".

SB

Mark Heiple said:

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in
the drops, I feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should
be stretched out more.

Quoted message said:

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to
replace the one I just broke. I'm not sure how long my
handlebar stem is, but it is really long and sticks up
quite a ways. I think it is fairly long horizontally also,
and I've been warned that going too long will compromise
handling/stability.

Yeah. Sounds like the frame is too small. What is the
nominal frame size anyway?

Art Harris

Steve Blankenship said:

Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small
for someone who's 6'2".

Ah, I missed that. Yeah, that sounds small especially for a
6'2" guy who says he has long legs. I'm 6'3" (35.5" inseam)
and ride frames of 62-63 cm c-c.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Arthur Harris said:

Steve Blankenship said:

Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small
for someone who's 6'2".

Ah, I missed that. Yeah, that sounds small especially for
a 6'2" guy who says he has long legs. I'm 6'3" (35.5"
inseam) and ride frames of 62-63 cm c-c.

Art Harris

My inseam is somewhere between 34" and 35", probably closer
to 34", so I'm not quite as long legged as you.

The Lemond is measured c-c, and I have noticed that even
compared to other bikes measured c-c, the Lemond seems
bigger. My brother-in-law has 58 cm cannondale (not sure how
it is measured), and my 57 cm Lemond feels a lot bigger. It
also feels bigger than a 58 cm Trek. Makes it all kind of
confusing what size a bike really is!

A related topic:

My lemond is mostly shimano Tiagra/Sora components, which
has mostly functioned reliably. The front derailleur
(triple) is really the only part that gives me any trouble.
It doesn't shift real well in and out the granny, and the
chain will usually jump off if I try to shift into the
granny onto a hill.

Does an Ultegra triple work better than the lower groups, or
does it just save a little weight?

After reading the newsgroup here, I'm also toying with the
idea of going Campy. People seem to be happy with its
durability/repairability, and compatibility with the
different levels and even new vs old appears to be a lot
better than Shimano. On the down side, it's a lot more
expensive and harder to find locally.

I thought about going double, but I'm a poor climber and
heavy enough that I should stick with a triple.

Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<rwItc.722

Quoted message said:

Short chainstays reduce comfort and stability, and don't
offer any real advantages except being in sync with the
current fad.

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is
something still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

JT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Short chainstays reduce comfort and stability, and don't
offer any real advantages except being in sync with the
current fad.

Quoted message said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is
something still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

JT

Yeah! I saw we get rid of chainstays entirely! That'll
fix things!

Pat in TX

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is
something still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days before
vertical rear dropouts.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill
the tomato!

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is
something still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

David Damerell said:

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days
before vertical rear dropouts.

Yes they could.

I have cut the bottom front of Campagnolo ends by request on
short (96cm) frames. Remember curved seat tubes? How about
Bob Jackson Lugano TT bikes? There have been many an ultra-
short frame in every era.

When you say 'before verticals' you're on more solid ground,
I suppose. That puts us somewhere about 1960 I think.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1
April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is
something still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

David Damerell said:

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days
before vertical rear dropouts.

Yes they could.

I have cut the bottom front of Campagnolo ends by request
on short (96cm) frames. Remember curved seat tubes? How
about Bob Jackson Lugano TT bikes? There have been many an
ultra-short frame in every era.

When you say 'before verticals' you're on more solid
ground, I suppose. That puts us somewhere about 1960
I think.

Jack Taylor made curved seat tube bikes in the early 50's, I
suppose because vertical dropouts were not the norm and
curving the tube allowed getting the wheel out without
deflating the tire. I've had several bikes with horizontal
dropouts where the chianstays were so short that the wheel
could not be inserted or removed with the tire inflated
(these were all Raleighs, interestingly enough).

I've never understood the attraction for short chainstays.
The bike handles badly in turns, the rear tire wears out
more quickly, the ride is less comfortable, chainline
problems are worse, and there's no benefit whatsoever. A
peculiar trend altogether.

I went to the bike shop and got measured, and they also
measured my bike (57 cm Lemond). They then put my bike on a
trainer, I rode it for a while they watched.

We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My bike
actually measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They suggested that
I should start by looking at 60 to 62 cm c-c frames.

They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my
bike was flexing really badly, to the point that they said
if I keep riding it stuff will start breaking.

I asked if that meant I should avoid a steel frame, they
said no, a correctly sized steel frame should be much
stiffer than my current bike.

I test rode a couple bikes, a Klein (with Dura-Ace 10 speed)
and a Gunner (Ultegra).

The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did
like how responsive it felt. The bike shop said the
stiffness would make it easier to climb hills. I did feel
little easier, but it is also lighter and has different
gearing than my Lemond (39 x 25 low gear vs 42 x 25 in my
lemond's middle ring). Does extra stiffness really help
climb hills? I did notice it was harsher over the bumps.

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant over
the bumps, seemed to climb almost as well as the Klein (I
think it is 42 x 25 in its middle ring), but didn't like
the position as much. It seemed like my center of gravity
was higher.

They also had a 2004 Zurich (steel/carbon) bike, and after
looking I think I can rule it out. It looks like the shorter
chain stays do restrict you to 23c tires. 25c might fit, but
it looks close. So if I want another Lemond I'll have to go
the custom route with their old steel frame.

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a
stiff yet compliant ride. I asked about carbon bikes, but
was told if I didn't like the harsh aluminium ride, I
probably wouldn't like carbon either.

The bike shop also does Waterford custom bikes, so if I
can't find something I like I can always go that route.

The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out
this december, which makes me even more inclined to go
Campagnolo. I don't want to buy a bike with a soon to be
orphaned drivetrain.

Thanks.

Tim McNamara said:

I've never understood the attraction for short chainstays.
The bike handles badly in turns, the rear tire wears out
more quickly, the ride is less comfortable, chainline
problems are worse, and there's no benefit whatsoever. A
peculiar trend altogether.

Indeed.

I think it started as a track trend, the idea being it
allowed teammates to draft closer. But then some knucklehead
decided it was applicable to road racing too. Since then,
short chainstays have been symbolic of "racy," the shorter
the racier. Cannondale even made bikes with cantilevered
dropouts for awhile, so the seatstays would look steeper and
the chainstays shorter, for the ultimate racy appearance.

What's really stupid is the same, super-short chainstays
being used on all frame sizes. There's no good reason to put
a 6'5" rider on a bike with a sub-40" wheelbase.

Matt O.

Mark Heiple said:

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant
over the bumps, seemed to climb almost as well as the
Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in its middle ring), but
didn't like the position as much. It seemed like my center
of gravity was higher.

Many variables effect "ride quality." Tires, saddle, bars,
and overall geometry all come into play. Also, slight
differences in setup (stem height, reach, etc.) will make a
bike feel different. As a minimum, you should make sure tire
pressure and saddle position are identical on the various
bikes you test ride. Ideally, the bar position would be
tweaked also, but that's not as easy.

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for
a stiff yet compliant ride.

Uh-oh, where's the smiley face?

Quoted message said:

I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like
carbon either.

Be careful that your expectations (e.g., "aluminum is
harsh"😉 don't affect your actual perceptions.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Arthur Harris said:

Mark Heiple said:

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant
over the bumps, seemed to climb almost as well as the
Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in its middle ring), but
didn't like the position as much. It seemed like my
center of gravity was higher.

Many variables effect "ride quality." Tires, saddle, bars,
and overall geometry all come into play. Also, slight
differences in setup (stem height, reach, etc.) will make
a bike feel different. As a minimum, you should make sure
tire pressure and saddle position are identical on the
various bikes you test ride. Ideally, the bar position
would be tweaked also, but that's not as easy.

The saddle height was the same on both the Klein and the
Gunner, and they put air in the tires (23c on both) before
each ride, so those variables should be the same. The
handlebars couldn't be adjusted, but it didn't seem like
they were too different.

I was ready to assume that the Gunner would be the more
comfortable, better riding bike. To my surprise, I actually
liked the Klein better, even with its harsher ride.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking
for a stiff yet compliant ride.

Uh-oh, where's the smiley face?

Dang! Forgot it. Ok here's one 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like
carbon either.

Be careful that your expectations (e.g., "aluminum is
harsh"😉 don't affect your actual perceptions.

Art Harris

I'm trying not to let my prejudices cloud reality. My
"aluminum is harsh" sentiments come mostly from riding a
compact frame Giant (huh?) and a borrowed 10 or 12 year old
Cannondale that wasn't even close to fitting me. That Klein
was good evidence that it's possible to make a nice riding
aluminum bike. I also plan to test a carbon and Ti bike if I
can find them.

On a different topic: I just ran over my first squirrel. I
just caught it darting across the road out of the corner of
my eye, then bump-bump, then I heard it scurrying off in the
brush on the other side.

Me: 1. Squirrels: 0

Thanks.

Matt O'Toole said:

What's really stupid is the same, super-short chainstays
being used on all frame sizes. There's no good reason to
put a 6'5" rider on a bike with a sub-40" wheelbase.

I'm an inch shorter than that, and I find that ultra-short
chainstays lead to popping wheelies when climbing seated.
And since most bikes now have longer top tubes and longer
front centers, the front wheel is underweighted and the rear
wheel is overweighted. In addition to popping wheelies, the
front end of the bike feels vague and wants to wash out in
high speed turns. When you're tired from being beaten up by
the bumps all day, you also have to fight the bike to keep
it going in a straight line, making the last 30 miles of a
150 miler unpleasant.

Combine that with heavily dished 8/9/10 speed rear wheels
and the end result is a bike that handles badly, wears out
the rear tire and is harder to keep the rear wheel true- and
usually has almost no clearance for the tires, so the bike
is unrideable if a spoke breaks. I see nothing to redeem the
ultra-short chainstay designs.

Mark Heiple said:

I went to the bike shop and got measured, and they also
measured my bike (57 cm Lemond). They then put my bike on
a trainer, I rode it for a while they watched.

We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My
bike actually measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They
suggested that I should start by looking at 60 to 62 cm
c-c frames.

Many if not most people are sold bikes that are too small
for them. Racers may find this a benefit as it allows the
bars to be lower (although I am skeptical about the real-
world benefits of this).

Quoted message said:

They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my
bike was flexing really badly, to the point that they said
if I keep riding it stuff will start breaking.

Like what? I think this is malarkey.

Quoted message said:

I asked if that meant I should avoid a steel frame, they
said no, a correctly sized steel frame should be much
stiffer than my current bike.

The issue is comfort not stiffness.

Quoted message said:

The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did
like how responsive it felt. The bike shop said the
stiffness would make it easier to climb hills. I did feel
little easier, but it is also lighter and has different
gearing than my Lemond (39 x 25 low gear vs 42 x 25 in my
lemond's middle ring). Does extra stiffness really help
climb hills? I did notice it was harsher over the bumps.

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant
over the bumps, seemed to climb almost as well as the
Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in its middle ring), but
didn't like the position as much. It seemed like my center
of gravity was higher.

You might want to do a little more reading about the effects
of frame material on how a bike rides. The short answer is
that it has little to no difference. The main difference is
from frame design, specifically the relation of the axle
centers to your butt. The more the wheel is underneath you,
the more the bike will feel harsh; the more the wheel is
away from you, the more it will feel "compliant" Tire size
and inflation pessure has an even bigger affect on ride
quality. If you want to try a great ride, slap some Avocet
25's on any bike they'll fit, inflated to 100 to 110 psi
(actually, any 25 mm tires will do but the Avocets are one
of the best).

As far as stiffness, this is another triumph of marketing
over reality. Any quality modern nike is going to be stiff
enough. Worry more about the ride quality than the
stiffness.

Quoted message said:

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for
a stiff yet compliant ride. I asked about carbon bikes,
but was told if I didn't like the harsh aluminium ride, I
probably wouldn't like carbon either.

More marketing codswallop. A different sales person will
tell you that carbon finger frames can have the fibers
oriented to provide the ultimate in stiff but compliant bike
frames. It's all [censored]. Buy a frame that fits you so that
you are comfortable all day long on it, and one that you
like the handling characteristics.

Quoted message said:

The bike shop also does Waterford custom bikes, so if I
can't find something I like I can always go that route.

The Gunnars are made by Waterford and are an excellent deal.
I have a CrossHairs that is very well made and a nice bike
to ride- I raced 'cross on it, took it to the Alps and rode
last year's brevets and PBP on it. I'd also point you to
Kogswell (www.kogswell.com) who are turning out very classy
lugged steel frames at excellent prices- this year's version
is particularly well done. And also Herons are excellent
bikes: www.heronbicycles.com. And finally, the titanium
option from Habanero (www.habcycles.com I think). All four
of these options (Gunnar, Heron, Kogswell and Habanero) are
excellent values.

Quoted message said:

The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out
this december, which makes me even more inclined to go
Campagnolo. I don't want to buy a bike with a soon to be
orphaned drivetrain.

Campagnolo is generally more durable and more serviceable,
rendering it less expensive in the long run.

Mark Heiple said:

I'm trying not to let my prejudices cloud reality. My
"aluminum is harsh" sentiments come mostly from riding a
compact frame Giant (huh?) and a borrowed 10 or 12 year
old Cannondale that wasn't even close to fitting me. That
Klein was good evidence that it's possible to make a nice
riding aluminum bike. I also plan to test a carbon and Ti
bike if I can find them.

Geometry is the answer here, not frame material. "Harsh"
frames usually have short wheelbases, steep angles, and tall
BBs. Look carefully at the Klein -- it's a little more
stretched out than a Cannondale or Bianchi. This is why it
rides smoother. Older Kleins were very smooth -- because
they had long chainstays, moderate angles, and long
wheelbases.

Also, oversized, thin-walled tubes resonate like a drum,
giving the impression of harshness. But it's only noise
you're hearing, not vibration you're feeling.

Far too much is made of the frame material issue. Stiffness
can be an issue. A stiff bike isn't faster, but it's nice to
have a bike that doesn't ghost shift, or chain rub under
power. Really flexy bikes can be scary on descents, but I'm
not aware of any on the market these days -- like the old
Vitus and Alan frames, with thin aluminum tubes.

Fit is everything. Stiffness is nice. Aesthetics matter when
you're spending this much money -- a bike should last you a
long time, and you should be happy with it.

Finally, there's a great advantage to having something dead
mainstream, and widely available, should you ever need a
replacement. For example, I have a Coppi frame, made in
Italy, perhaps not even officially available in the US. The
frame was (probably) totaled in a crash the other day.
Getting a replacement is going to be a real chore, perhaps
taking weeks. If I had a Trek/Klein/Lemond or a Cannondale
or something, I could be back on the road already. Word is
that Trek has the best warranty service in the biz. This
means their non-warranty service is probably good too. Some
smaller companies may have great warranties and earnest
service, but they may not have warehouses full of frames,
wheels, etc., ready to be Fedexed to you in a day or two.
Consider this.

Quoted message said:

On a different topic: I just ran over my first squirrel. I
just caught it darting across the road out of the corner
of my eye, then bump-bump, then I heard it scurrying off
in the brush on the other side.

Me: 1. Squirrels: 0

Just be glad it wasn't a dog, like I hit the other day. Me:
0, bike: 0, dog: 0 (probably dead).

Matt O.