text:
It certainly would be nice to write an inspiring post about what a rewarding and empowering experience it is to do one's own bicycle builds and overhauls. But the truth is, that I do not necessarily believe that to be so - which is why I do not do it myself. Assuming that we are speaking of serious DIY here, beyond simple maintenance, these projects require the investment of considerable amounts of time, energy and money. At the risk of coming across as discouraging, here is how I see it:
- Riding
- Writing
- Tinkering
- Obsessing
- Reviews
- Features
- Trading Post
- Info
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Hard Core Bicycle DIY: Is It Worth It?
It certainly would be nice to write an inspiring post about what a rewarding and empowering experience it is to do one's own bicycle builds and overhauls. But the truth is, that I do not necessarily believe that to be so - which is why I do not do it myself. Assuming that we are speaking of serious DIY here, beyond simple maintenance, these projects require the investment of considerable amounts of time, energy and money. At the risk of coming across as discouraging, here is how I see it:
73 comments:
- AnonymousSeptember 22, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Could not agree more. It is invariably cost effective to generate income in one's area of expertise and hire someone competent to do tasks in one's areas of relative incompetence...unless it happens to be a passion or a hobby. Time is the irreplaceable commodity--it is hard to remember that, but our best memories are not generally generated whilst cleaning the toilet....ReplyDelete
I agree with this entirely, although with a couple additions:ReplyDelete
1. Many people that have never paid for bike mechanic work before are surprised at how expensive it can be - like all skilled labor, it's not cheap.
2. The hassle of trying to get the bike to the shop and leaving it there at least 24 hours is often inconvenient enough to convince people to do maintenance themselves.
I agree somewhat. There are trade-offs in everything in life, and bicycle repair is one of them. In our case do 99% of our own bike builds and repair. We do it to save money, we do it because we care more about the end result, we do it for precision, and we do it for our own sense of self-reliance (and dependence on our bikes!).ReplyDelete
I just got a new headset. I paid Harris to do it in their press. We don't get new headsets often enough to justify buying the press. But I also got new brake calipers. I'll be installing them myself when I get the bike home. I know better than they do how my old cable stops work (much better without those endings), I want to adjust my position on the bike, and I want to save the money for the installation of something that is rather straightforward.
As for the expense of tools, Boston and other large cities like San Francisco have wonderful operations like Broadway Bicycle, Bikes Not Bombs, and Bicycle Kitchen where a person can work on his/her own bike, using their stands and complete sets of tools, for a relatively small hourly fee. Missing a washer? Not a problem.
So I agree with your overall sentiment with the caveats that one need not purchase every tool made, and one need not go cold-turkey on getting some jobs outsourced professionally. Always a trade-off!
I completely agree with Reuben, with this addition: Bike shop mechanics are becoming less competent, since most bikes come pre-assembled from Taiwan. The ability to be self sufficient and then choose to delegate is another reason to learn about your bike. Murphy's Law being what it is, problems can and do happen at the strangest times.ReplyDelete
It is better to have the knowledge and not need it, than to need it and not have it. I am not saying that a complete tool kit that allows major work on frames is necessary, but a basic knowledge of how to replace and adjust parts is very important.
The big risks are the two Reuben said, plus incompetent "mechanics" at some bike shops, and the biggie is dealing with stuff that happens on the road and being competent enough to fix it, or better yet, keeping the bike in good enough shape to prevent the problem!
i can see where you're coming from, velouria, but i disagree on the "if all of the above apply" part. in truth, if only the first of your multiple criteria is met ("you truly enjoy it and look upon it as a hobby") then it makes perfect sense... even if, in the long run, it isn't cost effective. if it costs you money to do what you truly enjoy, then so be it. i know plenty of people who spend big chunks of money on the things the love: gardening, travel, cooking, various forms of art, etc... these things are ephemeral in nature and not generally income-generating, yet they provide some form of satisfaction to those endeavoring to do them. (personally, i can't understand how my sister can spend the countless hours she does weeding a garden that she only gets to enjoy a few weeks out of the year).ReplyDelete
so, i wouldn't necessarily advise that one needs to be both passionate *and* good at something to derive fun and/or joy from it; i would advise that if it makes you happy, go for it... simple as that.
Problem: many cities don't have ANY competent bicycle mechanics. In Boston, Harris Cyclery is the only place that I would trust with large repair jobs. When I lived in a smaller U.S. city for some time, there was no way in hell that I'd leave my bike in any of the bicycle shops.ReplyDelete
oh, and as for tools: true, it can be expensive, and as charlotte pointed out, it doesn't make sense to buy an esoteric tool just to use once in a blue moon. however, the way i see tool acquisition is like this: if i can do a certain job that requires a specialized tool by purchasing the tool for close to what it would cost me to have it done professionally, then i typically choose to purchase the tool and do the job myself. specialized tools also tend to hold their value, and if i ever get bored with working on bikes, i can sell many of my specialized tools for what they cost me, or close. (it helps to seek out used tools in the first place!). besides, for some people (myself included), collecting tools, in and of itself, provides a form of satisfaction. this brings me back to the essence of my original comment: if it brings joy, it's all good!ReplyDelete
Re places like Broadway Bicycles and Bikes Not Bombs - You have to live near enough to them to drag the (often non-functional, or frame-only) bike there, and your schedule must correspond to their opening times. This does not work for us, but I can certainly see how it could work for others.ReplyDelete
somervillain - You can enjoy DIY very much, but unless you are also good at it, it is irresponsible to, say, build up your daughter's bike. I don't mean literally "you" of course; I know you are good at it! And I think it is very fair to say that every bicycle DIY-ist has at least *a bit* of the obsessive/control freak in them.
- philippeSeptember 22, 2010 at 12:26 PM
As someone who truly enjoy working on his bikes and, at the same time, sucks badly at it, I think your points are well taken...ReplyDelete
But, no offense meant, I would challenge the idea that to assemble bike parts is to "build a bicycle from scratch". That's glorified mecanno. It takes skills, patience and taste,and it may well be beyond my abilities, but it's not remotely close to genuine bike building (which starts with frame welding IMO)
Re bike shops and competence - I initially included this point, but decided to omit it, not wanting to offend any of the local shops. Maybe I will think of a way to rephrase it.ReplyDelete
But basically, I think that bike shop competence is largely a matter of preference and has a lot to do with how particular we are about our bikes. I have been to several local shops with excellent reputations and after chatting with them for a few minutes it became apparent that I knew more about some aspects of vintage bikes than they did. Needless to say, this did not inspire confidence for me to allow the mechanics in these shops to touch my bike. Yet others rave about the very same businesses, so maybe it depends on who you happen to talk to.
velouria, it's also irresponsible to do *any* form of DIY that poses a risk: the DIY plumber who tries to remodel his own bathroom and ends up destroying his house from water damage; the DIY electrician who burns his house down; the DIY auto mechanic who causes his brakes to fail. of course there are some things better left to "experts", but implicit in the DIY tendency is a certain degree of aptitude. most people who lean towards doing things themselves have at least half a brain and a desire to learn. those with closer to a whole brain *should* also have a healthy risk/benefit sense: enough sense not to tackle something beyond their means, for risk of a negative consequence, whether that be injury, financial loss, etc...ReplyDelete
phillipe - "Completing a bicycle build" refers to building up a bicycle from the frame up. It is standard phraseology, not glorification. Clearly we do not claim to have built the frames. I think "assembly" differs from a "bicycle built", in that the former suggests a pre-determined kit. For example, you receive a disassembled bicycle in a box, and it requires assembly. A bicycle build, on the other hand, requires decisions and calculations about components.ReplyDelete
somervillain - agreed!
Looking at bike work as having two levels (i.e. basic maintenance and "hard core" mechanics) is perhaps one reason more folks don't do more of their own work.ReplyDelete
The more I learn, the larger my "basic" category seems to grow, and now overhauling headsets and BBs seems basic to me. Wheel building is still somewhere in the middle, and frame building (actual designing and welding) is the only thing that seems hard core any more.
My point is that a bicycle is a relatively simple machine, and that understanding deeply how it works and how to fix it when it breaks is easily worth the time and money investment, even if it's not your favorite thing in the world to do.
Also, the misperception that "I'm just no good at that kind of stuff"--which a lot of people say about a lot of things, is a limiting world view that keeps people from doing things they might otherwise enjoy and be good at if only they gave themselves some credit and time to learn.
Golly, that got preachy there at the end! Of course, everybody has to make the choice for themselves, whatever the reasons ultimately end up being.
I don't think it's fair to characterize someone that doesn't know what they're doing tinkering around with their own bike as inherently dangerous. The beauty of bikes is that they are extraordinarily simple machines that pretty much anyone can figure out if they stare at one long enough. That's not to say that there aren't some jobs better left for pros, but adjusting brakes or something isn't rocket science.ReplyDelete
Sure there's the off chance that a poor brake job leaves you without brakes while careening down a dangerous hill. But far more likely is that they'll fail while you're still in your own driveway. Nobody should attempt jobs that are beyond their mechanical skill, but nobody should be afraid of adjusting a bicycle just because they've never done it before.
Competence is not even that abstract of an issue. Take cotter pins for example, many shops will tell you up-front that they don't want to work on your bike, or worse, they'll do it destructively. (Like the time a mechanic took a hammer to my BB, ruining the bearings and denting the lockring.) Just by itself, this makes it very hard to take in old 3-speeds for service.
I'm also not a huge fan of "self-help" at the Broad Bicycle School. It gets quite expensive quickly and working under the clock is a *really* bad idea unless you've done a particular repair many times before. Even then, doing any kind of repairs in a hurry is a *reallly* bad idea.
I'll also mention the issue of cost again. Paying top dollar for quality service is one thing, but more often you end up paying for poor judgment, bad advice, and unnecessary work. (Recently at a LBS, I saw a customer having to pay for a wheel rebuild after requesting a truing on a new bike.)
Reuben - I don't know, I could tell you some stories of people getting hurt because a friend fixed their bike, or even an incompetent bike shop mechanic. This is not to strike fear into anyone who wishes to attempt DIY, but to reinforce the idea that when a bicycle is to be used for transportation, the person working on it must be competent. Brakes are important not only when careening downhill, but also at busy traffic intersections. Competence is important.ReplyDelete
i really think it comes down to personal comfort level, and perhaps confidence level, although the two are intertwined. the question of "is it worth it" is not easily answered, because it's a question of how much time/effort/money is invested into something from which to receive a certain reward, and what is the value of that reward to the individual.ReplyDelete
funny side note: this summer i bought a vintage 1940s tractor (!!!) for my summer home property, and the hydraulics are acting flaky. i know zip about hydraulics (neither in theory nor in practice) and my initial instinct was to bring the tractor in to a specialist for a rebuild. but then my DIY tendency kicked in, and after a few hours googling hydraulics, i decided to tackle it myself (project for next summer). i will have to invest at least $200 in parts to do a complete rebuild, and there's a very real possibility that i will have wasted a day out of my vacation, (on top of of a $200 outlay), on a complete failure trying to tackle the job myself. but it's not going to stop me from trying... the potential satisfaction of having learned a whole new area of skill holds a personal value greater than the risk of failing.
Also forgot to mention that many bike shops have the "We the experts know best." (more like "How dare this loser with a 30-year-old bike tell me how to do my job!") that makes it very difficult to explain what you want to have done. Sometimes they won't even listen to what you have to say at all, and will instead insist on identifying any problems by themselves.ReplyDelete
@V & R: Speaking of brakes, I once witnessed a "professional" bike mechanic making a very dangerous and irresponsbile improvised repair in this area. So...ReplyDelete
On one hand I can see how many people don't have the time, knowledge or money to do their own bike maintenance. None the less, one of the primary benefits of the "neuvo retro" bicycle is the accessibility of it's design. Sure bleedling hydralic disc brakes is probably beyond most people's range of expertise. So is rebuilding an internal gear hub. But for the most part bicycle maintenance is something that every cyclist should know how to do, even if they choose to pay someone else to do it better. As a professional mechanic I see so many people come to me with infuriatingly simple bicycle conundrums, and unfortunately a large percentage of them are women. I wish that people would take the time to think of the implications of the choices they make when it comes to their personal autonomy. If you choose not to learn something simply because you know that there are plenty of "mechanically inclined" men about who are happy to save you the trouble, you are willingly surrendering your hard won liberty as a woman. Sure it may be challenging, sure there are people that do this kind of thing for a living. But what about when you are riding by yourself and something on your bike breaks and you can't figure out what happens? It doesn't matter how much money you have, or how good your bike mechanic is at home. If you can't at least diagnose the problem, even if it's as simple as turning a screw or tightening a cable a millimeter you are shit out of luck. You have no choice but to give up and wait for someone to rescue you. And what if it happens to somebody else. If you don't even have the basic knowledge yourself, how can you possibly empower other with less knowledge and experience than you? Learn how your bike works. Share that knowledge with others. That's liberation. Don't take that freedom for granted because there will always be somebody more than happy to take that freedom away from you. The bicycle is equality, so fight for equality.ReplyDelete
With respect and encouragement,
Evan in Seattle
I would say that whether it's worth it is an individual decision that is best made after trying --- but then I am one of those people willing to give most things a go at least twice. Start with the basics, test in the stand (or while holding the bike up), and then at slow speeds in the grass.ReplyDelete
One needn't always go it alone, either. Some bike shops and bike advocacy groups run bike maintenance classes that provide a gentle and safe introduction.
As another poster commented above, bikes are simple machines and I think it's generally a good idea to understand the machines we use. I also think the best way to understand a machine is to work on it.
This is all a very long winded way of saying, trying or not trying is all up to the individual. However, in my opinion, it's generally a good idea.
- AnonymousSeptember 22, 2010 at 1:46 PM
With regards to the competencyReplyDelete
of bicycle shop mechanics, I agree
that is does depend to some extent on the customer expectations.
For example, in Germany and the Netherlands, bicycle mechanics tend to be qualified and have high standards, that match the expectations of their clients.
Another aspect of this is that bicycles are becoming ever more specialized, and so are the mechanics. I have a shop nearby that is comfortable dealing with hub gears and drum brakes. Another shop is expert at rebuilding suspension components and hydraulic disk brakes. So you do need to pick your mechanic.
Take your Gazelle to a mountain bike shop
and you will get blank stares.
Taking your bike to a co-op would save almost all of the expense of buying tools, and knowledge is readily available these days. But certainly some problems are more complicated than others and everyone's time is valuable, so I wouldn't question anyone's decision to take their bicycle to a shop. I just hope that owners would not dismiss working on their bicycle out of hand.ReplyDelete
BTW Charlotte - How did you get the frame and fork to Harris in order for them to install the headset? I have not found a good way to transport frame and fork by bike, especially over such long distance.ReplyDelete
Improving my bike-wrenching skills over the past year has been a great joy.ReplyDelete
You bet, I get frustrated when things don't go as planned. But it's so rewarding to restore a clunker into a thing of beatuy.
Velouria, you are absolutely correct about devoting your time to working in your field instead of truing spokes and rebuilding hubs. It's called competitive advantage.
If I tried to make a living as a bike mechanic, I'd probably starve to death because I'm so slow. But I still have fun.
And now we know why Velouria has accumulated so many beautiful bikes these past few months -- to keep her spouse busy.
- AmmoboxriderSeptember 22, 2010 at 2:49 PM
It occurred to me that bicycle repairs and maintenance seem to follow an exponential curve when it comes to tools. The "basic stuff" requires basically nothing more eclectic than a screw driver and a decent set of alan wrenches, but once you start getting into more complicated repairs and you start having to buy bizzarre and expensive tools you've never even seen before. I tend to limit myself to stuff I can do with the tools in my tool box at home and leave more complicated stuff to the LBS.ReplyDelete
Although I recently acquired an old raleigh built Eatons Truline Glider which is tempting me to restore it...it's chrome fenders call to me even as I write this!
- MoopheusSeptember 22, 2010 at 3:14 PM
It's definitely an area where everyone has to make their own choices as far as what tradeoffs make sense for them. I think that anyone who rides should be able to do basic maintenance tasks like cleaning your drive train and adjusting cable tension. Having an idea of how your bike works is good, and being prepared for emergencies is good. But when it requires expensive tools that don't get used very often, I'm willing to let the shop do that. Part of it for me is that I don't want to be without my bike if I don't really have to be. If I can take care of the problem myself, then I can ride the next day.ReplyDelete
RE: transporting frames and forks. Over the shoulder works pretty well as long as you remove the fork!ReplyDelete
The idea of being a control freak about all things to do with my bikes is so very attractive, just like I love the "idea" of DIY, carpentry, bricklaying etc.. Problem is I'm crap at all those things, and bike mechanic I'm not!ReplyDelete
Herzog - I did that in Vienna, when I had to transport my fixed gear frameset to my apartment from the guy who gave it to me. The trip was just over a mile and left me with bruises, plus I had to make more than a couple of emergency stops when the thing would suddenly slip off my shoulder. Can't imagine making this sort of trip from Boston to West Newton and back!ReplyDelete
Hi Velouria,ReplyDelete
Love your blog! I'm a newbie (female) bicyclist who has had her bike for about a year and I've found your blog to be super helpful and informative.
I just wanted to add in the comments though that I've found doing my own relatively minor repairs (not really serious DIY) has given me more confidence as a girl bicyclist. I live in car-obsessed Southern California and am mostly a commuter not a weekend warrior like most are here. Working on my own bike has helped me feel more confident and self-sufficient, and it's given me a deeper connection to my bike. Now when something doesn't feel right I don't get frustrated at my bike, I think about what might be wrong and how to fix it.
I've changed out brake calipers and levers, handlebar and stem, cables, and made lots of overall adjustments in order to figure out what works best for me (this has changed over time). I am super lucky to have a partner who's been building his own bikes for a while who will check my work when I'm done if I ask nicely (and has tools). It is super time-consuming, especially because I'm almost doing something for the first time, but fumbling my way through it has been totally worth it for me in every way so far.
Like others have mentioned, I've also had negative experiences at bike shops. I've been flat out lied to about my parts so that they could try to sell me components (this later confirmed by bike-knowledgeable friends) and insulted about the relative low-endness of my bike as they were trying to sell me a new one. I'm not suggesting that all shops are like this of course, in fact the guys at the local shop where I bought my bike are pretty nice. It's just that this all contributes in my mind to the relative merit of working on my own when I can.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my own experience (plus it was a chance to comment on your blog, which I've been reading for so long). And it's definitely true that not everyone will have the lucky situation I do, but when my boyfriend started with bikes he learned it all at Bike Kitchen and by making friends in the local bike scene. So there's that too =).
I'm a nutter. :PReplyDelete
Velouria. Time for an Xtracycle! I recently brought home a boxed up bike on mine. Much fun.ReplyDelete
It all depends on how you qualify the particular effort. If you qualify it as a learning experience or an entertainment experience, than sure, regardless of the materials and cost in time, then extreme DIY cold be worth it.ReplyDelete
I spent my entire childhood under my dad as he was working on cars - granted, I became rather mechanically inclined. To the point that, by the time I was 14, I owned a car, when I was 16, it was running 12's in the 1/4 mile, and now, it's facing a total rebuild. I got back into biking after college, and find it rather relaxing working on them. I'd actually say that I like working on them at least as much, if not more so, than riding them.ReplyDelete
We've talked quite a bit about DIY and it took months to get comfortable with the simplest tasks. A lot depends on which kinds of bikes you have, how many and whether you live near good shops. The experience one gets from working on 3 speeds is not quite enough to jump into derailer bikes. On the other hand, I've learned quite a few things from just talking about my "projects" with mechanics at Harris Cyclery. I've made a few bike-savvy friends. It's great fun so long as I don't try to add up my "savings." :)ReplyDelete
So, yeah, if one point is clear it's that money won't be saved working on your own bikes, all factors, time, efforts, damaged parts and learning considered. The co-ops may help, of course, and it may even make sense to get a rebuilt bike from one of them to get started. I assume most readers here already have a bike or two so the advice to go to the local co-op and seek used working bikes may come too late.
matthew, similar story here! except substitute for my dad my neighbor/grey market auto importer. it was working for him rehabbing healeys, MGs and jags from age 13-18 that fostered my love for wrenching and paved the way for my obsessional approach to all things mechanical.ReplyDelete
MDI, i don't think i agree with the idea that money won't be saved working on your bikes. after the initial learning curve, the savings become clear. the difficult task is separating money you spend on your bikes out of the obsessional need to tweak, improve or otherwise needlessly modify, versus that spent on necessary maintenance/repair. if the latter, savings are assured.
being the penny pincher that i am, one of the biggest motivating factors behind my starting to wrench my own bikes four years ago was being charged $40 labor to change the tires on my wife's raleigh sports. when i later realized i could do it myself in about 1/2 hour's time, it became clear that i could save money doing my own repairs. sure, i've wasted some money and damaged some parts early on in the learning process, but that's a pretty minimal loss for the experience gained. so what's clear (to me, at least) is that money definitely can be saved by working on your own bikes.
- AnonymousSeptember 22, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Well said Velouria, but I also think that anyone who has an interest in DIY will either quickly find that doing even the small easy stuff fails to achieve the necessary degree of practicality or that , like the Co-Habitant,that it is a satisfying challenge they get comfortable with pretty fast.(actually, maybe that's what you are saying too...)ReplyDelete
If you think you might want to try it don't feel like you have to do the whole cost/benifit calculation before giving it a shot. Somervillians comments on wether it's "irresponsible" or not seem to be on the mark. I'd just like to add that bikes are one of those rare, really sophisticated devices left that one really can find real usefull help/information on and the basic tools really don't need to include much bike specific stuff to do the simple stuff.
I really love messing around with bikes and I've been at it so long my perspective is probably skewed, but I cling to my belief(maybe foolishly) that bikes are basically freindly things that seem to want to make us look good.
P.S. The bamboo frame is about half done now and it may not end up horribly deformed and revolting afterall... The basement stinks like epoxy though.
When I was a teenager, I was going to run away from home on my bike. When I thought about it, I decided I would take off the day of my high school graduation. Though I didn't carry out my "plan", it did motivate me to learn how to fix my bike. I figured that it would come in handy if I were stuck in the middle of nowhere.ReplyDelete
I started with a copy of the first edition of Tom Cuthbertson's "Anybody's Bike Book." Really, anybody could learn how to do bike repairs from that book! I'm not a mechanically inclined person, but I've assembled and fixed bikes in three different shops, and I can honestly say I've done everything short of building a frame.
Now I'm glad I have those skills because, as fortunate as I've been to find a couple of good, honest mechanics (and shops), I know that milieu, like so much of the rest of the world, is a man's domain. I, and two female friends with whom I sometimes ride, have stopped in shops on our rides and have had mechanics, sales people and manager/owners try to sell us items or repairs we didn't need, or stuff that wouldn't work on our bikes. Many male bike shop personnel still seem to think that one has to have a "tool" in a particular area of one's body in order to competently twiddle wrenches.
I am enjoying that your post is very timely with my adventures in bicycle mechanics and maintenance. Last weekend, I did the following to my husbands vintage touring bicycle: installed a new stem, new brake and derailleur cables and housing, new aero brake levers for the drops and interruptor brake levers, and changed the downtube shifters for bar end shifters. I was feeling pretty handy and proud of myself, and then, in the inaugural short ride, my husband attempts to downshift the front derailleur, and the cable rips clear out of the fastening point. Ok, so I did not tighten the screw that holds the cable enough-- no big deal. I then move the chain onto the granny gear in order to get back home, and then after two pedal strokes, the granny gear FALLS off the crank. It turns out that it was only being held on with one or two screws, but I had not noticed. This experience rattled my and my husband's confidence in my abilities. So I went to the LBS with my tail between my legs, and I found out that I actually did a fine job with the brakes, and they were able to put a new granny gear back on since the old one was really bent. So, we are back on the road, and in the end, I am glad this happened because it taught me a lesson to make sure all the important bike parts are really affixed to the bike as they should be!ReplyDelete
Just tonight I readjusted my rear derailleur, and I am really glad I know how to do this-- otherwise I would not be able to ride my workhorse bicycle every day.
Having said what I said in my previous comment, I should add that I do less and less of my own work. It doesn't have to do with my gender change; rather, it has more to do with the fact that sometimes I have to choose between working on one of my bikes and riding when I have time. It also has to do with getting older: I don't have as much time left on this planet as I had when I was younger, so I think more about how I want to spend it. While working on my bikes is not disagreeable, and is sometimes relaxing (in a similar way to cooking, interestingly enough!), there are other ways I'd rather spend my time.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 23, 2010 at 12:41 AM
I read your post along with Bike Snob NYC's posts about expensive bikes and clueless owners. Please tell us that you support everyone learning how to fix a flat regardless of their desire to engage in further mechanical adventures.ReplyDelete
BTW, Harris is conveniently located (for us South Enders) at the West Newton commuter rail stop on the Framingham/Worcester line.
I see this as a gray area more than you do; while it certainly does not make sense for you to work on bikes if you find it stressful and it is easy to find individual assignments, I'd agree with other posters that learning a little or a lot more repair can make sense depending on where and when you ride. Even learning small tasks can expand the usefulness of your bicycle dramatically.ReplyDelete
Taking the bike to the shop costs time as well as money, and leaving without the bike and returning can be time consuming, especially if you don't have a car, or many qualified bike shops in a reasonable radius.
Like Somervillain, I find many new tools cost about the same as a repair; in this case going to a bike shop can take as much time and more money than buying the tool and making many repairs over time. Used tools make DIY even more attractive, and there are low cost substitutes for bike stands or cotter pin presses (C clamp and socket).
Similarly, knowing how to fix flats, change tires, or make small adjustments (brakes, gears) lets you ride in areas where shops or buses are not close by.
This is even truer if you want unusual bicycles; as you noted the vintage bikes are very attractive in terms of style and reliability, but many shops don't know how to fix them, and are more interested in selling new bikes with much lower utility value.
In my case, I'd be spending money to take time to go to the shop and be encouraged to spend a lot more money on a bicycle that will do less than vintage bikes that are fairly simple to fix. For many riders, it can easily make sense to find 1 good shop than can overhaul internal gears every 20,000 miles or so, and replace tires, chains, brakes, and perhaps cotter pins or bearings themselves.
Mark - I think it is absolutely up to the individual whether they find it worthwhile to know how to fix a flat. On certain bikes, like Dutch bikes and English Roadsters, it is actually pretty difficult, because it is a lot of trouble to remove the rear wheel. In many ways, I think it is better to suggest that beginner cyclists get really good tires with puncture protection, than learn how to fix flats. In general, I don't see why our attitude to bike DIY should be any different to our attitude toward other types of DIY: some people like it and find it easy, others do not.ReplyDelete
With regard to changing flats, I agree completely in the case of Dutch Bikes and English Roadsters that stay close to home. However, until we have AAA for bicycles, if one wants to venture far away one had best know how to patch together enough of a repair (on any part of the bike, not just the tires) to get home or at least to a train/bus station to get home.
As for getting a frame/fork to Harris, in that case I'd probably pad it and attach it securely to my rack. In this case it was my fully built 3 speed with front and rear racks that needed the work so 1) I couldn't do that and 2) I wasn't going to disassemble all that for a headset upgrade. My other headset was barely functional and before I add anything more to the bike I thought it was time to get it upgraded. Hopefully the new one won't slip so badly. At any rate I had to leave the bike for several days, and so made both trips to Harris in a car. So you see I'm not a 100% purist in bike repair OR transportation modes!
While the bike was in the shop I got to commute to work on my husband's Brompton. What fun!!!!! But that's a subject.
Cars break down in far-away places too, and most people I know would just call a tow company (if they have cell phone signal, that is...)ReplyDelete
I see beginner cyclists warned about the importance of road-side repair, but I don't often see new drivers lectured on being able to operate a jack and change a wheel on their car. Both skills can be important, but let's not forget that some people simply can't enjoy bikes (or cars) when faced with all this DIY peer pressure.
Regarding changing flats and other easy repairs: I know that this is somewhat of a controversial issue, with one camp saying that it is ridiculous to be a cyclist and not be able to do it, and the other camp saying that a sign of a truly "healthy bike culture" is not having to know how to do it. My view is somewhere in between, but closer to the latter. Yes, if you go on a long isolated tour alone, you should be able to fix a flat (and adjust your derailleur, and do a few other things too!). But even long daytrips (in reasonably populated areas) don't warrant it, in my opinion. There are so many excellent kevlar protection tires out there, that the chance of a flat is as slim as a chance of more serious bicycle malfunctions. I would rather that beginner cyclists invested in those tires and felt free not to worry about flats.ReplyDelete
PS: On a previous post, some readers suggested a number of clubs and companies that provide bicycle road assistance. For example, this.ReplyDelete
My dad wouldn't sign off of my driver's license until I could change a tire, and explain what a cam shaft was, what a carburator does (did), and the correct procedures for jumping standard and automatic transmission cars. Must be us independent Western folk!ReplyDelete
But no doubt, if you're riding to Walden Pond you're not going to die of exposure on your walk to the commuter rail should something go wrong. (hopefully!) :)
Tuesday night in the South End I did see a guy on the cyclist's "walk of shame". It was dark, he was in full lycra kit, walking in his socks, carrying his Look shoes, and beside him his carbon-fiber rocketship. I was confused for a second but his very unhappy expression filled in the story - he must have just gotten off of the Back Bay commuter rail after waiting for a post-rush hour train, and there was something wrong with his drivetrain as the chain was sagging. Whatever happened certainly spoiled his evening!
on a slightly different note, i just wanted to mention that your mixte is looking great! folks, it looks even better in person than in the pics. i saw it in person probably minutes before these pictures were taken (velouria, you were either inside and didn't want to come out to say hi ;-) or i just missed you). agreed, the cohabitant has DIY skilz!ReplyDelete
For me, it's a hobby, so I do it. Since my job is in a "human" field, I find the finite nature of mechanical problems very soothing -- when the machine rolls, you know you did it right and you're done. Teaching just isn't like that.ReplyDelete
However, I don't promote bike DIY -- even the minor stuff -- to other people, and that's because I do want transportation biking to spread beyond the small circle of hobbyists.
While some people do enjoy DIY auto mechanics, too, the vast majority of motorists have no interest whatsoever in how their car works. Biking should be the same way -- a hobby for a few, but a normal way of life for most.
Thank you for your informative and always deli ghtfully written pieces. I always felt inadequate having to take my bike to the "shop" for overhauls, but have gradually learn't my limits. I can strip, clean and repair. fix punctures, change cabling, grips and "consumables". I no longer feel the need to be an expert, and have a reliable expert to take bearing changes and servicing to.ReplyDelete
love the blog v.
somervillain - I totally agree with the obsession! I'll spend an hour after changing cables adjusting the brakes to get them JUST RIGHT. I think that's my hang up with most index systems - they're just too frustrating for me. If 5th gear shifts up with a clatter, it's not right, and won't be right, and needs to be fixed. I've spent hours on a cannondale I recently picked up trying to get the indexing just so. Finally, I switched off the indexing and forgot about it. No sense driving myself crazy when there's a better system out there already!ReplyDelete
I'm not sure I agree that you need to own multiple bikes in order to justify the cost of tools, but it does help if you have a long-term view...ReplyDelete
I have acquired my tools bit by bit over 30 years - somewhat recently, my car was broken into, I didn't care about the electronics, I was totally bummed that my bike toolbox was gone! Fortunately, the goods were recovered - what are the odds of that?!
I find that repetition helps, along with books and, occasionally, knowledgeable friends. The Internet can be really helpful.
Anyway, when I was in college, I had a lot of time on my hand and would completely disassemble and reassemble my bike every month or so just because I had nothing better to do. This helped me feel more and more comfortable with the procedures.
Once in a while I make a mistake, but rarely the same one twice, and nothing was dangerous. In fact, it was a poorly adjusted low gear limit that allowed my chain to jump into the spokes and break one, this caused me to evaluate the whole drivetrain and upgrade from 80's 6-speed to modern Shimano 9-speed (Harris did the job, I was afraid to bend the rear stays). So maybe the mistake was an actual benefit! (okay, it was an expensive benefit... :-)
Probably the most embarrassing mistake I made recently was not putting enough torque on a friend's rear derailer pulley bolt. The pulley fell off on a ride, good thing we were near our destination. I felt really bad, so I spent a half-hour looking for all of the parts. Fortunately, I found everything and it's been good since.
It has been nice reading everybody's points of view and I am surprised at the amount of discussion this topic has generated.ReplyDelete
One thing to clarify for those who have commented that "this is a gray area" or that my view is "extreme". I stand by what I wrote, and would like to direct your attention to how conditional (the opposite of extreme) my point is.
What I am basically saying, is that complicated DIY is worth it, if you enjoy it, are likely to do it multiple times, are good at it, and have exacting standards. And that it is not worth it if your main motivation is to save money. Perhaps that train of thought got lost in the details of the post, because otherwise I am surprised that it can generate so many alternative views.
gosh, yeah, I'd been meaning to chime in on this thread but kept getting distracted by other blog topics as they come up :)ReplyDelete
anyway, I think your point about not doing it if "your main motivation is to save money" is fine, but I think that it's also very easy to read your post as essentially saying that only the dedicated should bother to learn how to maintain and/or do major repair/upgrade work on their bike. Everyone else can trust in their mechanics to do the job correctly.
(or to paraphrase barbie: "bike mechanics are hard! let's go shopping!")
I think part of that is you use the phrase "if all of the above apply" instead of "if any of the above apply". I think that it can still be immensely satisfying to work on one's bike even if they aren't anal, but enjoy learning how the machine works. You're also missing a large gulf of conditions between being a hobbyist and wanting to save money. Plus there might be some leftover ruffled feathers from your prior recommendation about how learning how to fix a flat is unnecessary. (which, yeah, I kind of disagree with, but that's another thread)
anyway, I tend compare my interest in bikes with interests in computers. I like building my own computers from parts because I like having the control over how the machine is configured and I like being able to fix things on my own without worrying about the competency of a third party. Like bikes, building a computer from parts rarely makes economic sense; but there's no price tag that can be placed on freeing oneself from having to call tech support everytime your computer acts wonky.
Cris - I think that you hit the nail on the head with the Barbie comment: If I were a male, I don't think this post would have been interpreted in quite the same manner by some of the readers. But because I am female, perhaps the assumption is that I like to play the "helpless damsel" role and cannot be bothered to learn bicycle mechanics because shopping is occupying too much of my time. Hardly seems fair.ReplyDelete
As for the fixing your own flats comment on the other post: I stand by it, for the simple reason that someone has to. From direct conversations with fledgling cyclists, I have a very distinct impression that many are just too intimidated to cycle because of all the guilt-tripping about all of the things they "have to" do as cyclists. There ought to be at least a couple of voices out there that tell them they do not "have" to do anything, other than ride their bike. That is the point of view I am trying to express.
PS: If you like DIY on the road and a point of view that directly opposes mine, have a look here at the Co-Habitant's insane, I mean lovely, description of his tool kit. Enjoy : )ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 25, 2010 at 9:59 AM
When I bought my first "10 speed" back in the 70s as a teenager, I took advantage of the free bike maintenance classes the shop offered and have always been glad that I did.ReplyDelete
Even if you choose not to actually do the work yourself, I recommend learning how it is done. You get to know your bike better, you're less likely to be ripped off by a dishonest shop, and if you're caught out far from home or shop with a problem, you may be able to come up with a temporary fix that will at lest get you home.
It took me a long time to get comfortable with bike stuff, including to learn the volume/boundaries of what I don't yet know and to learn how to approach a new-to-me bike task/job. In addition to time spent, money was spent as well and some other things I am also theoretically good at were not pursued during this time. So, was it worth it? I don't know, it depends on my priorities and life's goals, doesn't it? What could have I done instead?ReplyDelete
MDI - The last part of what you wrote is an important point, that I've also failed to bring across (gosh, my post in retrospect seems like a such a failure). There are so many things that it would be good to learn in order to be self-sufficient: home repair, proper penmanship, basic first aid, sewing, knitting, growing your own food, cooking from scratch. Are these more or less important than bicycle mechanics? And if you have a job (or two), and other interests in life besides, how to prioritise your time between all these equally important and interesting things? To my mind, ti has to do with which of it you enjoy more and are naturally better at.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM
I'm one of those new-to-enthusiastic-cycling (as opposed to very minimal bike commuting) people, and am VERY grateful for the loud clear voices saying that it's ok not to know how to fix or upgrade one's bike, even with such basics as flats (which I've never successfully fixed! - an inability which put me off bicycling 10-15 years ago). I'd like gradually to learn more (because I'd like to feel more confident on longer rides, alone in the countryside). But I think that the dominant ethos here and in England has been to overemphasize the importance of bike DIY (often for good, feminist reasons, which are well-meaning, but which can backfire). So even if you did slightly overstate the other side, Velouria, (and I'm not sure that you did!), it was worth it, to set your more relaxed view against the prevailing winds.ReplyDelete
I don't mean anything as guilt-tripping, but the most wonderful thing that working on bicycles taught me was not to assume that anything is beyond my capacity to figure out, whether that's plumbing, computer repair, or whatever else. Working on bicycles has made a huge difference in my life because I don't automatically feel helpless when the technology in my life breaks down. No one should feel obligated to learn how to repair a bicycle, but I promise that the effort can be very empowering in all facets of living.ReplyDelete
Eric - Granted, *but* (and yes, I am going to continue arguing my point!) why assume that the fictional reader who is considering bicycle mechanics is generally helpless and not already self-reliant in other areas, such as home repair, carpentry, and so on? I promise you that once you make your own table and chairs and are sitting there enjoying your meal on them, it is extremely empowering. So is wearing the clothing you made yourself, and so on. So how do I, a busy woman, choose between mastering bicycle mechanics and home repair? That is where things like enjoyment, natural skill, and the other factors I mentioned come in.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousSeptember 26, 2010 at 2:50 AM
I would suggest the point about money NOT being a reason to justify some amount of DIY is dependent on how much money you have/make. In my experience, money is certainly saved by doing even just basic/repetitive maintenance tasks, regardless of whether you enjoy it or not. Bikes are simpler than I feel you are making them to be - most bike DIY tasks would perhaps be more comparable to doing house chores than home repair... and though we may hire a plumber if a pipe bursts, most of us don't have maids.ReplyDelete
I think for many, the savings can be reason enough to attempt some basic work.
Whoa, who said you have to buy tools to work on your own bike? I barely own any bike-specific tools but barely ever pay for service. Between friends and local bike shops that let me borrow their tools, I have no need to buy them. And if you live in a big city, like Boston, I'm sure there are at least a couple free clinics that will show you how to do bike maintenance as well as provide tools.ReplyDelete
I've built up many bikes with a standard tool set and then just gone to the LBS to borrow some tools for the finishing touches.
And as far as not knowing what you're doing a bike is a ridiculously simple mechanism and doing a tiny bit of reading is all you should need to approach any problem, in the few cases where it's not obvious by looking at another bike.
Not to harp on you but I don't think you should be discouraging people from doing something that doesn't actually need to be nearly as expensive or difficult as you're making it out to be.
I think that a lot of people are missing your point that some things in bike repair require not just force but also fine motor skills that aren't available to some people, especially not in combination. There are some things for which a bigger lever is not the solution (sorry boys! :)) but where you need a combination of a hard pull and a directed twist at the same time (attaching my shifter cable to its hub is an example). My limitations (mostly weaker hands) cause me a lot of frustrations when working on bikes and cars, where I know exactly what to do, but am physically unable to do it. While there are special tools (blow torch for rust removal anyone?) there are limits to what can reasonably expected of a person who just wants to ride a bike.ReplyDelete
I think it is empowering to know _how_ things work, and God knows I have a wicked DIY streak (although I think I draw the line at tractor hydraulics Somervillian), but I wouldn't think less of anyone who wasn't interested in working on their own bike. I think the analogies you make to growing your own food and sewing your own clothes are apt. No one would question for an instant a chef for going to a grocery store, or anyone (especially a fashionista) for not sewing all their own clothes.
And while I have been known to raise an eyebrow at those without basic cooking skills, I know from experience some days takeout is the answer.
While we have some great bike repair options and trusted mechanics here in Boston/Camberville, they are a minority in a lot of the country (vide the current story line on Yehuda Moon) I think that a little research (Thank you Sheldon!) goes a long way in feeling like you understand how your bike works, and in feeling comfortable either in doing something yourself, or being confident that someone else is doing it right for you. And fortunately a bike is conceptually a fairly simple machine, without needing to get into the details of french tubing and italian threading.
I think your readers, or at least the above commentators are a biased sample who tend towards a slightly more techie skill set. While I include myself in that group, I agree with your basic premise that doing your own work should not be something one should feel obligated to do to consider themselves a cyclist. To quote John Romeo Alpha- Get up go ride- that's all it takes.
One does not have to rise far above the skill level of the everyday utalitarian cyclist to have enough competence to do more than basic repairs. Hell, most bike owners dont do any form of DIY at all! So if one can clean and oil the bike and check for wheel trueness, and adjust brakes and tighten all screws once a month you´re fine! Some posters claim the bicycle is a simple machine, and that is true, but to be able to order, and even substitute, parts in all the myriads of different standards there are, is prolly more brainwork most users are willing to do!ReplyDelete
I worked as a professional bicycle mechanic during graduate school.ReplyDelete
One issue that hasn't yet been mentioned here is that extremely high end bicycles are designed for set up and adjustment which is very near to perfection, IF SUFFICIENT TIME AND ENERGY ARE DEVOTED TO THE TASK.
Commercial bike shops simply cannot afford the time it takes to set up/adjust high end bikes to that level of perfection.
I'm not, as you called it, a control freak who needs to do all my own mechanical work; in fact I'd love to outsource it. But unfortunately, it isn't really possible to purchase the level of work that I want for my bicycles.
Since for high end bikes, the difference in how the bike performs varies noticeably depending on how perfectly it's been set up and adjusted, it's worth it to assure that the set up is, well, perfect.
- hampstead banditFebruary 15, 2012 at 2:58 PM
I currently work as a workshop manager (professional bike mechanic) for the UK's leading quality retailer with 48 stores and £100 million annual turnover - I work in one of their most profitable stores in LondonReplyDelete
I've worked as a bike wrench for 20+ years including several years as the co-owner of a downhill mountain bike frame manufacturer who also did lots of research and development for major manufacturers
bike wrenching is something I enjoy to do...but I get frustrated at the sad state that many bicycles are in, when they arrive at my workshop
many riders don't appreciate simple maintenance tasks like keeping tires inflated to recommended pressures, cleaning the drive train and oiling the chain, or not ignoring strange noises like creaks / clicks and looseness in rotating parts like bottom brackets, hubs and headsets
with motor vehicles, motorists generally need to know how to fuel their vehicle, add oil, add water and check tire pressure at the garage
somewhere along the way, the bike industry has forgotten to inform new riders of simple maintenance tasks, and their bicycles suffer, as do their wallets
we get lots of repair bikes from regular commuters who have run their bikes into the ground by failing to undertake basic, regular maintenance (we are not talking wrenching with specialist tools, but pumping up tires, cleaning / oiling, etc.)...
...and end up with so much damage to components that its more cost effective to buy a new bike than repair their existing bike :(
bicycles are wonderful pieces of equipment and easily one of the finest inventions that mankind ever made (for human powered transportation, or just fun riding!) but its a great advantage to undertake a basic maintenance course so you can fix a puncture, adjust your brakes for wear, set up your gearing indexing and learn to clean your bike properly as this just improves your riding experience, durability of your bike and reduces the impact on your wallet
At one point it is about money. Bringing a bike for an overhaul or drive training cleaning is too expensive, if you have two kids in day care. I replaced a chain and cleaned the drive train in a friend's shop recently and it was far harder than I thought (the last shop put the chain rings on the hub incorrectly) but worth far less than the shops charge, assuming your aren't fixing someone's insidious problem. And I want to learn. I have the advantage that I have seen every bearing in my old bike so I know how frustrating it can be (as you note - unscheduled trips to the bike shop or hardware store) but I need to both relearn and retool. So it is a function of economics and a desire to see how things work, and be able to do the work.ReplyDelete
- ulstercyclepathJune 30, 2013 at 2:32 PM
Just came across this post two years late! Hilaire Belloc said it all-ReplyDelete
"Lord Finchley tried to mend the electric light.
It struck him dead. And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan."
You forgot time. Is the value of your time for doing other things more than the cost of having a bicycle shop do the work? If so, take it to the shop.ReplyDelete
By this theorem, sometimes I take it to the shop when I am really busy, but other times I work on it myself when I have free time available.


text:
Journal Abstracts
Unlimited access to full-length articles is included with membership. Click memberships to become a member.
Abstract:Babies have been crying at birth for centuries but we have been reluctant to accept their cries as valid expressions of pain which will register in memory. Despite mounting evidence, the characteristic reaction of psychologists and medical practitioners to infant pain has been one of denial. Key myths about the brain have provided the rationale for painful procedures. Against this background, studies of the infant cry prove that crying is meaningful communication. Examples of prenatal and perinatal cries are examined.
Abstract:Fetal motility was observed by ultrasound scan in 15 pregnant women awaiting amniocentesis, in order to assess the effects of maternal stress on fetal motor behavior. Amniocentesis was considered a stress situation giving rise to maternal anxiety not artificially induced. The control group consisted of 15 pregnant women undergoing routine ultrasound examination. Fetal motor activity was assessed in terms of quantity and quality. Anxiety was measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (S.T.A.I.).
There is absolutely nothing so inviting for any speaker as a good listener. The wise clinician knows this; so does the good radio interviewer. Really making room for what another will say is a dynamic, active affair. This is at the core of Alfred Tomatis' work over the years. Thousands know him as a uniquely sympathetic listener who, when he speaks, goes right to the point-often the deepest and most intimate point-of their lives. "I like to practice counseling just as I once did surgery," he says.
Abstract:Verbal metaphors and their behavioral counterparts are discussed within the context of pre and perinatal issues. The major developmental stages are illustrated by the patient's use of language. These metaphors may emerge frequently in casual conversation or during periods of stress throughout life. As an example phrases such as "no way out" express the energy bound in prolonged labor and "being pulled in all directions" is related to a forceps assisted delivery. The baby's reaction to physical and psychological experiences during gestation may be discerned from verbal cues.
Infertility is a life crisis that affects all aspects of a couple's life. When they enter an in-vitro fertilization program the trauma and emotional stress becomes intensified.
The first section of this paper will review the psychological components of infertility. The second section shall focus on the psychological issues which apply specifically to in-vitro patients. In the last section, suggestions for primary care physicians who are directly involved in IVF programs will be made.
The Biopolitics of Womb Life: Science Beats a Path To The Unborn And Stumbles Over Some Moral DilemmasAbstract:
Clifford Grobstein, we are told on the jacket of his book, Science & The Unborn, was at one time a laboratory scientist, teacher, medical school dean and "an analyst of biomedical policy." The reader would have been better served had he been given some more specific information about Grobstein's educational background. Was he a surgeon, an obstetrician, a psychologist, a philosopher or what?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
About microscopic forms of life, including Bacteria, Archea, protozoans, algae and fungi. Topics relating to viruses, viroids and prions also belong here.
Moderator: BioTeam
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
1. Can a HIV infected Patient's Blood be used for other Patients of the same blood group. i.e if another patient gets the Blood of a HIV Infected Patient, are there any chances of affecting the Blood Receiver of HIV Virus ?
2. Why there is no cure or vaccine available for HIV Virus till date. Do you think the vaccines for the same are achievable
with Extensive Medical Research in Pathology and other related Medical Fields ?
3. If in the near future, Medical Scientists/Physiologists/Researchers do come out with Vaccines for the same, will he/she/ will // should get a Nobel Prize in Physiology ?
My Opinion
I am optimistic that Vaccines will be available for the same with extensive research.
The reason for this is once upon a time, Malaria, Tuberculosis, Chicken Pox, Measles, Typhoid etc
were considered Dreaded Diseases but with medical research, now they are no longer considered
dreadful as vaccines/cures are available for them. Even Vaccine was created for the Current
Swine Flu Virus. So i feel eventually there will be a vaccine even for AIDS.
HIV Related Link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... _hivviru...
Vaccines Databases for all Diseases
Related Links
http://www.medicinenet.com/human_immuno ... _aids/ar...
It is rather surprising that in the 21st century, we are still unable to find neither a cure or a vaccine for the HIV.
I personally feel the diagnostics and line of treatment is incorrect. it is more than 30 years (year 1980 origin) and honestly 30 years is a very long time span.
The first thing which comes to my mind is the origin of the virus itself, the virus samples (chimpanzee, monkey species from North / South America, Africa etc continents) itself may be incorrectly taken under the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM).
Research Lab Setup
1. Its important for developing any new vaccine/cure for any new virus to have in the Research Lab for all vaccines and cures available in the lab for all new investigations. i.e vaccine and cure for Malaria, Cholera, Typhoid, Jaundice, Polio, Tuberculosis, Chicken pox, Small pox, Hepatitis, Rabies, Measles, Bird Flu, Swine Flu etc.
Why this is required because every vaccine / cure found previously for any diseases will have a chemical composition which is to be studied in depth. Though we know malaria is caused by a mosquito, it is required in the Lab for HIV Vaccine and Cure.
2. It is important to have samples of all species which have caused/spread/infected virus to human beings and other species i.e samples of mosquito, fly, pigs, monkeys, mice, dogs etc.
3. It is important to have samples of human beings in terms of blood,urine,stool,sputum etc which have been infected by the specific virus, bacteria and caused the disease.
4. The Research Laboratory will have a Pathology, Bio-Chemical, Surgical Departments with latest sophisticated state of the art machines, tools and equipments viz SEM, Microscopes, Chemicals, Slides, Test Tubes, Flasks etc
5. In the case of HIV, we should Google for "Viruses caused by Chimpanzees and Monkey Species" for similar line of treatment i.e chemical composition.
6. The HIV Cure can be tested on HIV infected persons and if the related symptoms caused to HIV are eliminated, we can reach to a conclusion that the HIV cure is a success.
I conclude that this long period of 30 years and above for detecting and finding a solution/cure and the vaccine is due to incorrect samples of the virus origin.
Got some Good Links regarding the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_e ... microscope
My Opinion
We have prestigious Hospitals (Both Government owned and Private) in Mumbai. To name a few viz Breach Candy, KEM, Nair, Jaslok, Dhirubhai Ambani etc. They will be getting patients affected with HIV virus. They should setup a R&D pathology Lab within Hospital. Then they should collect Blood, Urine, Sputum, Stools Samples from say 100 HIV patients, study the virus with sophisticated/state of the art medical devices viz electron microscope, perform virus cultivation activities, testing.
In fact i had a talk with a Pathology Doctor regarding my inputs and he appreciated it.
Eventually if any of the reputed Hospitals come out with a vaccine for the same, it is a big achievement not only for the Hospital but also for the medical team. There are also chances of getting Nobel Prize for Physiology to the Team and the Doctor Researcher heading the Team.
Note : The HIV Virus is in existence for a long time now and still the Europeans and Americans are unable to find a vaccine for the same, so it will be a big achievement for the Indian Doctors. We have to also trace the origin of the virus i.e from where it originated.
If the R&D activity is already carried out for the same by the Hospitals, it is great.
Thanks & Regards,
Prashant S Akerkar
Prashant S Akerkar
(Information Technology Professional)
1 of course
2 may be, one day...
(if you think it's wrong direction, go ahead and start your own research)
3 I'm not sure. Prof. Holý, who is researching besides others viruses also HIV, wasn't nominated the Nobel prize, because it's applied research, which should not be awarded by Nobel prize.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Re: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Thank you.
The Infrastructure for building/setting up any Research Laboratory viz Biochemical, Pathological, Surgical has to be Modern.
isn't it ?
Thanks & Regards,
Prashant S Akerkar
Prashant S Akerkar
(Information Technology Professional)
Many people do not develop any symptoms when they first become infected with HIV. Some people, however, get a flu-like illness within three to six weeks after exposure to the virus. This illness, called Acute HIV Syndrome, may include fever, headache, tiredness, nausea, diarrhoea.
1) Yes.
2) There are treatments, but it's like the flu causing viruses. They mutate and we cannot control them. As for the flue viruses, we cannot predict what it will be next season. For HIV, we cannot predict how it will mutate. This is why treatment usually includes multiple medications into a cocktail which try to eliminate as many resistances as possible. But is only 40% effect, If I remember correctly. It may be slightly higher since I last knew.
As for a cure, there are some, and one accidentally found by a German doctor that used the same technique for Leukemia patients. They eradicated the bone marrow/immune system and replaced ("retrained, in a sense) it with another. No sign of leukemia or HIV was present in the patient after the procedure. It may not be applicable for all, but it seems like a step in the right direction. I do not know the specifics, I merely know what my virology professor mentioned about it. He had a hypothesis about it years before the accident, and turns out he was right.
But viruses in and of themselves are hard to treat. There is no cure for the flue, even, and it's been around as long as we have. The last flu epidemic was in the 1950s, I think. But we still cannot even control the current seasonal strain.
Most of why HIV is hard to cure is because of how quickly it mutates. We cannot get ahead of it, same as the flu. And I know I keep reiterating that. You also have to remember, the vaccine for the past season's flu will not work for next season's. It's not a one time one kill pony. The "cure" for flu currently is a lot of rest and a lot of liquids. You can treat the symptoms, however.
So given that, and how fast HIV mutates, it's no surprise we haven't eradicated it. But just think for a moment of how advanced we are compared to everything else. We have a very large handle on HIV in the short 30 years versus everything else. And the only disease considered naturally eradicated currently is Small pox. It exists in a couple of labs as part of biodefense research, if I recall correctly.
Aside from the German oncologist who may have hit gold, I think it is possible we will eventually stop HIV from being as bad as it is, but it isn't just the vaccine we need to be focused on. We need to prevent it from spreading and mutating, and that is done with education on the subject and other prevention methods.
As for #3, I cannot speak about that.
I am a biologist, biological anthropologist, physicist, theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist... I am a scientist. Dammit, Jim, stop pestering Dr. McCoy!
AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, is one of the most threatening diseases known to man. Spread through sexual contact, from mother to child or by transfusion of infected blood, AIDS can quickly shut down the body's natural immune system. This leaves victims with no natural resistance to deadly diseases and infections that would pose no threat to a healthy person. Unprotected sex is the primary means of AIDS transmission. If you have engaged in unprotected sex at any time, especially with a partner whose medical history you are unsure of, you should be tested for HIV/AIDS.
HIV/AIDS Testing
The only sure way to determine whether you are infected with HIV or AIDS is to be tested for the disease. The testing process is simple and quick. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that the most common method of testing uses a sample of your blood to look for specific antibodies that signal the presence of the infection. Saliva and urine can also be tested for signs of these antibodies. Rapid testing can provide results in a matter of minutes, though some methods can take up to two days to produce a result.
It is very important to catch the disease as early as possible. Though there is still no cure or immunization for AIDS, there are many medications you can use daily to return to a relatively normal life. Untreated AIDS can quickly ravage the body and turn fatal. Read more important information about HIV/AIDS here http://healthdocpoint.com/hivaids-signs ... -and-women
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Churchill Field Playlot Park
1825 N. Damen Ave. Chicago, Illinois 60614
(312) 742-4644
Fee: Free
Age Range: Any
Little Shop of Horrors
The monster musical comedy based on the 1960 Roger Corman cult classic and adapted from the award-winning stage hit. Little Shop of Horrors presents an extraordinary triangle involving a lower eastside Manhattan flower shop employee named Seymour, his whimsical co-worker Audrey, and a mysterious plant nicknamed Audrey II - whose growth rate is surpassed only by its peculiar appetite.
Rated PG-13 | 88 minutes | 1986
Presented by Charter One, with additional support from RCN.
Underwritten by Bucktown Community Organization
Movies in the Parks is presented by:
With additional support from:


text:
Theories - Origin of Life
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I'm too lazy to plough through your posts to find where I was led to my belief. Either I am mistaken, or you have not taken enough care in expressing yourself. The rest of my last post, however, remains as it is.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Let me briefly summarize my subjective perception of the situation here. Unless I am biased, the biggest counter argument to Scottie's claims about improbability of the randomness' role in the processes described over the last 32 pages is absence of any evidence that supports existence of the supernatural "intelligent agency" that Scottie keeps referring to. Am I correct?
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Thanks for your interjection, it's nice to have a fresh view presented.
Firstly could we nail down this point.
The introduction of vestigial organs is an argument for degeneration in an already existing function, whatever the cause of that degeneration.
It does not stand up as an argument against functional design.
However canalon and now you both make the same point about essentially keeping up with new information as this is the way science proceeds. You also say that old information isn't necessarily outdated or wrong. I completely agree.
However simply reading reviews does not advance your knowledge of a subject. Reading the papers themselves is what matters and that is what I encourage you to do.
So let examine what the latest papers are revealing about evidence on this subject.
Of necessity this post will be somewhat long, because in science the detail of evidence is important.
It is still not known how cave fish have lost eyesight and pigmentation. This is not just my view.
W. R. Jeffery (2005) Adaptive Evolution of Eye Degeneration in the Mexican Blind Cavefish put it this way.
Remember this is the hypothesis that Professor Deamer offered in1964.
Jeffery continues.
This hypothesis is the one favoured by Jeffrery along with others, and is a Darwinian explanation.
Jeffery summarises the very interesting discoveries in the molecular changes that take place during this process. (new information) The paper is a fascinating read.
Eye formation does commence in the embryo but is arrested at a certain stage in development. ( Deamer in 1964 referred to Vandel's (1961) discovery of this fact.)
This arresting takes place during lens formation.
However no genes understood to function during eye formation, appear to be damaged.
Also when the lens of an embryo of a surface fish is transplanted into the embryo of a cave fish at the same stage development the eye in the cave fish continues to develop normally. When a reverse transplant takes place the eye of the surface embryo is arrested, suggesting that the lens is the central controller of eye formation.
It has also been discovered that many genes are up regulated in cavefish relative to surface fish, rather than vice versa. The expanded regulation in particular of the hh genes seems to be quite central in the degenerative process.
It is for these reasons that Jeffery hypothesises that Natural selection is at work and not mutation.
In his 2008 paper Jeffery rows back a little in his assessment especially in the case of loss of pigmentation.
http://www.life.umd.edu/labs/jeffery/Pu ... o.2008.PDF
cavefish and microevolution of development
H Wilkens University of Hamburg, Germany has a view that favours the mutation or neutral theory. (introduced by Deamer in 1964) in his 2010 paper
Genes, modules and the evolution of cave fish
http://amec.glp.net/c/document_library/ ... -21261.pdf
This is what he says.
Incidentally the paper of (Romer 2003) Wilkens refers to is here
Romero A, Green SM, Romero A, Lelonek MM, Stropnicky KC. 2003
One eye but no vision: cave fish with induced eyes do not respond to light.
So despite the passing of nearly 50 years Professor Deamer's hypothesis is still very much in alive and kicking.
The last point I make is this.
Jefferies (2008) makes good mention of cave fish as being a natural lab for the study of evolution since here we have both ancestor (suface) fish and their descendents (cave fish)
Also note that he recognises this process as micro evolution (variation within a species)
Now lets return to Deamer's reference to (Woods1956) the evidence from which can be downloaded here.
http://libsysdigi.library.uiuc.edu/OCA/Books2008 08/bulletin1/bulletin25chic/bulletin25chic.pdf
CHICAGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM BULLETIN November 1954 page 4
Here is first hand evidence of the gradation of this degeneration that Deamer used to support his hypothesis. Evidence from the natural habitat.
So it is from the evidence of the natural environment that Deamer claims support for his view.
Even today we are unable to identify the actual theoretical mechanism of natural selection at work.
How does Jeffery he put it?
If even within micro evolution (which as far as I know everyone accepts) natural selection cannot be identified at work, how is it that the Darwinian process of macro evolution is so certainly propounded as fact?
Therefore and with great respect, I would encourage both you and canalon to keep away from sweeping statements, unless you are confident you can back them up with evidence.
btw I have not yet received a reply from Professor Deamer. It is after all the holiday period.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Scottie, I view your arguments and the data you present as very convincing, logical and informative. Also, as I already said, I applaud the effort you applied to learn the subject not immediately relevant to your specialization, and the bravery with which you battle your powerful opposition. Unfortunately, until the detailed explanation is provided about what the "intelligent agency" actually is and by what means it acts on the natural world, I am afraid that the case you present will remain a topic of a casual conversation, but not a scientific symposium. I don't see how it can be easily done to satisfy the scientific method though.
This conversation is a flexing of intellectual muscle, not more, not less. It reminds me a ball set in motion in a U-shaped jar. The ball keeps moving in opposite directions driven by the gravity of opposing arguments, but at the end it is really not going anywhere. An intellectually advanced debater can always BS his way out of any situation because reductionist approach to the complexity of life (which has been billions of years in existence by now) can spawn a countless number of explanations. And when the conversation hits dead end, one can always say that the source of the genomic toolkit (and all the mechanisms around it) has either dissolved in Precambrian period without a trace, or will be explained sometime in the future or is hiding in the world beyond the realm of Physics.
Now the soft-bodied creatures being dissolved, people understand. But there will always be an issue with "selling" the idea of a "super intellectual agency". I, personally, don't have a huge problem to make a "leap of faith" to agree with you. But as a former hardcore atheist, I see where your opponents are coming from. However, I do hope the thread will continue its existence, cause it tackles with very important issues of philosophical nature. After all, I am not really sure if I truly care about all of these if at the end our fellow C. elegans will feast on my neatly mapped genome, poop it out, and that will be pretty much the end of this story.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Sorry for the delay is responding.
I deliberately took a couple of days away from the forum just to unfreeze my brain cells.
Also to give those who are disposed to reading the papers I refer to, have a chance to digest them.
I very much appreciate your comments though.
When I entered this thread back in April I made this point.
I have remained consistent on this subject, simply because it is part of my belief system, i.e. the scientific method.
From the evidence produced I form my conclusions.
The evidence from science clearly shows me that life could not have got started by any known natural process.
The evidence also shows, through advances in molecular biology, random mutations of a genome cannot produce the functional design we all see in life processes and this is why Darwinism does not explain these life processes.
What I have found in any philosophical dogma, is that sooner or later contradictions set in.
This is so exemplified in this cave animal vestigial and Junk DNA argument.
Here we have a theory that, at it's core, describes a process of random mutations of a genome eventually producing function, that another process, natural selection, filters to conserve one particular function, for survival.
In the case of cave animals however the precise reverse is being argued. Why?
The reason it seams to me, is to try and preserve natural selection as the filter. We know that these cavefish (for example) are the same species as their surface relatives. They can interbreed, and yet they are arguing mutation has not caused the difference, even though it was the initial cause of the species arriving in the first place. Remember also cave animals are ubiquitous in nature, so this is not some freak happening.
How can a theory so successfully contradict itself and the adherents not see it?
I find this quite astonishing.
My only answer to that question is,-- the theory is a philosophical view and not a scientific one.
I understand the point you are trying to make when you say:-
With respect I have to disagree with you. It is the scientific method that is falsifying the fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory. Its promoters claim it to be genuine science, therefore it should be judged by the scientific method.
However is the scientific method falsifying design by an outside agency?
It is certainly not falsifying the design argument, so that leaves the "outside agency" bit.
Now if, by argument the case is as you are implying, that an actual description of the agency must be supplied for it to be treated scientifically, then there should be consistency in this argument for both sides.
So does the theory or indeed any evolutionary scientist know what the common ancestor, sitting at the base of the TOL is or was?
Ok let's make it easier.
Does the theory or any scientist describe the common ancestor of the human/ape lineage, or the common ancestor of the bear/panda lineage?
I know what the answer is.
Junk DNA was used as proof of evolutionary theory. Now as it has become clear that these areas are in fact very much functional most are simply burying their heads in the sand or trying to find ways to show how it does in fact support evolutionary theory.
So no matter what the evidence, it supports evolution.
Sounds very philosophical to me and certainly not scientific.
I would like to post some more information on what the latest research is revealing on mouse, rats and humans, but that had better wait for the moment.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I can't figure out why you're still going on about this, scottie. You believe in the Creator Thing and others do not. Science cannot prove or disprove its existence. Your "disproofs" of evolution are (embarrassingly) feeble compared to the weight of evidence in its support. The only people who do not support evolution are those who are ignorant of the evidence and those who WANT to believe in something else. The lack of scientific proof of a natural cause of whatever does NOT LOGICALLY LEAD to the existence of a Creator Thing. You are CHOOSING to believe in it, because you apparently WANT it to exist, not because any great body of evidence supports its existence or fails to support a naturalistic explanation. So why are you devoting so much time and effort to this thread? It's very apparent that you must be spending HUGE amounts of time on this project, but I can't for the life of me figure out what your project is. Are you on a personal quest to convince one part of your brain of something that another part refuses to accept? Or what. exactly?
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
Gavin, here is your statement: "The only people who do not support evolution are those who are ignorant of the evidence…"
And here is definition of evolution: "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." (Wiki)
Now, I may have a serious problem with my English, cause I haven't noticed here anything that would've contradicted the abovementioned description of evolution. The label of "evolution denier" is frequently used just like a "holocaust denier" and people rarely bother to explain what they actually mean by that. If Scottie questioned the randomness role behind genetic or epigenetic complexity / abiogenesis or saltation, then I still don't see what exactly the evidence you are talking about is. Perhaps I have to admit my ignorance (and I already did that) and acquire a PhD in biology to see your point? But here is the dilemma - I've never seen anyone questioning the validity of the Pythagorean theorem, but I saw PhD-s clashing over the randomness as one of the key elements of the evolution from the first amino acid to a man. So maybe it's not ignorance that causing the issues here… Maybe the only possible alternative to randomness - supernatural involvement being that, is causing the controversy…
On a personal note… One time I ran into event, 2 degrees later, I have absolutely no natural explanation to. What was it is irrelevant and it didn't really prove anything specific, but it has absolutely reshuffled the weights I allocated to the elements in the equation of my perception of reality. Putting aside charlatanism, circus tricks, and misunderstood natural phenomenon, the supernatural to me is no longer multiplied by zero. Now I view it as being relevant to some form of rare phenomenon superior to our level of knowledge & superior to our ability to readily sense and perceive the reality from which it originated.
Let me mention the quote C. Venter is credited with: "…we are literally coming out of the dark ages of biology. As a civilization, we know far less than one per cent of what will be known about biology, human physiology, and medicine. My view of biology is 'We don't know s*%t.' " http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Venter-Genome-Warrior12jun00.htm
I would rephrase him in a broader sense – we still don't know s*%t about reality that surrounds us. We're all balancing on the scales of our believes systems, and direction in which the scales tip depends a lot on our personal experiences. The scientific method helps us to objectively filter out mumbo-jumbo portion of these experiences, but I'm afraid the limitations of our sensory capabilities sometimes impair it severely, feeding the believes in impossibility of something that might as well be possible.
I can only repeat what I already said – I'm not qualified to embrace Scotties case, but I don't see any grounds to firmly reject it except the ones rooted in some form of religious atheism (and ignorance doesn't seem to be a part of the picture here). Maybe if his arguments were predominantly discussed and judged on their own merits, the discussion would be more beneficial.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
I am not trying to get anyone to believe in the "Creator thing" as you call it.
What I am trying to do is put my understanding of science (biology in this case) to the test regarding the purpose of this thread. "Theories – Origin of life".
I can only point to the evidence that supports my understanding. If the "weight of evidence" as you put it supports your position then surely my feeble disproof's should be easily countered with evidence.
Remember you did try, when you took up my challenge to reveal what would falsify "neo Darwinism".
The weight of evidence does pile up in favour of the concept of micro evolution, which of course is variation within species.
But this discussion is about more. Darwin's whole view was about speciation, not variation within species.
Now you have quite clearly stated that you prefer to accept the mechanism of variation within species to extend across to producing new species.
I don't see that evidence and post accordingly. This is a perfectly acceptable scientific position to take.
For philosophical reasons you choose to disagree. I certainly don't have a problem with that, in fact I commend you and indeed have done for being honest enough to acknowledge that.
You are also correct
Is it not also the case that functional design can lead logically to a designer.
In the end it boils down to the scientific evidence, and that is where I am coming from.
I am passionate about science, I also have enough time and inclination to delve into the subject and bore every one silly with my findings.
I believe Nick7 makes a valid point when he says
You have acknowledged this but others have chosen to engage in rhetoric rather than produce evidence which stacks up.
If evolutionary theory is correct then I will readily endorse it. Put me to the test.
Do keep in mind that there are many religious people who endorse the Darwinian process.
Just go to the BioLogos Foundation site started by Francis Collins who is one of the top geneticists and headed the Human Genome Project, and is now Director of the National Institutes of Health
This is being made into a religious issue. Why?
Darwinism is not the sole prerogative of atheism.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
You see design in nature and argue that there must be a designer (a bit tautological, that). By accepting design as a given, you cannot lay any claim to scientific rigour. Science must assume that supernatural forces are not responsible for whatever is being studied. Science does not (cannot) rely on proof, just probability based on the available evidence. The available evidence does not lean toward any design in nature. Design is a preconception, not an observation. You can believe whatever you want, but please don't try to claim that science supports your beliefs. You may be passionate about what you think science is, but cherry-picking in science leads to bad science. All scientists plough through the literature trying to find support for their pet theories, but they cannot ignore the findings that contradict their theories. Please don't dismiss evidence that doesn't support what you want to be true. Doing so doesn't make it true. And is not good science.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
That is an interesting statement.
But trying to move the goal posts into the philosophical area won't work, and for this reason.
You could have a case if I did not define how my argument for functional design could be falsified.
However I have done precisely that, and it is about where you entered into this discussion. Remember!
Now you tried to falsify and failed with the phylogenetic data and tree building.. argument
However where have you or indeed anyone even attempted to define how Darwinism could be falsified?
The simple answer is that there has not been even an attempt to do so.
This lack of defining even a falsifiable trait limits Darwinism to a philosophy,
and you have in fact acknowledged that.
Remember your own words
You now appear to be trying to row back from your own statement of belief by suggesting that the verifiable evidence I have produced is only a product of my belief.
Your description of what is science, does deserve a comment. You might find these descriptions of science helpful.
I particularly like Richard Feynman's comment.
Re: Theories - Origin of Life
The goal posts are already philosophical. I haven't moved them.
Why should these properties be limited to design?
I don't recall having failed. I think I said something like evolution being falsified if phylogenetic trees could not be built, and you resorted to the creationist Cambrian argument, and I resorted to how science works and how an incomplete fossil record is not an observation. How does this constitute failure? Ignoring the myriad of trees that have been built from the available evidence is an example of how you are selectively discounting the available evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. Sure, the tree is not complete, but are the gaps in an otherwise rather impressive assemblage MORE LIKELY to represent disproof of the whole or an incomplete collection or availability of evidence?
I think it was Jerry Coyne who said that he would abandon his belief in evolution if a human fossil were ever found in Cretaceous strata. This is just one of many proposed examples of how evolution could be falsified. Darwin also mentioned a few examples. The inability to build phylogenetic trees, that I proposed above but that you seem to have forgotten, is another.
I have only said that you are selectively cherry picking a small subset of the available evidence and discounting the larger subset. The cherry picking is a product of your belief, not the evidence.
Feynman said lots of interesting things. He also said, "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time - life and death - stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand."
Re: Re:
scottie, you have not responded to this. And you know what I like most to do, right?
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Joe Student
If you don't enjoy the things I write about — entertainment, nightlife, music, booze, gadgets, sports, Playboy models and more —you're probably dead. I enjoy when you read what I write. (And, yes, it's my real name. Stop asking.)
A U.S. skier won a new Olympic event, and the Dutch skated back to the top of the medal table. Here's a recap of Tuesday's action in Sochi:
The U.S. moved up to a second-place tie in the overall medal count, and a Russian Olympic veteran withdrew from the Winter Games. Here's a recap of Thursday's action in Sochi:
Americans won another gold in snowboarding, and Canadian and U.S. women renewed their hockey rivalry. Here's a recap of Wednesday's action in Sochi:
American snowboarder Shaun White did not medal in his signature event, and Norway took the lead in overall medals. Here's a recap of Tuesday's action in Sochi:
An American skier continued to etch her place in Olympic history on Monday, and the Dutch rose to the top of the medal count. Here's a recap of the day's action in Sochi:
The United States dominated a new Olympic sport, and the host nation of Russia claimed its first gold of the Sochi Games during the first weekend of competition. Here's a recap of this weekend's action:
An elaborate opening ceremony lasting more than three hours marked the start of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia on Friday.
Seattle forced four Denver turnovers, and the Seahawks routed the Broncos, 43-8, to win Super Bowl 48 at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. on Sunday night.
Just one more NFL game remains to be played this season: the Seattle Seahawks vs. the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII . Here are five things to watch for in Sunday's Big Game.
Super Bowl XLVIII is less than a week away. Now that both the Denver Broncos and Seattle Seahawks have arrived in the New York metropolitan area, let's take a look at some fast facts about Sunday's game at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. (6:30 p.m. ET on Fox):
With Super Bowl XLVIII still more than a week away, other sports invade the TV schedule. Here are the best events to watch this weekend:
Not every Super Bowl legend goes to the Hall of Fame. Some Super Bowl players become school teachers, businessmen or radio hosts after their NFL days have ended...
It appears that you already have an account created within our VIP network of sites on . To keep your personal information safe, we need to verify that it's really you. To activate your account, please confirm your password. When you have confirmed your password, you will be able to log in through Facebook on both sites.
It appears that you already have an account on this site associated with . To connect your existing account just click on the account activation button below. You will maintain your existing VIP profile. After you do this, you will be able to always log in to http://ksenam.com using your original account information.
Please fill out the information below to help us provide you a better experience.
Not a member? Sign up here
Sign up for KSEN AM 1150 quickly by connecting your Facebook account. It's just as secure and no password to remember!


text:
Join the AFA - Step 2
- 1. Choose Membership
- 2. Enter Your Details
- 3. Enter Payment Details
- 4. Application Complete
Step 2 of 4
Please enter your details below.
Membership Subscription 2013
Return to Step 1 to change your selected membership type or region.
- Price: USD 11
- Region: The Americas
- Membership Type: American Finance Association Student Member: Print + Online
Personal Details
Includes a subscription to The Journal of Finance (including online access to all available volumes for as long as membership is maintained).
Please be aware that your subscription might be subject to your country's tax rates which will be added to the above prices. Please review the Payment & Tax information for all applicable tax rates. Customers must provide a tax registration number or evidence of entitlement to exemption; customers who are not registered or exempt will be charged tax.
Wiley takes subscription fraud extremely seriously. Personal, Membership and Complimentary subscriptions are for bona fide member/personal use only. Wiley actively monitors potential subscription fraud and reserves the right to immediately terminate a subscription, membership or related service if potential fraud is detected.
See our Online Information page for further information on options for institutional subscriptions.
Student Member Free: available for three years maximum to full-time students - you must provide proof of status (for example, copy of student ID or signed letter from your head of department) with your application.
3 Year: Single payment for three years of membership.
Student rates are only available to bona fide students enrolled at a recognised educational establishment. Wiley may request proof of Student ID. In cases where such proof is not forthcoming, we reserve the right to suspend the subscription.


text:
Fuller Park
331 W. 45th St Chicago, Illinois 60609
(312) 747-6144
Fee: Free
Age Range: Any
The Wiz"If you believe in yourself, you will have brains, heart and courage to last your life through," declares Dorothy to her new-found friends. The group finally finds the way to realize their hopes and dreams in the spectacular movie version of the hit Broadway musical based on L. Frank Baum's classic The Wizard Of Oz. Diana Ross and Michael Jackson head an all-star cast. This lavishly mounted production is driven by Quincy Jones' high energy music and boasts the look of a highly imaginative tomorrow as Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion "ease on down the road" through this fantastic, magical land on their way to see the Wiz.
Rated G | 133 minutes | 1978
Presented by Charter One, with additional support from RCN.
Movies in the Parks is presented by:
With additional support from:


text:
South Shore Cultural Center
7059 S. South Shore Dr. Chicago, Illinois 60649
(773) 256-0149
Fee: Free
Age Range: All ages; Family Friendly
The Chicago Park District and the Jazz Institute of Chicago proudly announce the final performance of the 15th anniversary season for JazzCity, an annual admission-free concert series featuring world-class performers at various neighborhood parks throughout the city. The season finale features Chicago vocalist Dee Alexander and the Evolution Arkestra transforming works by Jimi Hendrix and James Brown through their own unique vision. With Miguel de la Cerna, piano; Tomeka Reid, cello; Harrison Bankhead and Junius Paul, bass, Scott Hesse, guitar and Yusef Ernie Adams, percussion.