|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 291 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 139 of 291:
| 
Jul 29 13:07 UTC 2002 |
And here we find it tiring to bike up out of the Huron River valley.
Valve caps make the bike look more sellable, is the idea. They distract a
bit from the rusty rims. And maybe keep a bit of dirt out of the valves.
There was a folding bike fad in the 70s, along with the fad for less wasteful
cars. The one we found is probably from then. The bikes we find are very
clearly abandoned, with bent wheels, enormous amounts of rust (you cannot bend
the chain), of no value to anyone but us. BRU paid $4.50 for three bikes in
GOOD condition - these are in terrible condition. It costs the university
to remove them. And yes, one year we did request permission to remove a bunch
of junk bikes from a dorm bike parking area and they were glad to give it to
us. If a bike is leaning against a wall, missing a wheel, other wheel bent,
it is of no use to anyone (also very rusty) except for a stray part. Someo
f them don't even have any parts we would find a use for. We don't touch
bikes in working order no matter how long they have been there, but if the
seat post and saddle and wheels and brakes are gone, and the chain is
unbendable, and the pedals are broken, we figure nobody will miss it if we
remove the remains in order to use the straight handlebar and ratchet
shifters.
The three bikes we are fixing up for me came (1) from Kiwanis, (2) from the
curb with a FREE sign, (3) from a parking lot with lots of pieces missing and
no lock. Many of our bikes were put out FREE, many were given to us.
|
gull
|
|
response 140 of 291:
|
Jul 29 13:16 UTC 2002 |
Re #138: I thought the purpose of valve caps was to keep dirt out of the
seals on the tire valves.
|
slynne
|
|
response 141 of 291:
|
Jul 29 14:18 UTC 2002 |
Keesan, it sounds to me that you are taking a small risk by removing
those bikes because if you remove them without permission, technically
it is bike theft. However, since the bikes are in such bad condition, I
think it is very very unlikely that anyone would ever ever report you
for taking the bike.
|
keesan
|
|
response 142 of 291:
|
Jul 29 17:17 UTC 2002 |
I think so too. I think if people knew what we were doing they would all
thank us for saving the university time and money, removing eyesores, and
keeping scrap metal out of the dump. Also providing a source of income for
Kiwanis and cheap bikes for Kiwanis shoppers. The people with the FREE signs
are lucky we came along as who else would want a bike with the seat missing
and the brakes not working. We recycle the worst of the frames and pass along
those we don't want to a friend in Ypsi who fixes them up for poor kids in
a town in N. MI where he goes fishing. He trades us any parts we want and
mixte frames - the style where there is a slanty top tube that goes straight
to the wheel so that the brake cable is direct (rear brake), plus a separate
metal strut to hold up the seat, so you don't need a super-long seat post.
They were fashionable in racing bike era and Jim has made one (so far) into
a 700 mm bike by bending things a bit, to take wider tires. We may have the
largest collection of them in town (about 8?).
Today we are actually building a house instead of bikes. More later if we
have success folding the folding bike, which is more of an experiment than
a usable means of transport. (Jim at one point wanted me to buy us some new
lightweight ones to take on the train.)
|
scg
|
|
response 143 of 291:
|
Jul 29 22:03 UTC 2002 |
Maybe Amtrak in the Midwest is different, but in California regular bikes are
allowed on trains without having to be boxed or checked. I've met several
people who commute that way.
|
keesan
|
|
response 144 of 291:
|
Jul 30 00:40 UTC 2002 |
We are thinking of trying this with the wheels removed, the pedals turned
inwards, and a large plastic bag as disguise. There is a particularly nasty
conductor on the Chicago Ann Arbor route who won't let you turn the seats to
face each other, making up different reasons each time. Not safe. Not enough
space. Only if there are three of you. Our train was 1/4 full at most and
it was obviously safe in the end compartment where the seats are always
turned. I finally sat on the floor so I could stretch out my legs - no rule
against that, luckily. 12 hour trip.
Where on the trains do people put their bikes, at the ends?
|
mdw
|
|
response 145 of 291:
|
Jul 30 04:41 UTC 2002 |
Is that Caltrain or Amtrak? (re #143 that is...)
|
scg
|
|
response 146 of 291:
|
Jul 30 19:22 UTC 2002 |
Amtrak. Caltrain has a special car to hold bikes. I haven't used Amtrak in
years, but from what I hear they let people just take their bikes on and hold
them next to their seats, no disassembly required. BART allows the same thing
on non-rush hour trains.
|
keesan
|
|
response 147 of 291:
|
Aug 1 02:11 UTC 2002 |
Jim has just been hired by a neighbor (for $10) to fix up a bike that turns
out to be missing a few spokes as well as having flat tires. This makes him
a professional (assuming he gets it fixed). THe neighbor wants to give it
to someone who needs transportation. Today Jim was also offered a free car
by the neighbors who plumbing and chimney he fixed. It has a working exhaust
system but a fair bit of rust (hole in the floor). We have never had a bike
rust to the point of unusability, but have seen quite a few that did.
|
jep
|
|
response 148 of 291:
|
Aug 1 12:27 UTC 2002 |
John and I went for our longest ride yet yesterday, about 20 miles. It
took us a little over 2 hours, and we got back late enough that the cars
all had their headlights on.
We took the Kiwanis bike trail between Adrian and Tecumseh. A year ago,
in Clinton and Manchester, there was a big to-do because of a discussion
of extending the bike trail through those towns. The proposed path went
through several people's fields and yards, so there was heavy opposition.
One of the arguments used was that there'd be a lot of litter along the
bike path. I've ridden the Tecumseh-Adrian trail twice now (going all the
way along it just once) and have yet to see one piece of trash along the
trail. Not one.
The real point of the proposal was property rights; some of the proposed
trail was right along the river, and the people who own that land want to
keep it for themselves. I think they should be able to do so; it's
*their* property. So far, Manchester and Clinton, being farm communities,
see it that way, too.
|
gull
|
|
response 149 of 291:
|
Aug 1 12:54 UTC 2002 |
Well, it's sort of their property. In a lot of cases I think the trails
follow property that was sold to railroads, who eventually abandoned it.
Now the people who live along it figure they have a right to get it back for
free.
|
bru
|
|
response 150 of 291:
|
Aug 1 13:53 UTC 2002 |
I thought the railroads still maintained the property even tho they no longer
use it.
|
jep
|
|
response 151 of 291:
|
Aug 1 14:47 UTC 2002 |
The bike trail is very, very nice. It's terrific to not have to
contend with cars going by, and most of the trail is through the woods
so it's great scenery for riding. As I've mentioned before, it's flat
so it's easy riding. I'd like very much to have more trails like that
in my area.
If it's railroad land, it's probably easily and cheaply available, and
yes, I'd support getting and using it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 152 of 291:
|
Aug 1 16:00 UTC 2002 |
In Minnesota the railroad had already sold their land to people after they
destroyed the tracks, and all of it could not be bought back, so the trail
was not quite as nice and straight and level as it could have been.
I would like to keep the train service and also have a bike trail running near
the train tracks so that you could bike places without needing to be near
cars.
|
jep
|
|
response 153 of 291:
|
Aug 1 16:11 UTC 2002 |
Sure, but people have a right to their property, too. There are not
enough bicyclists to justify taking people's land for bike paths.
But the bike trail that we used last night is really terrific.
Are there many trails like it in Washtenaw County? I'd be willing to
pile the bikes in the car to take my son on other rides. Does anyone
know of others in Lenawee County?
|
slynne
|
|
response 154 of 291:
|
Aug 1 17:30 UTC 2002 |
It isnt really all that cheap to get the old railroad land but it is
worthwhile. See http://www.railtrails.org/
|
scott
|
|
response 155 of 291:
|
Aug 2 13:02 UTC 2002 |
I'd worry about toxic cleanup from all thsoe railroad ties, if I was planning
on using the land for anything besides trails.
|
jep
|
|
response 156 of 291:
|
Aug 2 18:47 UTC 2002 |
re #154: If you search around, there's a link to a list of trails,
including biking trails. I found that useful.
(http://www.traillink.com)
There's information on Proposal 2 and it's benefits for bikers.
I didn't see anything about the cost of old railroad land, though.
|
keesan
|
|
response 157 of 291:
|
Aug 3 12:53 UTC 2002 |
In W. Michigan the bike trail on the tracks was surfaced with a soft gravel
that made it hard to bike, and ran through a very thin strip of trees with
farmland on both sides. We found the regular rides preferable - plain hard
dirt, few cars, and more to see. The bike trail was very crowded with very
slow bikers and the dirt roads nearly empty. I would greatly appreciate a
bike trail starting at Stadium Boulevard in Ann Arbor heading west for two
miles as there is no safe way to get out of town going west.
|
omni
|
|
response 158 of 291:
|
Aug 3 20:28 UTC 2002 |
You'd like the U Hills bike trail. Two lanes and paved. It used gto be an
old right of way, before Sylvania and Ottawa Hills outlawed trains. I dont
know how far it goes, but I see lots of people and thier bikes on it all the
time.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 159 of 291:
|
Aug 3 23:36 UTC 2002 |
I've watched a new bike trail being put in along Jackson, from Wagner to High
Lake. So you've got part of your wish, I think, Sindi. On Thursday, I saw
workers digging up a path on the south side of Jackson, from where the
construciton is being toward Wagner. So you may have more of it. However,
there may still be a bit of trouble getting from, say, Seventh and Huron to
Jackson and Maple.
|
jep
|
|
response 160 of 291:
|
Aug 4 01:54 UTC 2002 |
re #158: It sounds like it's in Toledo. I know even less about that
than I do Ann Arbor. It does sound nice, though. Does it go anywhere
interesting? Where does it start and end?
I rode John over to his mother's house this morning, so I got in about
a 13 mile ride. It was a great morning for bike riding. Much cooler
than the day we rode the Kiwanis Trail.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 161 of 291:
|
Aug 4 09:19 UTC 2002 |
If I remember correctly (it's been a few years), the Toledo trail runs
from Sylvania to UofT, and there are a number of access/parking sites
along the way. Note also that it requires crossing several busy roads,
and that the trail is also popular with pedestrians and rollerbladers.
|
keesan
|
|
response 162 of 291:
|
Aug 4 19:04 UTC 2002 |
My definition of a bike trail is not something that runs along a noisy stinky
highway. I know it is safer to bike on the path parallel to Jackson, but I
think I prefer to risk my life on Liberty or Scio Church instead. Thanks for
the information anyway. If we leave before 9 am on a Sunday morning it is
not quite as bad. There is no problem getting as far as Stadium Blvd on side
streets or even sidewalks.
|
keesan
|
|
response 163 of 291:
|
Aug 4 20:49 UTC 2002 |
Jim just spent a few hours measuring the rim width of all our aluminum wheels
and he has selected the two narrowest (7/8" instead of 1 1/6") rims onto which
to put wheels for my latest bike. Narrowest wheel on the front (with the
least tread) and something thicker and wider on the back wheel which wears
out faster due to more weight. He showed me how the tread was gone more on
the back wheel of a matched pair that he had been using. So he is
recommending that we put unmatched tires on our front and back wheels.
The latest bike made two different sorts of noises depending which of the gear
rings I was on - chain rubbing and a deeper grinding sort of noise. The cause
turned out to be a bent derailleur which he straightened in the vise. A
previous gearing problem on another bike was from the derailleur not being
quite vertical. Jim's bike has a shifter that moves until you attach it to
the cable, and a cable that moves unless attached to the shifter. They are
all different on the inside. We have four or five of the two-lever variety
now. In some you push the top to go up a gear, some you push the bottom to
go up a gear. Some of them the levers stay where you put them so you can see
what gear you are in, some they all come back to starting point. Some you
push just a little, mine you have to push about 120 degrees (we had to rotate
the shifter so I could reach it). There is one double-lever type where you
push on one lever and pull on the other. Presumbly this is some sort of
improvement over the single lever, which I had no trouble pushing AND
pulling on. Sales gimmick?
We are setting up as many bikes as possible with these double lever types so
as to avoid the twist grips, which all come with bumpy and uncomfortable grips
that you cannot replace with smooth flattened ones so as to rest your weight
on your hands. You cannot buy anything but bumpy grips now (new).
On the more used of the tires that we have the tread is worn down in the
middle but never on the sides. I doubt anyone who abandoned these bikes ever
rode them much on anything but pavement. We are choosing tires that do not
have much tread on the sides, which saves weight. I could bike on grass and
sand just as well with narrower tires. The knobby ones are more likely to
trap gravel, I think.
|
