It was two years ago that Juli and I spent two weeks in February with Douglas Salteri, my uncle and Scottish landscape photographer. Check out his site to see beautiful images from all four seasons of our beloved Scotland. Together we traveled out to the Hebridean islands of Lewis and Harris which are well North and West of our friend Brian Palmer's island of Islay. I'd taken along a bike borrowed from Jim and Mark at Enigma, and when I returned I only processed the bike photography.
Last night, for reasons that probably have to do with accounting procrastination, I finally worked on some of the landscapes from the trip. In two weeks I'm heading back to the UK to shoot an assignment for Specialized. It will be a quick trip but I'm going a few days early to visit Douglas in Glasgow and hopefully shoot a few frames with him. Brian, I don't know if we'll get over to see you but better keep the shed locked just in case.
While discussing Dromarti's latest gloves in an email thread with Tim and Brendan, Brendan comes up with this classic little vignette.
Wanted to share a good one with you guys while we are on the subject of high priced cycling goods and getting slapped. I bought a pair of Rapha Cyclo-Cross bib knickers from Competitive Cyclist that went on sale for a measly $155 or roughly 1/3 of my annual cycling budget.
Right after I placed the order I got the UPS note as to when the delivery would arrive and it happened to be on Valentine's Day. I also happened to be working from home on V-D because I am such a fine example of a supporting and caring husband. I offered to pick the boys up from school at 3PM.
On my way back I round the corner to our street and what do I see? The UPS truck parked in front of our house. Wife must be looking for a vase and a spot for what should be 58 dozen roses.... she is wrong. I power slide into the driveway and dive in mid-air as the driver is reaching for the doorbell and slap his hand away. It's my Rapha... not roses.
I was thinking about McQuaid and Mubarak. One of them has ruled his domain with an iron hand, refused to implement democratic reforms, stood in the way of progress, suspended due process and generally dismissed the people he is supposed to serve. But enough about McQuaid.
Facebook, Tweet, take to the streets. There appears to be a greater chance of overthrowing an entrenched Egyptian despot than getting the UCI to embrace democracy in the affairs of cycling. The rider protest of the race radio ban in Mallorca was a start but the revolution has a long way to go before it secures a real voice in the governance of the sport. Perhaps it's time to start pulling up the pavement in case the UCI launches a camel charge, they've already invalidated race results and threatened to cancel elections, I mean races. Isn't it time the U.S. state department started putting diplomatic pressure on McQuaid to step down.
Elsewhere the revised version of the UCI approval protocol for frames and forks resurfaced with all the grace of a Mubarak concession speech. Oh, that's right, there wasn't one. Little has changed in the new document. It bears the same autocratic sense of a entitlement, but there's been nothing short of a miraculous reduction in the cost of scrutiny. Perhaps the Swiss government's willingness to freeze Mubarak's bank accounts caused the UCI to rethink the usurious sums they were trying to extort from manufacturers. For those that thought the original price structure was a naked money grab, I'd say the new fee structure confirms it.
The full approval process for monocoque frames requires a "contribution" of $6,200 instead of $12,000 and it only applies to time trial and track categories. Monocoque road frames are now subject to the intermediate procedure which means road frame approval has effectively been marked down from $12,000 to $3,800. Corporate bean counters take note, this is how to waterboard squeeze your suppliers. Apparently there was a significant amount of padding in the original lab fees. What a surprise.
There's even mention of tolerances between drawing and prototype for the first time. It's a shame there's no easy way to quantify intolerance because this regime has plenty of it and its high time professional cyclists get out the saddle and on to the barricades. It's not like they have to worry about tanks showing up at the official sign in... do they?
As events have shown us a lot can change in eighteen days. I like to picture McQuaid and Mubarak in retirement opening the charming M&M B&B in Sharm el-Sheikh complete with UCI-approved bike rentals that only a Saudi prince could afford. It's just a matter of time, I think the hieroglyphics are on the wall.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, you'd think 23,000 pictures would tell the complete story of this year's Tour, or anything else for that matter... but telling is one thing, understanding another. Six months after I shot the last images of our team arriving in Paris, I still haven't been able to put the whole journey into perspective.
Not a day goes by without something or someone triggering a memory from those remarkable three weeks. The more I remember, the longer the Tour gets. A grand tour acts like a giant spring that compresses everything inside it; especially time.
If you're thinking about whether you've got a grand tour in your legs. You'd be surprised like I was that it is possible if you've got the heart. I hope you'll join us this summer... I really want to go back and experience the magic again. Another team, another route but the same rewarding struggle. It will change your life, it has changed mine. Grand Rêve.
read the complete post at Rêve -->
In my early thirties I worked out at a gym down the street from my studio in Toronto. As far as gym's go it wasn't particularly social, the young business types it attracted were too busy for chit chat and wanted to get in and out fast. The girl on the stair climber had been coming in for months to occupy a spot immediately in front of the bike I habitually warmed up on. She was beautiful and completely unapproachable, isolated by headphones and manic exertion. Like clockwork ten minutes into my warm up she'd appear, step onto her machine with her back to the room and climb for an hour. She never said a word to anyone though everyone, male and female was aware of her presence.
I don't remember when it happened but one night there was a nod of recognition exchanged between us. At some point she'd noted the familiar guy riding off her left shoulder in the mirror; she never turned around but in the weeks that followed the reflected smile became a regular thing. I suppose it would have been easy to get off the bike and just say hello but the mirrored circumstances called for something more creative.
With a little assistance from one of the female staff I planned a novel introduction. I'd noted the format of the gym's minimal signage, tiny debossed metal tags discreetly sprinkled throughout the facility. I had a special sign made in that identical format which my accomplice matter-of-factly applied to the edge of the mirror in front of the stair climbing beauty. In 24pt type it read "Riders in the mirror may be more interested than they appear". It took the girl a minute or two to glance over at the newly applied tag, and I enjoyed watching her initial puzzlement give way to recognition before a big smile broke out and she lifted her eyes into the mirror to see me smiling back at her. I didn't have to say anything because I was wearing a T-shirt which read in mirror-image type "maybe we should have dinner". It was the first time I'd ever seen the girl laugh as she turned around to look directly at me. Mission accomplished.
The moral of the story. Sometimes you have to look at things differently to make an impression.
I think Outlier have done just that with their Pivot shirt innovation. The shoulder construction is noticeably different on the Blazed Cotton Shirt than anything else in my wardrobe. The pivot is not your typical set-in sleeve, instead it extends into a generous vertical panel that runs from shoulder to tail on the back of the shirt. You can find a great illustration of the construction on the Outlier site. Currently three of the four Outlier shirt designs featuring the pivot sleeve are in stock (The California Pivot Shirt, The Supermarine Rain Shirt and The Blazed Cotton Shirt). The latter two share the same cut and details, with the Blazed Cotton serving flexible fashion on or off the bike and the Supermarine Rain Shirt going beyond the call of duty to survive the occasional downpour with panache.
The slippery smooth face of the Blazed Cotton shirt is the product of mills in Austria and Switzerland. It gets the same Schoeller NanoSphere® treatment we've seen employed by our friends on Perren Street. From there the cotton is shipped to the U.S. where the experienced hands of the New York's garment district cut and sew the finished shirts. It's a very clean look, tucked or un-tucked.
Ordinarily I hate chest pockets... to my eye they look sloppy whether or not there's anything in them. On the subject of pockets I've been known to keep them sewn shut permanently for that very reason. The Outlier chest pocket, neatly hidden behind a sharp flap is more design detail than functional addition. Please don't put anything in it and spoil the clean lines.
The collar is sharply reinforced with stays, always the hallmark of a good shirt that will keep its appearance through many launderings. Show me a well-dressed man and I'll show you someone who knows his way around a steam iron. There may be no better way to gauge the craftsmanship of a dress shirt than to iron it. Poorly cut shirts are a nightmare on the ironing board, while well made ones lay flat and press true. Washed on a gentle cycle and line dried the shirt looks entirely presentable, but pass an iron over the Blazed Cotton and it snaps to attention.
Ultimately you can't beat cotton. While other man-made and natural fibers have made inroads into our closets, many of them have a residual itch factor that cotton is immune to. Do yourself a favour and order one of the pivots I think you'll be very pleased with the fit, finish and longevity of a beautiful shirt. I guarantee you'll spend more time wearing it than ironing it.
Faced with what was reported to be a united front of manufacturers, the UCI took a step back to regroup. A revised protocol will be released early in February, but based on the short message that appears on the UCI site, don't expect them to throw in the towel.
A revised version of the « Approval Protocol for Frames and Forks » will be published at the beginning of February 2011. The number of approval requests expected means it is necessary to adapt several measures in the protocol. Thank you for your understanding.
I've highlighted the second sentence because I think it offers an insight into the mindset of the organization. The fact they think they'll be overwhelmed with the number of approval requests presupposes that manufacturers will go along. Given the industry reception the protocol has received I think it demonstrates an incredible arrogance.
BikeBiz.com reported that an email sent to manufacturers (read it in its entirety here) included the following. Again the bold emphasis is mine.
We will contact you again before the end of next week in order to inform you of a procedure that has been adjusted to take your contributions into account. As a consequence, the procedure in its current form is suspended until 1st February. From this date, a revised version will come into force.
We are confident that this process, which in no way questions the foundations and the objectives of the approval procedure, will benefit all concerned. We will endeavor to carry out the necessary modifications as quickly as possible. Thank you for your understanding.
The UCI reaction reminds me of boxers who've just been rocked by a big shot... smiling, and shaking of the head often precedes a trip to the canvas. If I'm in the manufacturer corner, I'm telling them to stay aggressive and go for the knockout.
A few weeks ago Carla proudly took her place in the front row of her new HTC Highroad team as it was introduced to the media. And now sadly she's gone at 23. My condolences to her teammates, friends and family.
I'll admit, I like writing these harder-edged pieces as a change of pace from the generally positive tone of this blog. Like ticks, bureaucrats just naturally get under the skin, and you have to scratch back. Comments on the original UCI post raised a number of interesting questions that may only be answered in time if the protocol is accepted by manufacturers. In the meantime here are a few more thoughts on the matter and a stab or two at those difficult questions.
The Real Costs
I've given more thought to the question of what this is going to cost manufacturers, both in currency and time. It's not clear how many models a manufacturer will want to have certified for UCI competition but if we look at the current top-end norm, many pro teams are provided with road, cobble-specific road and tt frames. Philosophies differ on womens' specific models (Specialized vs Cervelo for instance) but let's count one, plus a track and a cross model. This brings our total to six at the high end of the market, with no inclusion of the 2nd tier bikes that have been promoted to smaller teams and racing on a budget initiatives.
Let's assume that only one third of this 6-model lineup is updated each year, so we have $25,000 in UCI testing fees payable annually just for bikes. The protocol's documentation requirements are significant with both profile and sectional views for each of the eight possible frame sizes in two formats STEP and PDF. These drawings must anticipate the manufacturing tolerances of production which will be tested later during the prototype phase and eventually spot-checked by commissaires at races on actual production bicycles.
Several readers have expressed well-founded doubts about whether the UCI will be sufficiently staffed to live up to the detail of their own protocol but it's also quite evident that manufacturers will have to devote additional resources towards the preparation and administration of their responsibilities under the requirements.
Given the stakes, manufacturers will not simply spit out the documentation package and send it off to Switzerland hoping for the best, nor I imagine will they designate the task to their Taiwanese factory if that's where their frames originate. This is not a negative reflection on those factories, I just believe the compliance work will remain the responsibility of the bicycle company's home office and engineers.
If we include the murkier area of technical innovation as it applies to helmets, clothing etc. it's easy to see this taking 50% of one employee's time to oversee all stages of preparation, tracking and internal testing. I highlight the last point because no manufacturer is going to produce technical drawings or prototypes for certification without careful internal scrutiny. I'll argue this is different and in addition to normal QA testing no matter how rigorous.
Up to now, manufacturers have simply been able to change designs if QA found issues, moving forward the UCI-influenced picture is not nearly as simple, so it will require a profound level of confidence that all engineering/production issues have been anticipated and allowed for. Not so much because of cost overruns, mold changes are always very expensive, but because getting a submission wrong could totally destroy marketing timelines and associated budgets.
I'm not privy to engineering salaries in the bicycle industry but let's assume $80-$100K for a mid-level engineer, fully loaded that employee costs the employer $150K. If that employee spends half his or her time on the UCI protocol, that's $75K. Add the $25K for the two bike submission and you have $100K.
I may be overestimating the percentage of time an employee would have to devote to the issue but I've got plenty of experience estimating complex projects. If it were me allocating resources given all the unknowns and the historical difficulty working with the UCI, this is what I'd budget for.
Monocoque or Not
Reader Touriste-Routier brought up a number of interesting points, one of which was dependent on the specifics of frame assembly. The UCI protocol clearly differentiates between frames that are assembled from tubes and single-piece (monocoque) production, but I'm not sure if manufacturers could bypass the heavy fees and process of the latter by being clever about production. For instance if they produce a bike in two pieces; in other words circumvent the requirements by being able to argue that their bike is not a single-piece construction. Bikes like BMC's Impec are as sophisticated as any on the market. I assume they will benefit from the simplified approval process and fees since they are not single piece constructions.
I'm left wondering if a host of manufacturers switched production methods, would the UCI amend the protocol fee structure? Right now their motivation for extending the simplified rules is to help small and artisan builders, not necessarily to help large bicycle companies that choose multi-piece construction have an easier time with the protocol.
To the question of whether bicycles that originate from a common frame model and supplier (Taiwan) require individual certification; my reading of the protocol is yes.
Tip of the Iceberg
Reading between the lines it would appear that the UCI wants to extend its hegemony far beyond bikes and forks alone. There's too much at stake here for manufacturers, particularly the biggest ones, to cut a check and appease the UCI. Competitive cycling needs a healthy bicycle industry, free to deliver the innovation that racers and enthusiasts thoroughly enjoy. Time for the bicycle industry to check the lay up schedule on its collective backbone. If we ever needed more stiffness in that backbone now's the time.
I understand where the UCI is coming from. They seek to level the playing field for all competitors in UCI-sanctioned events by mandating that they compete exclusively on approved equipment (1.3.001bis). I spent the day with the new Approval Protocol and came away feeling, while not entirely without merit, it's a reactionary response to progress which threatens the very engine that drives the sport.
If I was a bicycle manufacturer I wouldn't be happy. Why, because I now have a not-so-silent business partner with an agenda that's going to dramatically change what, when and how I bring products to market. I don't buy the central premise, that technology is ruining competition. Once again, golf was there first and I'm very familiar with the equipment rules of the USGA and R&A. More on that in a bit, because some of the parallels are interesting.
For simplicity's sake let's confine this discussion to road cycling. Each year approximately 180 riders line up at the start of the Tour de France. Most are part of the supporting cast with no chance whatsoever for individual glory. And then there are the gc contenders. A handful of riders who can climb, time trial and stay out of trouble for three weeks. I believe that this select group could, assuming proper fit, exchange bikes on that Tour starting line, and the best rider among them would still win. Even the much vaunted F1 project that worked to give Lance Armstrong every advantage during his reign, didn't assure him victory.
Competitive R&D already levels the playing field
The world is now too small, science and technology too ubiquitous, and reverse-engineering too easy for any one company to possess a technological advantage sufficient to determine the outcome of the race. Is any one remotely surprised to know manufacturers buy and test each others bikes and equipment? Even patents can be ingeniously circumvented if necessary. In these days of too-big-to-fail bailouts the superiority of unfettered markets can no longer go unchallenged, but cycling doesn't need a soviet-era central planning committee. I'd argue that bicycle companies have a done a good job of keeping the playing field level.
I will acknowledge that the governing bodies of sport have a difficult job. Golf has struggled with this for decades. Equipment advances, particularly in the golf ball have effectively shortened many championship courses. Over the years various proposals to create a single competition golf ball have come and gone, principally because the average golfer wants to hit the ball further. Spectators at golf tournaments want to see the ball go further too.
The average cyclist, and that includes most racers and pros, love technology. I believe they (we) appreciate that a governing body exists to establish sensible principles for the bicycle (3.2.2). We don't want the Tour de France contested on recumbents, but that's where it ends. Set the basic physical parameters so that bicycles look like bicycles, but otherwise let the industry innovate.
Inverting the natural order
The new protocol subverts the natural order of things. Bicycle companies have traditionally used the professional ranks as the test bed for new technology. In fact riders and fans enjoy the one offs and special engineering that appears for the grand tours. It makes sense to develop product this way, to have the best riders in the world torture test them under the toughest race conditions. When it works, the product or innovation makes it into general production soon after. The UCI program stands all that on its head. Bicycles and forks have to be generally available in the marketplace come race time, and one-off bicycles and components are specifically outlawed. (4.1 comments on the principles)
More disturbing still is section 3.1.2 Technical Innovations. No accessory, helmet, equipment, clothing or means of communication can be used in competition unless it has been approved by the UCI executive bureau before June 30th of the previous year. In other words if you want riders to use a new TT helmet at the 2012 Tour de France, it will have to be approved before the start of the 2011 Tour. In a word this is ridiculous. I'm not clear on whether the executive bureau means the UCI president and three vice presidents, but regardless it gives the impression that these matters will be summarily decided by executive fiat.
Time to market
Throughout the protocol the UCI seems indifferent to realistic time frames. With a maximum of one month to approve technical drawings and up to two months to approve a prototype, I don't know where the UCI thinks industry players will find an extra three months in their development cycles. The UCI would probably counter that after an initial adjustment, the industry would simply anticipate these necessary steps and build it into their schedules. I'm sure the UCI understands that development is not evenly spaced throughout the year. I'm left wondering if they're truly prepared to respond in a timely fashion when hit with a wave of simultaneous submissions. If we consider how long it takes for doping decisions to be made, I shudder to think where this might end up.
I encourage you to read the protocol for yourself. There are three basic steps: the application; technical drawing submission; prototype submission, but even here there are a couple of gray areas worth noting. First, section 5.1.1 encourage pre-application dialog, which reads to me like a formula to get turned down before you even get started.
Before the Application Form is submitted, the UCI encourages manufacturers to let them know about their ideas and concepts, in order to avoid any clear breaches of the regulations, to allow a model that complies with the requirements to be designed without delay and to avoid unexpected issues when the technical drawings are checked.
Value add - all the graphic appeal of a bar code
After approval, manufacturers need to consult with the UCI to find out where they can place the official sticker. If it were me I'd be looking to put it somewhere unobtrusive since I like my designs clean. I doubt that will pass muster and I'll wager somewhere on the front-facing seat tube is where they'll all land. I won't get into the silliness that insists the stickers are applied at the time of initial painting and that after-market, third-party repainting can't reapply the sticker to the frame. If that's not restraint of trade I don't know what is.
Smaller manufacturers and artisan builders will be afforded a simpler process by virtue of the fact they don't produce monocoque frames. Frames that are assembled from individual tubes, welded, brazed, glued etc. appear to be exempt from the full technical drawing package and the prototype requirements. They do still have to pay a fee, much smaller but still substantial (approx. $800 + VAT if applicable) per model.
One piece frame submissions, covering up to eight discreet sizes, will cost manufacturers a whopping $12,000 + VAT if applicable. Compare this to the schedule of fees from the USGA golf labs where certification of a set of irons (max 10-12 clubs) costs $500. Granted the rules for golf clubs are simpler with fewer variables but the relative cost just feels more realistic. If the UCI argues their analysis involves much more complex measurement and evaluation, I'd ask... who's responsible for that?
If the oil spill in the gulf and the meltdown in the financial industry have taught us anything, it's critical that there must be barriers between industry and regulators. The protocol does make clear the importance of confidentiality and secure communications. It does not specify that regulators, those who test equipment, cannot cross over into industry. I would like to see a clause which prevented any individual involved in UCI testing from assuming an industry position for two years after leaving the employ of the UCI or it's delegates.
Might it actually compromise safety and increase differentiation
The UCI declares that protocol approval has nothing to do with safety certification, and that they assume no responsibility for any approved product that is rejected by safety standard organizations or for any injuries that result from protocol-approved bicycle usage. That's fine and to be expected. What's not good is that it's easy to imagine the protocol actually hurting overall safety. Here's why.
Manufacturers currently have unlimited scope to improve production of a given model. As product comes off the line, random samples are subjected to routine QA. Often these tests yield valuable insights that are cycled back into production improvements immediately. I worry that these kind of optimizations may not happen when the manufacturer has to consider whether the change constitutes a new model with the associated costs and delays under the protocol, or whether the modified bicycles could be disqualified at a later date after UCI scrutiny.
I'll also argue that the protocol may actually produce more differentiation between manufacturers than the intended effect of narrowing it. By staging innovations to appear after June 30th (provided they've been approved one year earlier), a manufacturer could conceivably have a window of 18-months of exclusivity on the innovation before competitors can respond. If this interpretation is correct, perhaps large manufacturers would embrace this as a competitive advantage, but it would be terrible to be on the outside looking in as your teams and riders complained about missing out on a key feature. One final note on this point. Given that the UCI is so innovation averse, perhaps this point is moot... nothing will be approved.
No thank you
In conclusion, I believe it's time that manufacturers collectively stand up and refuse to abide by these regulations. If they all refuse what's the UCI going to do, hold meaningless races where no one shows up because none of the bikes are approved. Riders, teams and manufacturers need to realize they hold all the cards and its time they assumed their rightful place at the table. Under the guise of collaboration and dialogue the protocol is an expensive take-it-or-leave it ultimatum that serves neither the racer nor the consumer. Going along is the worst thing that manufacturers can do.
This is a sad story which sticks with me even months later. A little reminder that life is a gift.
The night before the 2010 Tour of California start in Nevada City I was on my way to dinner and what I hoped would be a good night's sleep in a cozy B&B just North of the town. Earlier that day I'd driven up from Sacramento, reversing the stage-one route in search of good shooting locations. I'd found several that were promising but wasn't sure if I could get to them through the rolling road closures on race day. Then I scouted the picturesque little town to see whether the parade lap would follow the familiar Nevada City Classic loop... I secretly hoped I might find one or two teams having dinner on main street, but it turned out they'd all opted for Sacramento convenience and wouldn't show until minutes before race time. I felt sorry for local organizers who surely wished for more.
I wasn't prepared for what happened next.
I came on the scene seconds after the deer had been struck. The doe was lying on her left side in the middle of my lane, she was shaking, I saw the car that struck her in my mirror; the occupants already out the car checking the vehicle for damage. Maybe it was the thought of my own animals that made me stop, I don't know. When I got to her she struggled a little to right herself but it was clear she'd never stand again with horribly shattered front legs. Her big brown eyes were wide in shock. I cradled her head in my hands and for a moment she lay absolutely still looking up at me. It was then I felt the most incredible wave of helplessness wash over me.
Another motorist stopped and together we got her onto the shoulder. He called animal control while I kept one hand over her eyes, my other hand stroked her neck trying to comfort her. She was finished but clinging to life even as her breathing grew shorter and more labored. She struggled to rise and it took considerable strength to keep her down. I could feel my own heart beating in my ears as the interminable minutes ticked away. My mind wandered. I seemed to trade places with the deer and it was my life being measured out on the road. Would anyone be with in my final moments? Would I know they were there?
Twenty minutes passed and still she tried to rise. It broke my heart to hold her down but letting her up with open fractures was too painful to consider. Her bladder failed as the life slowly drained out of her but she struggled on. Several more cars stopped. For the first time in my life I hoped one of them would have a gun, none of them did, so I knelt beside her as the car headlights came on, not wanting to leave until she was gone.
At last two Highway patrol cars pulled up. In this part of California this is probably a daily occurrence. They wasted no time, pulling her a little closer to the edge of the road, the officer shot her once in the chest, she briefly reared up, held herself upright for a few seconds, and then collapsed, finally beyond suffering.
I walked to my car got a bottle of water from the trunk and washed the blood from my hands. One of the half dozen cars that had stopped passed me and someone called out "thank you". I briefly thought about getting in the car and driving the four hours home. A bike race didn't seem that important anymore, but I was too tired.
I ate dinner alone at a small diner up the road, excused myself from the friendly invitation to join the B&B proprietors and guests in a drink, showered and went to bed. I lay in bed for a long time thinking about the deer, and what was really important to me. I'm glad I stopped; I'm glad I stayed.
When I woke in the morning, I was happy there were bicycles and racers to shoot. On my way to town I looked for the deer but all signs of the previous night's struggle were gone but I would not forget.
Now that the silly season is over and my oath of secrecy is no longer binding thought you'd enjoy some of these photographic moments from the HTC Specialized fit camp in December. Some of these images have already appeared on Cyclingnews.com and Peloton Magazine.com (don't forget the proper photo credits folks). More later this week.
Cav takes a little air after his fit session
Eisel leads out Goss in new team car
Marco Pinotti ready for grand tour
Congrats Hayden Roulston on NZ RR Championship
More Cav
Loved this piece by Aaron Kuehn for the Los Angleles County Bicycle Coalition, limited 2nd edition print run is now open, but hurry these should go fast, just ordered mine. Brilliant I think. View Larger. Order Link.
