cycling

Surviving Wisconsin Winters Part 5: the Magical Warmth of Snowboard Socks

Health

snowboarder and dog

stance-snowboard-socks

I don’t intend this as a review of any specific sock, though I’ve already come to rely on Stance Socks. I only want to highlight a key feature of knee height wool socks.

While it’s only an extra few inches of wool, knee-height adds significant warmth. It’s a magic-bullet layer of insulation that boosts overall warmth, while adding zero bulk to your torso.

Though each sock covers only an additional five inches of skin, it’s special skin. It’s your extremities. So, in covering 20% more of each leg, you’re shutting down 20% of lower-extremity body-heat radiation. Stated in the inverse, you are increasing heat retention. Think of the difference a turtleneck makes. Same difference, even more so.

Really, it’s like adding a Capilene 2 long-sleeved thermal top — but adding neither bulk nor fabric-on-fabric friction to your torso. Magic!

[Animation credit:  Jeremy Thompson; Snowboarder.com]
[Photo credit:  Stance Socks]

Surviving Wisconsin Winters, Part 4: Wool — It Does a Body Good

Health

wool for overcoats

This year I have a new go-to layer for winter cycling:  an old, cashmere polo shirt. The warmth is incredible, but it’s also got the buttoned polo collar and short sleeves, so it vents really well.

In my seventh Wisconsin winter, I’ve become a wool convert. Sadly, over the years I’ve stockpiled a whole closet full of Patagonia Capilene. Don’t get me wrong, Capilene is an excellent product. It breathes exceedingly well, and it offers quality insulation without bulk. But I wish I’d spent half that money on wool, instead. It’s so much warmer than any synthetic of comparable weight. (Wool does have its drawbacks.)

And the real killer app of wool is its antimicrobial properties. Don’t we wear wool sweaters months at a time without them getting stinky? We can because of wool’s microbe-fighting powers. By contrast, we wash synthetic base layers after each wearing. I wear wool much longer. Wool thermal bottoms? I wear them three to four days between washings. Longer, even. So even though I only have a few wool baselayers in my closet, I never run out of clean pieces.

Synthetics get stinky fast. The micro-textures of synthetic fibers create the perfect spawning bed for bacteria. Bacteria causes B.O. Even Patagonia garments treated with antimicrobial chemicals have to be washed after each use. Untreated garments get stinky after a few hours just sitting around the house!

Also new for me this winter:  snowboard socks. Check out my post on wool snowboard socks.

(Image credit:  Fashion Color Textile Factory)

Wrist or Hand Pain with Cycling? Try Sweptback Bars!

Health

There’s Got to be a Way

Two years ago, my doctor diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. Pretty depressing to hear those three words. But an EMG test ruled out carpal tunnel.

With that good news, I kept riding. But I had to change something to lessen the pain. I thought what I needed was getting the weight off my hands.

Cheapest Option, First

I first tried bar ends (below).

bar ends

This was the cheapest option. Bar ends gave me three hand positions, with one far above the handlebars; gripping the little curved “horn” at the top is like riding a chopper motorcycle, taking all my body weight off of my hands.

This was when the pain got really bad. Even with little body weight on my hands, riding with my hands at shoulder height placed the weight of my dangling arms squarely  onto my wrists. The pain got so serious, I had to take time off of work.

More — and More-natural — Hand Positions

I tried drop bars.  Drop bars offer three hand positions. And two of those put your grip in a more natural attitude: rather than palms-down–the position that really strained my wrists–the “hoods” and the drops place your hands in neutral, like when dangling at your sides or shaking hands. But, sadly, riding on the hoods or the drops presses body weight onto the hands.

My brother, who races cyclocross, suggested a way of keeping the neutral hand position while keeping body weight off: he said to get my hands not up , but back.

Picture the suave European bicycle commuter, riding completely upright, with hands back and low (below). That’s the combination for ultimate comfort.

The only drawback: it’s so un-sporty.

amsterdam_bicycle_suit

Swept Back, Low . . . and Sporty!

Then I saw this trike!

tricycleI

I fell in love with this tricycle’s “aggressive,” upside-down installation. Some cool bike designer had the vision to flip the handlebars over because it looks cool. The result:  the hands are both back and low, while creating a rakish, jaunty profile.

So I researched “swept back” bars, intending to install them upside-down. I found the sparrow style, first (below).

sparrow_road levers

Swept back, for sure, they just weren’t back far enough, only about 30-40 degrees.

The Surly “Open” bars (below) were swept back more, 53-degrees.

surly open bar

The Velo Orange “Tourist” bars were getting closer, at about 60-degrees. Plus, installed upside down, the Tourist looks awfully slick (below).

Tourist

I eventually settled on the Nitto “Albatross”, with an 85-degree sweep (below).

Nitto-bar-compare3

And, actually, the term I should be emphasizing here is not “sweep,” but rather “reach.” In this photo compare the reach of the Nitto Mustache (90 mm) vs. the Nitto Albatross (170 mm).

reach - albatross vs. mustache

The longer the reach, the farther back your hand position, and the more upright you’ll be, taking more weight off of your hands.

Here’s my cyclocross bike (below), with the Nitto Albatross installed upside-down. Pretty cool, huh! Neutral hand position. And my hands are back far enough to take 95% of the weight off.

bike for blog

I have since been undergoing serious physical therapy for the hand pain. But in the meantime I’m riding my bike with a lot more comfort. My Albatross bars are taped all the way across for three hand positions.

Technical Considerations

NOTE:  Choosing handlebars is somewhat complex.  The diameter of the tubing must fit your existing brake clamps and/or shifter clamps.

Diameter measurements are critical at two different places on the bars (three, if you want to go with bar-end shifters):

1) clamp diameter (where the stem clamps the bars)

2)  tube diameter (where you want to install the brake levers).

Replacing drop bars? Unless it’s a vintage bike, the stem clamp diameter is either 25.4 mm, 26.0 mm (Italian std.), or the more recent “oversized” 31.8 mm.  (See Sheldon Brown:  http://sheldonbrown.com/harris/handlebars/index.html.) Given all these variables, you may or may not be able to keep your existing stem. But the stem is fairly inexpensive. You may want a new stem, anyway, for improved height or shorter reach.  The point is to get you more upright and get the weight off your hands.

But test out your new swept back bars with your existing stem. Have the second, very different stem, picked out to compare the two.  If it’s a “pop top” stem, it’s an easy switcheroo.

Tube diameter is the more expensive consideration. Going to a swept back bar may require you to replace your existing brake levers and shifters. In my case, I had to replace all of the above. The expensive bar-end shifters ($120), set me back nearly $400 for the complete customization.  By the way, bar end shifters require an interior tube diameter of 20 mm.

Most swept-back bars come in 23.8 mm, which does not accept MTB brake levers. (MTB brake levers require 22.2 mm tubing; some mechanics claim you can simply “shim it”; don’t listen to them if you want your brake levers to remain positioned properly.) I really wanted two-finger style MTB brake levers, which would’ve been easier on my hands.  But you can’t have everything.  The next best thing for me was Shimano’s BL-R550 road break lever set (see my bike, above).

SECOND CAVEAT: some of these measurements might be off.  Please confirm them with your LBS before ordering any parts.  You can also check here:  http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ha-i.html

Good luck!

Surviving Wisconsin Winters, Part 3: Windproof Boxer Briefs

Health

frozen crotch

I’ve previously blogged about frozen groin syndrome when winter cycling. In that post I recommended stuffing a pair of glove liners down there to keep frostbite from one’s nether parts. My new solution is infinitely more elegant. Smartwool makes a pair of merino boxer briefs with a well-placed windproof panel. I present to you the Smartwool PhD NTS Wind Boxer Briefs:

boxer briefs windproof Smartwool

I wish I’d had them on when riding home from a Super Bowl party the other night. Temps were in the low single digits. The ride took an hour. I thought I had layered up perfectly. What a joy it was to ride hard and generate lots of heat, my torso warm and my Levi’s 501 Cords venting the perspiration.

I didn’t have an extra pair of glove liners with me, so my groin got cold. Painfully cold. Then, after a half-hour, the area went mercifully numb.

The trouble was getting home and having the blood return to my frozen crotch. If you’ve ever spent a lot of time in serious temps, skiing, ice fishing, hiking, you know all too well what happens when you get home. The blood returning to your numb finger tips and toes means hours of stinging, searing, aching pain.

Yeah. That.

I’ve had these windproof boxer briefs for a month, now. This product absolutely works. I’ve ridden my bike three different days in subzero weather. What a difference. They’re expensive, at $50. But that’s the cost of living the outdoor life in Wisconsin. Either that, or stuffing your drawers.

Need Some New Sunglasses? Try Tifosi Optics

Health

I need to replace a pair of wrap-shades I’ve recently lost. Over the years, I’ve found myself buying Tifosi Optics again and again as a function of budget and comfort.

Tifosi manufactures mid-grade sports eyewear that hits the sweetspot of middling price and more than adequate performance. The build quality is solid; the pair I’ve just lost would’ve held up years longer. Congrats to the person who has found them and not turned them in at Lost-and-Found!

Unfortunately, Tifosi no longer makes that model, called the “Pave.” I try on over thirty (no joke!) different models, at three(!) different bike stores, to no avail. The newer designs don’t fit my face well, at all. Not even their new “Asian Fit” line for smaller, rounder faces feels good.

I ultimately throw up my hands and buy the pair the bike store manager is wearing, simply because they look cool on him. Tifosi calls these the “Dolomite 2.0”

Tifosi Dolomite 2.0 2015

I choose the Dolomites with the photochromic lenses. In the end they feel great on my face. The new, adjustable nose pads are a real improvement and keep them from sliding down my mosly bridge-less, Asian nose. The only problem: the photochromic lenses only darken about halfway. According to the Tifosi site, they should get much darker. I nearly return them.

Thank goodness my wife suggests the lenses might need a “break-in” period. She means repeated exposure to sun then shade, sun then shade. Sure enough, the photochromic properties improve over the course of a week. They’ve now become my favorite pair of glasses in recent memory.

ONE CAVEAT

Avoid, at all costs, the Tifosi single-lens design, like this one:

Tifosi single-lens style 2It’s a design fiasco. Durability of Tifosi frames comes from its flexible nylon material. The nylon admirably bends without breaking. HOWEVER, the lens is made of very un-flexible polycarbonate. So, even just a small amount of flex to the bridge (above the nose pads) will crack the lens. A cracked single-lens will forever fall out of the frame.

Bike Maintenance — Five Drops of Oil or One?

Health

bike-maintenance

In September, I put on a new chain. After just two weeks, it started showing rust. Yes, I do lockup outside. But the rust would come even after dry, sun-baked weather. What the hell?

The rust does come off easily. But I found myself having to lube five times a month. Uh, no. I don’t love my bike that much.

So what caused the premature corrosion? Had my LBS (local bicycle shop) sold me an old chain that had been sitting on a back shelf for years? No. With the rust off, the steel plates gleam way too brightly for that scenario. I did switch brands of lubricant earlier in the year. Was that the problem? Couldn’t be — otherwise, my previous chain would’ve demo’d this problem, too.

I’ll cut to the chase. The problem was me.

Yep. I got lazy. Rather than my standard style of chain maintenance, in which I use a lot of oil, I started a new lubing regimen of only a single drop on each link. Just a single drop freed me from the interminable chore of wiping off excess oil. I hate having black, grimy fingers and a backache. With only a single drop per link, I could just wave a towel at my bike from ten feet away and call it done.

The question of “one single drop per link” versus five is a raging debate on the Web.

See: I didn't make it up. All these bike maintenance articles recommend "a single drop" of chain lube.

Countless expert bike maintenance articles recommend “a single drop” of chain lube.

My whole life I’d been in the five-drops camp. Why change now? I’ll tell you why: I’m pushing 50. Hunching over for ten minutes straight to wipe off excess oil is a young man’s game.

Or so I thought.

Using just a single drop may have saved me the initial headache of wiping the chain. But talk about penny wise, pound foolish. Lubing every five days easily tripled my chain-lubing work each month. Now I had this chore six times per month instead of once or twice. I got so tired of crouching down, I splurged on a $130 bike stand, so I could at least I could stand upright. But that meant hoisting my anchor-heavy, 1980’s, steel mountain bike onto the stand and fiddling it into the tricky clamp. And when the weather got too cold to do the work outside, I’d have to carry this beast of a bike (43 lbs. with full fenders and a rack) up two flights of stairs. Did I mention I’m forty-nine years old?

for chain lube blog post smaller

 

Plus, turns out the main reasons I switched to the single-drop method aren’t as persuasive after three months of all this hassle. Back in August, the single-drop advocates had me convinced with their seeming logic:

  • over-lubing creates part-destroying grime;
  • wiping a dirty chain drives grit from the surface to the interior and causes the chain to gnash on itself;
  • ignore this advice, risk a broken chain.

Well, people? I’ve tried it your way. It’s just not worth it. You might be right, my drive train might wear out faster. Or a broken link might strand me on a trail miles from nowhere.

But I don’t give a crap, anymore. I did care for a few months. Never, again.

(I’ve never in my life had a chain break on me. Have you?)

chain-broken-link

 

Love Your Bike? Secure It Well

Health

Cronus locked up

How to Choose a Great (And Not so Great) Bike Lock

When I bought a fancy bike last year, I felt I needed to upgrade my security for it. Holy cow, is there ever a swamp of options to wade through when choosing a bike lock. Cable locks. U-locks. Chains. Kryptonite. Onguard. Blackburn. Abus. And they’re all so different.

After many hours of research, I picked a very secure lock. Then immediately had buyer’s remorse. I wish someone had told me to consider weight and convenience. My purchase, a Kryptonite U-lock, model “New York Lock M-18WL,” for $120.  While very secure, at 6.5 lbs it’s a total pain to carry around. After a few months, I got tired of schlepping that monster everywhere and had to find another, lighter-weight lock.

Back to the drawing board!

Two basic design principles had originally led me to buy the New York Lock M-18: a narrow shackle and 16mm thickness (or greater). These two design features neuter the two most common attacks against U-locks.

1) Bottle jacks: Bike thieves can bust open nearly any U-lock using a twenty-dollar tool available at any hardware store called a bottle jack, as demonstrated in this video . . . (Darn, YouTube has taken down all videos of bottle jacks defeating U-locks.) That is, unless the shackle is too narrow to fit a bottle jack inside the “U”.  If the jack won’t fit, it’s useless against the lock. Here’s a photo of a bottle jack beginning to warp a U-lock shackle: (photo credit needed)

bottle jack attack

2) Bolt cutters: A shackle with a thickness of 16mm is too thick for the jaws of even the largest bolt cutters. Less than 16 mm can easily be cut by bolt cutters, like this:

The little brother of my New York Lock M-18, called the New York Fahgettaboudit Mini ($90), has both a narrow shackle and an 18mm thickness. And it’s lighter and smaller; its shackle is only 4 inches long, instead of 8 inches, making the NYF Mini only 4.55 pounds. I could have saved myself more research by just going with it. http://www.kryptonitelock.com/Pages/ProductInformation.aspx?PNumber=997986     

But that’s still heavy. Worse, an even bigger problem is its shackle is actually too small to be practical. It’s so small, people ride around with the NYF Mini stuffed in their back pockets. For portability, that’s a pretty great feature. However, the shackle is so narrow, it severely limits the ways in which one can lock up a bike. It can lock a bike frame to a bike rack, but without room for either of the wheels. Plus, if your frame tubing is oversized, as mine is, good luck using the NYF Mini on a thicker street pole (like a parking meter). It just won’t work. And the lock is too small to lock up just the rear wheel, as shown below with a larger lock: (photo credit needed)

bike lock proper

The Sweet Spot

I eventually found a U-lock by OnGuard, the Brute Mini ($70), which hits the sweet spot between strength and weight. At 16.8mm thickness, the Brute Mini is impervious to bolt cutter attack. Yet the lock weighs in at a svelte 3 lbs. The shackle is also about 15% larger than the NYF Mini. With just that much additional size, I rarely have difficulty locking up my bike. Yet the shackle is still too small to fit a bottle jack.  (See my photo at the top of this post. There’s no way to fit a bottle jack inside the shackle.)  http://onguardlock.com/products/u-locks/brute-mini-u-lock/

Bike Locks I Ruled Out

Lots of people use cable locks because they’re cheap and convenient. They’re lightweight and easy to stow. But against bolt cutters, they get snipped like ribbons.  “Steel-jacketed” cable locks are a little better because they’re fatter. But they’re better only to the extent that a thief would need a second tool to get through it: one tool to flatten or saw through the (very thin) outer steel jacket, and bolt cutters for the inner cable. See the outer jacket separated from its inner cable, below. (Photo credit:  http://lettershometoyou.wordpress.com/ )

sliced-cable-lock-stolen-bike-lettershometoyou

Case-hardened hex link chain might seem like a solid option, especially since it is marketed to motorcycle owners. But the thickest hex chain is only 14mm. Thus, a pair of 42-in. bolt cutters can quickly dispense with even a $150 chain, as seen here:

Plus, a three-foot length of 14mm hex chain will run about 10 pounds. And that’s not including the lock! There is a security chain manufacturer in the UK called Almax, which produces thicker, non-hex links. But, again, the weight. Such beasts were never meant to be carried on a bicycle. Maybe for locking up at home, but certainly not to carry on one’s daily commute.

In my research I came across the very cool TiGr Lock. Sadly, I found it just after its Kickstarter campaign had expired. Doh! Missed my chance to get one for $100. Now that they’re on the market, the 0.75-in. version is $165, and the 1.25-in. version is $220. http://tigrlock.com/ Wired Magazine reviewed the TiGr Lock as “deliver[ing] the holy grail of locks–strength and lightness…” The 1.25-in version is immune to bolt cutters, and weighs a mere 1.5 lbs. Be still my heart.

But I’m just not able to plunk down $220 for a bike lock. Maybe if I hadn’t already squandered so much on that $120 albatross, the New York Lock M-18.  Sigh.

(UPDATE: I spoke too soon in praising the TiGr Lock. Have a look at this video:

Granted, the TiGr Lock being cut in the video is the 0.75-in. model. But the bolt cutters snip that lock so easily, it’s hard to believe the wider version would make much difference. (The 1.25-in. model is wider, not thicker.)

Two Attacks NOT to Worry About

Ever heard of the liquid nitrogen attack? In bike thievery lore, a lock can be shattered if frozen with liquid nitrogen, then hit with a hammer. In the wild, liquid nitrogen is simply not a common threat. Here’s a discussion of it: http://www.creekcats.com/pnprice/bikelock.html

Also rare is the angle grinder attack. The first time I saw an angle grinder in action, my heart sank. An angle grinder can dispense with any lock listed here in 90 seconds, quicker with any lesser lock. Much quicker. The good news is they cause a scene. They throw a shower of sparks and shriek like a banshee:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphyY1pnjg8  To guard against an angle grinder attack, one simply needs to park one’s bike where 90 seconds of sparks and screeching noise would be unwise for the thief. (Photo credit needed.)

angle grinder

Final Notes

No matter what type of lock you use, there’s one security principle that undergirds all scenarios:  how long you leave your bike unattended. The longer a bike sits in one spot, the higher the chances it will catch the eye of a bike thief. Also, knowledge that the owner won’t return anytime soon puts the bike thief at ease. That’s the worst kind of bike thief: the brazen thief, the confident thief. Even if your bike is secured well, given unlimited time, bike thieves will take what they can. (Photo:  Luca Masters)

stripped bikes

Ethical Wool?

Health

wool-305684_640

I’ve recently blogged about my newfound love of woolen activewear (the flipside of which is my move away from synthetic fabrics). Here’s an update to that post.

As a winter cyclist I’m amazed at the high-performance qualities of wool. But my attention has been drawn to the question of wool as an ethical product. Can one choose wool ethically?

Yes. Or at least wool can be relatively ethical, compared with the wool fiber industry of only a few years ago. Back then it was impossible for apparel manufacturers to fully trace the supply chain of raw wool. In other words, even if manufacturers wanted to offer garments made of ethical wool, the info did not exist for them to avoid “mulesed” wool. Mulesing is the horribly inhumane animal farming practice defined here.

Nowadays an industry initiative called Zque guarantees the supply of certified, non-mulesed wool. Patagonia, Ibex, and Smartwool now use Zque suppliers, exclusively. The manufacturer Icebreaker Merino has mounted a similar effort called BaaCode.

None of this completely resolves the question of wool as an ethical choice. There’s still the issue of animal cruelty in shearing operations, not to mention the bigger question mark of humane animal treatment in mass production, in general. But it is progress.

[Image credit: Pixabay]

Gore-Tex vs. eVent: Two Waterproof/Breathable Cycling Jackets Go Head-to-Head

Health, Writing

showers pass Elite 2-0

What I’m interested for this post is the waterproof/breathable (WP/BR) fabrics of two different jackets I own: Gore-Tex vs. eVent.

I’m actually not going to review the jackets, per se.  What I will do is save you all from the fatal mistake I’ve made, an honest mistake that has ruined one of these two jackets.

Pictured above is my Showers Pass Elite 2.0 jacket, $250 retail.  At the bottom you’ll find my Patagonia Super Alpine mountaineering jacket, $600 retail.  Very different market segments, I know.  The WP/BR laminate in the Patagonia is the high-end Gore-Tex Pro Shell, while that of the red, Showers Pass jacket is an unspecified, entry-level product from eVent.  So, not apples and apples.  I can’t offer up the definitive Gore-Tex vs. eVent head-to-head competition.

Or can I?

Both Gore-Tex and eVent fabrics are laminates, both using an active layer made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene). The best known PTFE product is Teflon. The PTFE used in WP/BR fabrics is manufactured by stretching a PTFE solid to be a very thin, microporous membrane. The micropores are what make the membrane at once breathable yet waterproof. The micropores are too small to let in liquid water, such as rain or melted snow, yet large enough to allow moisture vapor to pass through, such as perspiration evaporating from your skin or baselayers.

The PTFE membrane must be protected from contamination. Contaminants such as skin oils and dirt will permanently clog unprotected micropores.  Just how to protect the PTFE layer is where Gore-Tex and eVent part ways.

  • Gore-Tex covers the PTFE membrane with a protective film of polyurethane (PU) on the interior side of the jacket.
  • Rather than covering the whole PTFE membrane, eVent uses a proprietary method to somehow coat the interior of each micropore with an oil/dirt resistant chemical.

Wet System vs.  Dry System

Gore-Tex is the so-called “wet system”: it vents perspiration only after vapor has collected as liquid on the inner surface of the jacket. As liquid, the moisture necessarily seeps through the PU film by basic diffusion, from the area of higher pressure (inside the jacket) to the area of lower pressure (the outside air). This diffusion forces the liquid water through the PTFE layer. So for Gore-Tex, venting is a two-step process: body moisture (vapor) must first condense on the inner surface. Only then can it diffuse through the membrane.

On the other hand, eVent is the “dry system”: sweat vapor vents “directly” through the membrane. It need not collect as liquid, first.  In that sense, eVent is the “more breathable” of the two products.  The two-step process of Gore-Tex venting definitely takes more time.

The problem with eVent—and this is essentially why I’m writing this post—is that its micropores are still vulnerable to contamination by skin oils and dirt. Yes, the micropores are treated with an oil- and dirt-resistant chemical. But get it dirty enough– i.e., clog the pores really badly—and the PTFE loses its breathability. Permanently.

Thus, eVent garments require laundering way more often than you’d think. We’re talking cycling garments, so, “regularly” means laundering after heavy use.  Read: every, or every other, hard ride. If you ride through the winter, this means washing the jacket two or three times a week.

Washing it often isn’t a terrible hassle. But as everyone knows, washing machines are hard on clothes. So we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. Care for this jacket properly, and shorten its lifespan. Or, launder it less, and risk clogging the micropores.

In my ignorance, I managed to do both types of damage. First, I simply didn’t know of the need for regular laundering. I treated my Showers Pass jacket like a jacket. I washed it about once every four weeks. Micropores? Pretty damn, well clogged. Breathability went to near zero. When I learned of my mistake, I began washing the jacket weekly. Just one Wisconsin cold season meant laundering the jacket probably twenty times. Some of the breathability returned (though, mostly not). All the washing totally destroyed the DWR coating on the jacket exterior. Now the jacket no longer sheds water. Rain and snow don’t get through to the inside, blocked by the PTFE layer. But they do saturate the outer fabric of the jacket, sapping warmth.

Conclusion

I love my Patagonia jacket, while my Showers Pass jacket makes me sad. The Showers Pass jacket no longer performs. I’m pretty angry that the care tag didn’t alert me to the need for special care. I only learned of it on the web, after the damage was done. I wonder what percentage of eVent users know they should wash an eVent jacket as if it’s a sweatshirt? I also wonder, if laundered as often as necessary, will an eVent jacket survive even a single season?

On the other hand, I’ll be wearing my Patagonia jacket for years to come. It seems completely unfazed by three winters of serious abuse. And Gore-Tex requires no special care. So I won’t be laundering it to death.

layers vert

Surviving Wisconsin Winters, Part 1: High Performance Business Casual?

Entrepreneurship, Health

Image

High performance work clothing? Does such a thing exist? And I don’t mean flame retardant electrician’s pants or stretchy business-bombshell blazers.

Answer:  Levi’s 511 Corduroys.

Although wool is my new favorite fabric for activewear, there are two applications for which synthetics still rule:  rain gear and winter work/weekend attire. I’ve already written a post on rain gear. As far as business casual goes, Levi’s 511 Cords are a surprising fabric that can double for winter cycling.

Especially good for winter bicycle commuting, their 66%/33% blend of cotton/elastane creates surprisingly efficient wicking of perspiration. Then, when the moisture is drawn up into the corduroy, the corded channels evaporate it to the outside air. Think radiator fins on an air-conditioning unit — the greater surface area vents moisture fast. That makes these pants high-performance street clothes. (Just FYI, the tag says “polyester.” But I verified it to be elastane.)

[UPDATE 10/23/2016:  See bottom for the bad news about more recent specimens of these cords.]

Jeans used to be my mainstay winter-biking pants. It’s only denim, so I didn’t stress out when the cuffs got crusted with salt or blackened with road slush. But getting sweaty in jeans meant the denim staying damp for hours, afterward, a.k.a., cold and clammy. By contrast, Levis cords dry out in minutes.

My ideal setup is to wear a wool base layer beneath the Levis cords. The wool breathes really well, too, moving perspiration to the corduroy, which then evaporates the moisture quickly. The wool also acts as a barrier to odor causing bacteria, allowing me to wear the same pair of cords for three-plus days between washings. How’s that for high performance?

[Image credit: Wikimedia]

[UPDATE 10/23/2016:  Sadly, I’ve just bought a new pair of these cords. Levi’s has changed the fabric, reducing the elastane content to a mere 2%. That’s 98% cotton and 2% elastane. I don’t know how long ago they changed up. Too bad. I predict this new pair won’t vent anywhere near as well as my three old, now threadbare pairs bought back in 2012. Curse you, Levi’s!]