BMX Basics

One hundred dollars and eighty-nine cents. That's what I spend every year, in monthly increments of eight dollars and forty cents, to read CAR magazine. Why spend that much, when I can subscribe to Automobile, Car and Driver, and Motor Trend for less than nine dollars per year each? Well, I do it for the same reason you are reading this column instead of leafing through SNAP! or BMX Plus! - honesty. CAR isn't afraid to expose a vehicle's faults, and they aren't afraid to call a car a piece of junk, even if that car's manufacturer has purchased a full-page ad directly across from their review.

An example would be the 1991 Toyota MR2. Toyota elected to hold the introductory press preview for that year's MR2, which had been completely redesigned, on an American racetrack. There were several serious accidents at that preview, involving both English and American auto writers. It was generally agreed that Toyota had made some serious errors in designing the car's rear suspension, and that the car was probably not safe to drive at high speed. When the magazine reviews for the car came out, none of the American magazines even mentioned the wrecks. CAR, on the other hand, placed a sequence of photographs of one of the MR2 wrecks on its cover that month, with the headline "HOW TOYOTA SPOILT THE NEW MR2". That took guts, and it's one of the reasons why I'm willing to spend ten times the price of the American magazines to read CAR.

For about five years in the early Nineties, CAR ran a regular series called "Dogs" devoted to the world's worst cars. Each month, a different "Dog" would be featured. Some were easy to guess - I don't think it surprised anyone to see, say, the Ford Pinto, but the mid-seventies Mercedes 230 (nominated as a "dog" because of its cost-cutting engine design, horrible interior, and sky-high price) was a tougher but no less justifiable "Dogs" subject.

I toyed with the idea of a "Dogs" feature when I was writing for BMX Today, but was told that it wouldn't be "positive" to expose shoddy and/or fraudulently marketed products. Not being willing to lose my job over the issues (although in the end, I *was* willing to lose that job for calling a spade a spade, so to speak) I shelved the "Dogs" idea.

Until now, that is. Listed below are the most notorious of BMX's Rogues' Gallery, the products which (in my opinion) were mad, bad, and dangerous to ride. I'm too lazy to dig up photos, but I will post any you're willing to scan in and send my way. Without further ado, then, here are the "Dogs" - some of them, anyway:

• Addicks Plastic Sprockets. I had the good fortune to actually see a real Addicks a couple of years ago, but even after seeing one, I found it hard to believe that a) a company would manufacture plastic chainrings that wore out after a month's worth of riding, and b) people would buy them. People did buy them, though - they were cool-looking, they weighed less than aluminum or steel chainrings, and they were trendy. Remember those reasons - cool, light, trendy - because you'll see them again below... I think that the Addicks people genuinely wanted to produce a superior product, but their technology wasn't up to the mark. It would be possible to make a superior plastic chainring today - Glock's proprietary polymer blends are more than up to the task. (Un)Fortunately, we're now defining "cool" and "trendy" differently than we did in BMX's Golden age.
• Sugino Tubular One-Piece Cranks. It seemed like a good idea - combine the simplicity and low cost of one-piece cranks with the strength and low weight of Flights. Somehow, though, Sugino got it backward, and their tubular cranks ended up costing $30, (at a time when good one-piece cranks cost $8.95) weighing a fair amount, and bending at the slightest provocation. Oh well - maybe next time. Not content with one failure, Sugino then promptly released the CT175 chromoly three-piece solid cranks, which mounted on a traditional square spindle and bent nearly immediately. The funny thing was that by sticking to what they did best - decent solid one-piece cranks - Sugino probably could have survived indefinitely in the sport. Following the path of gimmickry shoved them off the path of profitability, and that was the end of Sugino...
• UNI-Discs. "Ten Feet Faster!" was UNI's sales pitch for their fabric discs, which supposedly provided some kind of minor aerodynamic advantage when mounted on the rear wheel. Riders who chose to increase their speed by "Ten Feet!" learned to fear even the slightest crosswind on outdoor tracks - UNI-Discs were veritable yacht sails when the wind blew, and many a rider found himself being launched sideways off his bike in mid-air by the "UNI Disc Effect". Oh well, it's worth risking your life to go faster, right? Well, nobody ever proved the ten-foot theory, but it's worth risking your life to look faster, right? I thought so.
• GT Power Series Aluminum Cranks. GT's attempt to sell thirty-dollar solid aluminum road-bike cranks for one hundred and thirty dollars didn't last long, but while it did, a lot of riders learned all about the effect a hard steel spindle has on a soft aluminum crank - that is to say, it rounds it, and in a hurry, too. Like many of GT's "new technology" products, the Power Series cranks were born out of a belief that kids would believe advertising over their evidence of their own lying eyes. "Ellis Rides Power Series!" claimed the ads, but Ellis was riding Profiles at the Nationals. "Strong and Light!" claimed the ads, but the Power Series cranks weighed as much as a set of Flights and rarely lasted through an entire riding season. Eventually, GT gave in and started selling GT-branded Profiles, which is what they probably should have done in the first place. The funniest thing about the Power Series debacle was seeing Gork try to defend the cranks in BMX Action. Friends, it's a sad thing to see men lose their dignity trying to pimp a set of bicycle cranks, but it's happened before, and it will probably happen again.
• SPIN wheels. There's nothing wrong with SPINs that being sold for fifty dollars a pair couldn't cure. I think they're better than Tuff Wheels. I really do. I also think that nobody would buy them if they were fifty dollars per pair, since the only reason to buy SPIN wheels is to show your buddies how much money you're willing to waste on your bike. SPINs are inferior in every respect to a decent set of thirty-six-spoke racing wheels, but they are lighter (than some spoked wheels), cooler (if you like the way they look, anyway), and trendier (can't argue there). The outrageous price of SPINs, combined with their average-to-below-average performance in real racing conditions, make them Dogs.
• Answer ProForx. What the heck was everyone thinking? Let me get this straight - you add weight and complexity, to say nothing of cost, to your bike, in order to get one inch of poorly damped suspension on a BMX track? Don't forget the fact that ProForx rarely worked for too long. Most of the ProForx I saw near the end of the fad were well and truly broken. Supposedly, John Purse deactivated the suspension in his ProForx because he couldn't stand them but still wanted to earn his contingency money. Well, John was getting paid. The rest of you had NO EXCUSE!
• GT Aluminum Bikes. How many riders have been hurt on GT aluminum bikes? I've seen more than one, and expect to see more. How many recalls have been hushed up by the BMX press? We'll never know. Bike Nashbar in Youngstown, Ohio shared some of the details of the most recent GT aluminum recall with me, and it chilled my blood - 'sudden frame failure' seem like something you'd want to avoid? GT isn't the only manufacturer to sell dangerous alumino-scoots, but it is certainly the most avid marketer of these menaces. (I know, I know, Mongoose makes the Menace.) The power of GT advertising is so strong, however, that I've had several people who should really know better say to me, "Well, last year's GT bikes were really dangerous, but this year's bikes are fine." The next year, they say the same thing to me, with no sense of irony whatsoever. Ya know, I'm not going to give a manufacturer a second chance to injure me, but I guess some of these parents and riders are so beguiled by an eight-page color spread in SNAP that they lose all sense of reason. Perhaps the funniest aspect of all this is that, having endangered thousands of riders with their Pro, Speed, Box, and who knows what else Series, GT is now cashing in on the horrible reputation of their own products by selling a Cr-Mo Pro Series. What's the ad pitch? "Hey, suckers, if you're sick of being injured by our Aluminum bikes, why not give us some more money?" Whatever it is, it's working. Oh well.

Are those all the Dogs out there? Not by a long shot - I can think of at least fifty products sold in the past decade which should be "thrown a bone", so to speak. If you look through our list, though, you'll see that most dogs have a couple of things in common. They are usually expensive, unproven, and heavily advertised. Remember, nobody ever lost a race by using solid, reliable, proven equipment, nor have many riders been hurt by using quality products with a solid engineering and testing background. The good news about our sport is that good products have a way of rising to the top, whether they are Araya rims, S&M Slam Bars, or the Redline Cr-Mo cruisers that half of the Midwest's "old men" are riding. If you refuse to be an involuntary product tester for a lazy company, and you rely on time-proven equipment, you'll do fine. If not... well, all I can tell you is meet me at the track. You bring your aluminum bike, your 2-piece cranks, your aluminum bars, SPD pedals, stick-on safety pads, monocoque frame, and carbon fiber seatpost. I'll bring my trusty Cr-Mo cruiser, Flight cranks, Araya rims... and a doggie bag, of course!