Bicycle Recommendations(lincolnquirk.com)
lincolnquirk.com
Bicycle Recommendations
https://www.lincolnquirk.com/2021/04/10/bikes.html
131 comments
The author was comparing carbon to steel, and that's very different.
Steel yields gently so most people have learned to tighten things until they feel the bolt start to yield, then stop. With aluminium that's harder, and with carbon it basically doesn't happen. You need to be careful, ideally use a torque wrench, and always check for cracks in your carbon bike.
A friend was "helped" by someone a while ago and their carbon MTB now has a crack where the seatpost bolt does up. It seems to be ok and they know to watch that area. But I'm ok with it because when it does fail... the seatpost drops and couple of cm into the frame and gets loose. That's pretty survivable.
Said friend-of-friend also helped change the oil in their car. Overtightening an oil filter is much less survivable (for the car). Filter split, oil everywhere, had to get towed to service centre and replaced. Oooops.
Steel yields gently so most people have learned to tighten things until they feel the bolt start to yield, then stop. With aluminium that's harder, and with carbon it basically doesn't happen. You need to be careful, ideally use a torque wrench, and always check for cracks in your carbon bike.
A friend was "helped" by someone a while ago and their carbon MTB now has a crack where the seatpost bolt does up. It seems to be ok and they know to watch that area. But I'm ok with it because when it does fail... the seatpost drops and couple of cm into the frame and gets loose. That's pretty survivable.
Said friend-of-friend also helped change the oil in their car. Overtightening an oil filter is much less survivable (for the car). Filter split, oil everywhere, had to get towed to service centre and replaced. Oooops.
The author is a retrogrouch parroting the usual bike myths you hear over and over.
Aluminum, steel, carbon, etc are materials that can be engineered out to wazoo to have different qualities, many of them overlapping. Aluminum bikes can be wet noodles and steel bikes can be bone-jarring stiff. A big-box-store aluminum bike is nothing like a race bike made from high-end reynolds aluminum. Etc.
Aluminum, steel, carbon, etc are materials that can be engineered out to wazoo to have different qualities, many of them overlapping. Aluminum bikes can be wet noodles and steel bikes can be bone-jarring stiff. A big-box-store aluminum bike is nothing like a race bike made from high-end reynolds aluminum. Etc.
I badly cracked the head tube on my run-of-the-mill steel frame (Reynolds 501 CrMo) and a guy recommended by a bike shop welded it up for me for £25. Six years later it's still going strong.
I bought a carbon fiber framed Trek Remedy enduro/all mountain bike and repaired a fist size hole/delamination in the downtube at home for about $50 in materials [1]. Five years later it's also fine.
And I've taken the bike off 6ft drops and ridden it decently hard most of it's restored life.
CF repair can be done and plenty strong, it's just more risky because the properties aren't isotropic and simple like steel/alu so you can't just weld in a piece of metal of roughly the same thickness. I would not want to repair a bike I don't ride myself.
[1] https://medium.com/@fixingthings/fixing-a-trek-remedy-29-9-8... (yes, sorry it's medium)
And I've taken the bike off 6ft drops and ridden it decently hard most of it's restored life.
CF repair can be done and plenty strong, it's just more risky because the properties aren't isotropic and simple like steel/alu so you can't just weld in a piece of metal of roughly the same thickness. I would not want to repair a bike I don't ride myself.
[1] https://medium.com/@fixingthings/fixing-a-trek-remedy-29-9-8... (yes, sorry it's medium)
That's a very impressive carbon fibre repair.
I’d be careful welding aluminum. At the factory, post weld, the frames are then heat treated, and pulled back into shape (the heat treatment will distort them).
Welding after heat treatment will reduce the weld affected zone back to its basic untreated properties.
Welding after heat treatment will reduce the weld affected zone back to its basic untreated properties.
The quality gradient between "cheap carbon" and "real bike" is way bigger than most aluminum and steel frames, not to mention all the myraid ways people inadvertantly ruin carbon frames... many of which don't even apply to metal frames. I've seen frames crack because of overtightened QR axles. Overtighten something on a metal frame and you damage paint.
Speaking of paint, if the paint on a carbon bike is damaged, you let in all kinds of new problems from UV brittling to galvanic corrosion (where the carbon meets a metal part). There have been recalls from pretty major manufacturers over glavanic corrosion (which mostly shows up in bottom brackets and the headset-crown interface on forks.
Long story short, carbon fiber is a great material for bike frames and parts! But caring for these bikes is a completely different beast compared to the horrific abuse metal bikes can take. Neighborhood kids will leave their metal bikes in the mud and snow outdoors all winter, then ride the thing to school all year. I wouldn't want to try that experimnent with carbon. It's my preferred frame material, but it's not a low-maintenance one.
Speaking of paint, if the paint on a carbon bike is damaged, you let in all kinds of new problems from UV brittling to galvanic corrosion (where the carbon meets a metal part). There have been recalls from pretty major manufacturers over glavanic corrosion (which mostly shows up in bottom brackets and the headset-crown interface on forks.
Long story short, carbon fiber is a great material for bike frames and parts! But caring for these bikes is a completely different beast compared to the horrific abuse metal bikes can take. Neighborhood kids will leave their metal bikes in the mud and snow outdoors all winter, then ride the thing to school all year. I wouldn't want to try that experimnent with carbon. It's my preferred frame material, but it's not a low-maintenance one.
Theproblem with carbon is that when it fails, it fails catastrophically, and will lead to a crash.
The most dangerous parts are rims, fork, steerer tube, handlebar. If one of those breaks at speed, you will crash spectacularly.
And what people are afraid of are manufacturing defects, testing a good frame is pointless if you worry about manufacturing defects.
The most dangerous parts are rims, fork, steerer tube, handlebar. If one of those breaks at speed, you will crash spectacularly.
And what people are afraid of are manufacturing defects, testing a good frame is pointless if you worry about manufacturing defects.
I met a guy at a bike shop who was buying aluminum handlebars and he said that his carbon bars had failed on him twice! Both with bloody consequences! I've probably ridden 20,000 miles of my lifetime and had zero failures with aluminum bars!
> but if you hit something hard enough to break a carbon frame, you'll have done even more damage to an aluminum one.
The problem with carbon isn't what happens when you ride it, but what happens by accident. Tipping a carbon bike over can cause stresses in a direction where the fibers are weak, thus causing significant damage with minimal force. Some carbon bikes are even so thin in certain places that the frame can bend if you press it with your finger.
This type of problem is not present in aluminum frames.
The problem with carbon isn't what happens when you ride it, but what happens by accident. Tipping a carbon bike over can cause stresses in a direction where the fibers are weak, thus causing significant damage with minimal force. Some carbon bikes are even so thin in certain places that the frame can bend if you press it with your finger.
This type of problem is not present in aluminum frames.
> I always like to show these videos to illustrate:
The videos are fun, but of a very limited scope. I would like to see the corresponding videos made by an independent person, or by people who make steel, aluminium and titan frames. People who sell carbon frames at a higher price point have every incentive to bias the results of these experiments in their favor (for example, by intentionally producing less robust aluminium frames for their lower end products).
The videos are fun, but of a very limited scope. I would like to see the corresponding videos made by an independent person, or by people who make steel, aluminium and titan frames. People who sell carbon frames at a higher price point have every incentive to bias the results of these experiments in their favor (for example, by intentionally producing less robust aluminium frames for their lower end products).
That seems unlikely as there's plenty of competition amongst bike manufacturers, so deliberately weakening a cheaper model would just lead to a drop in reputation. There's a reason that carbon frames are popular - it can be made extremely strong and still be light.
My experience was that riding on a halfway decent road bike made of aluminum was radically more enjoyable than on a Dutch-style city bike. The increase in effective speed made a huge difference even for basic commuting tasks. When we switched my son over from a crappy, heavy kids' bike, to a nice, light, aluminum one from Frog, we saw a similar change with him.
So weight and speed probably do matter, even for regular people.
So weight and speed probably do matter, even for regular people.
Seconded. You can go further and/or faster with a lighter bike, making it more practical and enjoyable. You get to see more and going fast is fun!
Little pit stops are less tiring as well. Like if you have to quickly unload or load from a bus or car, get over a fence, etc. A lighter bike makes it feel like less momentum is lost in those moments.
Geometry and stiffness make the biggest difference to handling with weight being of negligible benefit (on a mountain bike a bit of extra weight can actually be beneficial on jumps). You and your son were probably simply riding better designed bikes.
Weight is pretty important for kids bikes. When your kid weighs 20kg, it makes a difference if their bike weighs 12kg or 8kg.
Well, that too, but I do think the weight makes a difference for acceleration.
My current all road bicycle is built around an affordable aluminiun frame with 650b wheels and carbon fork. The only thing I'd wish for is extra rubber clearance in the front fork, as the rear is all right.
Good quality steel is quite light as well, about 2.5 kg for the frame and the fork. Add to that beefy 650b or 700c wheels with 42..50 mm wide rubber and you've got a bike which one can confortably ride on most roads, paved or otherwise. The new gravel bike trend is quite in line with this. As long as it's not an UCI approved discipline and the manufacturers start making only race bikes again, one can probably find a decent endurance or adventure model with more relaxed geometry and actual utility. I like the current Breezer Bikes lineup a lot, especially the Doppler. They're made of regular 4130 chromoly, not Reynolds 725 or other heat treated steel types, but they're affordable, very durable and also carbon fork compatible. Joe Breeze is also very experienced designer and builder, being one of the original mountain bike pioneers. If you want a more nimble bike look for a Ritchey or the more premium QBS brands like Salsa or All City.
Dutch style bikes are okay in flat countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, but I'd get a lighter trekking bike regardless.
Good quality steel is quite light as well, about 2.5 kg for the frame and the fork. Add to that beefy 650b or 700c wheels with 42..50 mm wide rubber and you've got a bike which one can confortably ride on most roads, paved or otherwise. The new gravel bike trend is quite in line with this. As long as it's not an UCI approved discipline and the manufacturers start making only race bikes again, one can probably find a decent endurance or adventure model with more relaxed geometry and actual utility. I like the current Breezer Bikes lineup a lot, especially the Doppler. They're made of regular 4130 chromoly, not Reynolds 725 or other heat treated steel types, but they're affordable, very durable and also carbon fork compatible. Joe Breeze is also very experienced designer and builder, being one of the original mountain bike pioneers. If you want a more nimble bike look for a Ritchey or the more premium QBS brands like Salsa or All City.
Dutch style bikes are okay in flat countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, but I'd get a lighter trekking bike regardless.
Dutch-style bikes are not only very heavy, but the upright position is also not good for speed. They have other benefits though, the posture gives a better overview of traffic, lowers the chance of back pain and this type of bike generally requires less maintenance (e.g. my wife's Dutch bike only needed one repair in the 10 years she has had it, while it has been parked outside in the rain/snow some years, when we didn't have a garage).
That said, Dutch-style bikes are not for me. I like trekking bikes, which often have a good trade-off between speed, weight, stability, and lower maintenance than most road bikes (especially with belt drive and a gear hub). I also have a hybrid bike, which is lighter and faster, but I don't really like the amount of maintenance it requires (regularly degreasing the derailleur) and it feels less stable than a trekking bike.
That said, Dutch-style bikes are not for me. I like trekking bikes, which often have a good trade-off between speed, weight, stability, and lower maintenance than most road bikes (especially with belt drive and a gear hub). I also have a hybrid bike, which is lighter and faster, but I don't really like the amount of maintenance it requires (regularly degreasing the derailleur) and it feels less stable than a trekking bike.
> lowers the chance of back pain
my (limited) experience is the opposite. I have more back pain after a ride with my upright, dutch-style ride, than on my sporty trekking bike, that has a more inclined position and I ride comfortably for longer and on more irregular terrain. Maybe the vertical position is worse to absorb road vibrations?
my (limited) experience is the opposite. I have more back pain after a ride with my upright, dutch-style ride, than on my sporty trekking bike, that has a more inclined position and I ride comfortably for longer and on more irregular terrain. Maybe the vertical position is worse to absorb road vibrations?
Maybe the vertical position is worse to absorb road vibrations?
Could be. My point of reference is The Netherlands, where we have good cycling infrastructure and the roads are typically very smooth.
Could be. My point of reference is The Netherlands, where we have good cycling infrastructure and the roads are typically very smooth.
Yeah, I wonder what kind of back pain is that. On a dutchie your weight goes right onto your lower back (just like when sitting down), and it's the lower back what you use for your pedal strokes. Not great for extended periods of time.
On a trekking bike your weight is more distributed, since your torso is sort of laying down.
On a trekking bike your weight is more distributed, since your torso is sort of laying down.
In my experience: It's more likely to be some detail about your two positions than the coarse category.
In my case, a change of saddle made a great difference. The two saddles weren't particularly different in price or overall look, but one happened to fit my body much better than the other. Luck.
In my case, a change of saddle made a great difference. The two saddles weren't particularly different in price or overall look, but one happened to fit my body much better than the other. Luck.
You are correct the upright position on a city bike is harder on the spine! That is why upright bicycles usually have a real mattress sprung saddle not just a piece of cheap plastic or carbon!
You don't ride a Dutch bike to go fast, you ride it to get from A to B, optionally with three kids and a week's groceries loaded on it.
I did that on a trekking bike (admittedly with one kid). I must be Dutch ;).
Though, if I could go back a few years in time, I would just buy something like an Urban Arrow. We had one last holiday and they are awesome for transporting kids + groceries.
Though, if I could go back a few years in time, I would just buy something like an Urban Arrow. We had one last holiday and they are awesome for transporting kids + groceries.
I do that. Two kids, not three. And I appreciate that the bike is light.
It doesn't make much sense, in a way: If I have a trailer and 150-200kg of total weight (and I have as much every couple of weeks), why should 5kg more or less matter? But it matters: The bike feels better when it's not that heavily loaded, ie. most of the time.
What matters most of the time, matters.
It doesn't make much sense, in a way: If I have a trailer and 150-200kg of total weight (and I have as much every couple of weeks), why should 5kg more or less matter? But it matters: The bike feels better when it's not that heavily loaded, ie. most of the time.
What matters most of the time, matters.
Definitely. With a kid on the back a bike has to be sturdy first and foremost. It's not a slow bike, but it has just three speeds (start-from-standing, normal, downhill/wind-in-the-back).
Yes, these are the recommendations of what is known as a retro-grouch in cycling circles and should be taken with a pinch of salt TBH.
Horses for courses. If you are riding around town in the Netherlands a Durch bike might be more fun due to the lower average speed, better bike infrastructure and having loads of other cyclists to look out for. In London a single speed similar to a track bike is probably best because you need to go fast all the time but don’t often need to worry about hills, in San Fran get an e-bike, in Sydney just get a cab so you aren’t vehicular homicided by a bogun
These people care way too much about specifics. Just get any old bike and drive it. Carbon vs aluminium vs steel? You're not fucking racing with it, you're driving it through a city. Also: in the falls and crashes I did have over the decades: never once did any part of my frame as much as dent. It doesn't matter.
Just get a 40 euro clonker and drive it. Fix it up when it needs fixing. Unless you're doing 15 or more clicks of commuting with it, that'll be perfectly fine and anything more luxurious than that is a waste.
Just get a 40 euro clonker and drive it. Fix it up when it needs fixing. Unless you're doing 15 or more clicks of commuting with it, that'll be perfectly fine and anything more luxurious than that is a waste.
>Just get any old bike and drive it. Carbon vs aluminium vs steel? You're not fucking racing with it, you're driving it through a city.
Thank you for having the balls to say this.
Thank you for having the balls to say this.
> It doesn't matter.
But that's not really true. A lot of novices are turned off riding because they use a bicycle shaped object which rides like a tractor.
Buying a light bike with good handling and a good drive train is important for taking pleasure in riding even if you're just doing a 4km commute or supermarket run.
But that's not really true. A lot of novices are turned off riding because they use a bicycle shaped object which rides like a tractor.
Buying a light bike with good handling and a good drive train is important for taking pleasure in riding even if you're just doing a 4km commute or supermarket run.
I don't understand this urge many 'experts' have to look at someone who's starting a new hobby (or in this case: mode of transport) and tell them to care about all of this stuff that doesn't matter.
It'd be like someone asking advice on getting his first car and all of these people come in and tell him that you'd really want a boxer engine, and while you can get FWD, RWD or AWD is just superior. And you also really ought to get a turbo on it. Some people still prefer a supercharger, but those are just outdated, and modern antilag systems just make turbos superior in all ways.
It'd be like someone asking advice on getting his first car and all of these people come in and tell him that you'd really want a boxer engine, and while you can get FWD, RWD or AWD is just superior. And you also really ought to get a turbo on it. Some people still prefer a supercharger, but those are just outdated, and modern antilag systems just make turbos superior in all ways.
i feel like in this case it's more like:
Q: i want to buy a car.
A: just get one. compact car, ferrari, station wagon, truck mixer, F1 car, oldtimer, golf cart, doesn't matter! all of those will get you to your destination eventually.
Q: i want to buy a car.
A: just get one. compact car, ferrari, station wagon, truck mixer, F1 car, oldtimer, golf cart, doesn't matter! all of those will get you to your destination eventually.
You could say this for literally anything -- just buy a cheap one and it will be fine. Some people are willing to spend a little more money to get more comfort.
I have two bikes, one is a silly city bike without gear shift, and with dodgy brakes. I have to go up and down the hill, it's really not possible to use it for that comfortably.
The other is an excellent (also second hand) bike with 7 gears, panier rack, disc brakes. I love it. Disc brakes, BTW, are so comfortable on your fingers.
I have two bikes, one is a silly city bike without gear shift, and with dodgy brakes. I have to go up and down the hill, it's really not possible to use it for that comfortably.
The other is an excellent (also second hand) bike with 7 gears, panier rack, disc brakes. I love it. Disc brakes, BTW, are so comfortable on your fingers.
> You could say this for literally anything -- just buy a cheap one and it will be fine. Some people are willing to spend a little more money to get more comfort.
Yeah, you can. And for 95% of cases it'll be fine. The article opens with "For non-expert cyclists". Those don't need to worry about the material of the frame, or the kind of brakes. Give them a 3-speed with hand brakes and it'll be fine.
What's way more important and much more likely to cause a huge shift in comfort for starting cyclists that this article doesn't talk about is correct size, saddle adjustment etc etc.
> Some people are willing to spend a little more money to get more comfort.
Totally. This is coming from someone who used to own 4 bikes (once every-day bike, a mountain bike, a street racing bike and a carrier bike for postal work). But you get those for specific reasons after you've learned what you need. That's when you are already an expert. If you're not a biker, the thing to do is get something cheap so you can get used to it and just do it.
Yeah, you can. And for 95% of cases it'll be fine. The article opens with "For non-expert cyclists". Those don't need to worry about the material of the frame, or the kind of brakes. Give them a 3-speed with hand brakes and it'll be fine.
What's way more important and much more likely to cause a huge shift in comfort for starting cyclists that this article doesn't talk about is correct size, saddle adjustment etc etc.
> Some people are willing to spend a little more money to get more comfort.
Totally. This is coming from someone who used to own 4 bikes (once every-day bike, a mountain bike, a street racing bike and a carrier bike for postal work). But you get those for specific reasons after you've learned what you need. That's when you are already an expert. If you're not a biker, the thing to do is get something cheap so you can get used to it and just do it.
fun is an important factor. if riding is fun, people look forward to it. i, for one, prefer my bike to driving my car or taking public transport. if riding your old clunker is a chore you'll find excuses at every opportunity and probably stop riding altogether (especially if convenience is also a factor, e.g. if you have to haul your bike out of the cellar, weight makes a huge difference).
also if it was true that ease of use wasn't a factor e-bikes wouldn't be booming.
also if it was true that ease of use wasn't a factor e-bikes wouldn't be booming.
I was like you until I got my first new bike that was also a road bike. Before I had badly maintained second hand bikes around 20kgs and it was ok. But cycling on 20mm tires, with brand new drive train on bike that's 9kg or so was just amazing fun. It's now 10+ years old but it's still way more fun. You step on the pedals and just fly away
This. I bought some 65eur junk and drove it for years. Don't even know what type of frame it has, or gear, or brakes. It needed lot of fixing during the years, but it worked and that is what matters. Plus I didn't have to worry about someone stealing it.
On the other hand, if you're going to be doing a lot of riding it, there's not much point trying to save on upfront cost. Over the years, I've spent thousands of dollars maintaining mine, and who knows how many hours riding it. Technically I could have bought a cheaper one at the start, but it's a bit of a pointless saving after so much time.
Hard to take any of his advice serious, when he starts by saying that weight isn't that important for a bike. Riding old heavy bikes vs. new lightweight bikes is a world of difference. The stuff said about safety:
> if a car crumples too much when it’s in a collision, that’s an unsafe car and you don’t want it on the streets. I feel the same about bikes.
also sounds a bit strange. Certainly carbon fiber can crack instead of bend, but you typically notice that. And aluminum is probably not as "bendy" as steel, but I've never heard about anyone getting into problems due to riding around unknowingly on a cracked aluminum frame.
> if a car crumples too much when it’s in a collision, that’s an unsafe car and you don’t want it on the streets. I feel the same about bikes.
also sounds a bit strange. Certainly carbon fiber can crack instead of bend, but you typically notice that. And aluminum is probably not as "bendy" as steel, but I've never heard about anyone getting into problems due to riding around unknowingly on a cracked aluminum frame.
You can definitely notice 2 lbs + butted tubing upgrade while riding a bike. It's essentially why Raleigh offered 3 grades of steel bikes in the 70s :
28 lbs : carbon steel (2 models)
25 lbs : 531 butted main tubes, forks (2 models)
23 lbs : 531 throughout (2 models)
The super course was a bit of an aberration (27 lbs; 531 plain gauge steel main tubes only; only a 1 lbs upgrade from carbon steel; the 531 did not improve the bike but the sticker on the seat tube conferred bragging rights!)
28 lbs : carbon steel (2 models)
25 lbs : 531 butted main tubes, forks (2 models)
23 lbs : 531 throughout (2 models)
The super course was a bit of an aberration (27 lbs; 531 plain gauge steel main tubes only; only a 1 lbs upgrade from carbon steel; the 531 did not improve the bike but the sticker on the seat tube conferred bragging rights!)
I think the problem with heavy bikes isn't only the weight itself. It's the fact that heavy bikes typically have much cheaper components / manufacturing overall.
Consider that adding 5 pounds to stationary components, like the frame, is adding < 5% to the amount of work being done by the rider, depending on the rider's weight.
I took his comments on bike weight as him saying that it isn't really worth worrying about an extra pound or two.
Consider that adding 5 pounds to stationary components, like the frame, is adding < 5% to the amount of work being done by the rider, depending on the rider's weight.
I took his comments on bike weight as him saying that it isn't really worth worrying about an extra pound or two.
I ride a 25-30 pound old bike and an 80 pound cargo bike and I don't think weight is that important for city riding. So it depends what you want to do with it.
> Bicycle racing has produced a lot of people who think weight matters on bikes. It does in races, but weight isn’t a substantial factor for people who ride at normal speeds.
Weight is still a substantial factor if you ever have to go up or down stairs with your bike.
Weight is still a substantial factor if you ever have to go up or down stairs with your bike.
Or even up or down hills. I could stand to lose quite a few pounds, and it's far cheaper to lose 20 pounds of me than 20 pounds of bicycle, and while I love my good old steel Surly, there's an obvious difference riding my aluminum road bike and a very obvious difference when I've test-ridden modern carbon bikes.
Yeah. When I'm in peak physical shape, 15lb of bicycle is more than 10% of my body weight. It 100% matters even on relatively gentle inclines.
An additional couple of pounds on the bike is only a couple of %, and you're not going to notice it. Wind, tires, positioning, how you're feeling, and road surface matter more. Anything less than a pound and you're talking the difference between a full small waterbottle and an empty one.
Doubling the bike weight, you might notice in the speed, you might not. You might notice it in the handling/feel, you might not. Adding 8kg of panniers to my bike doesn't noticeably slow me down.
Personally, I'm just as fast up hills on a 12kg gravel bike with fat, supple tires (650x42), a rack and fenders as I am on the 8kg carbon 700x25c boneshaker tires.
And I'm faster going down, because I'm not shaken all to hell.
Doubling the bike weight, you might notice in the speed, you might not. You might notice it in the handling/feel, you might not. Adding 8kg of panniers to my bike doesn't noticeably slow me down.
Personally, I'm just as fast up hills on a 12kg gravel bike with fat, supple tires (650x42), a rack and fenders as I am on the 8kg carbon 700x25c boneshaker tires.
And I'm faster going down, because I'm not shaken all to hell.
[deleted]
Or take a train. If you have ever seen people fighting their e-bikes while trying to enter a train you know why weight matters :D
I've even seen riders having problems getting their e-bike upright again after it fell to the ground.
I've even seen riders having problems getting their e-bike upright again after it fell to the ground.
Saving weight on a bike becomes exponentially more expensive the lighter the bike becomes. Sure, it helps not to buy the cheapest, heaviest model you can find at Walmart, but how many hundreds of dollars is worth to save another kilo or two to carry up a flight of stairs?
weight is a factor when it comes to ride quality, though how important that is for you is, i guess, dependent on your personality.
if a bike isn't fun and therefore not used after the initial honeymoon phase even the cheapest price tag is unnecessarily expensive.
if a bike isn't fun and therefore not used after the initial honeymoon phase even the cheapest price tag is unnecessarily expensive.
[deleted]
Weight is also a substantial factor in the wheels and tires. I experimented heavily with everything from 26x1.25" tires to 26x2.25" tires, with light tubes all the way to thorn proof tubes with that green goop in them (Man I was sick of flats...). The difference in the speeds I was able to attain not just from rolling resistance but to the amount of weight I had to spin was huge.
I settled eventually on 26x1.75" tires with a solid center tread and kevlar lining. They were amazing on road (commuting) and worked well in other situations too. For context, I was riding 12mi/day commuting to/from work in Reno NV back in the mid 2000's. Rode a steel framed Specialized Rockhopper that was converted to a fixed gear tank- not your average fixie. Featured trekker bars, an MTB sized IRO hub, cliffhanger rims, racks front and back, the works. Best bike I ever had.
I settled eventually on 26x1.75" tires with a solid center tread and kevlar lining. They were amazing on road (commuting) and worked well in other situations too. For context, I was riding 12mi/day commuting to/from work in Reno NV back in the mid 2000's. Rode a steel framed Specialized Rockhopper that was converted to a fixed gear tank- not your average fixie. Featured trekker bars, an MTB sized IRO hub, cliffhanger rims, racks front and back, the works. Best bike I ever had.
It’s bulk that makes navigating stairs with a 10kg bike worse than a sack of groceries…well and that the geometry of a bike changes with changing orientation.
In a domestic space a bicycle is an awkward piece of metal.
In a domestic space a bicycle is an awkward piece of metal.
10kg is a pretty light bike. My steel city bike weighs 17kg, and some of those pretty dutch style citybikes with sturdy steel fenders can weigh over 20kg
Getting the bike is not the biggest hurdle to becoming a biker. People give up for a few common reasons.
1. Flats [revised]: use quality tires and learn to change it and patch a tube. But I know you don’t want to do that before you start riding, and some roads will flat anything (e.g.: I flatted 7 times in one day riding from SF to LA in armadillos). So what then? Maybe try: big fat tires, Tuffy strips, sealant, and tubeless.*
2. Minor repairs: always bring pump, tire levers, tube, patch kit, multi-tool, and a dollar bill.
3. Rain: always bring a light shell and gloves.
4. Safety: run both front and rear lights in constant mode day and night. Helmet always.
5. Crotch pain: Get padded bike underwear, and switch it out post-ride to keep it dry.
6. Slowness: Yes; it’s slower than a car. Plan accordingly. Get the fastest bike you’re willing to pay for, but mostly just work on making yourself faster.
7. Back pain: there are some posture effects of spending all that time on a bike. You’ll need to do some stretching or strengthening, or whatever; I’m not really sure because I used to think I knew what I was doing in this area, but it’s always been a fight and I think I’m losing it.
* no flash, I was wrong
* I’ve gone back and forth on tubeless. One trick I came up with is bonding the butyl tube to the inside of the tire with vulcanizing cement. You can also do the same with a layer of thick latex between the tire and a latex tube, which seems to work a little better at the cost of some leakage. I mix my own latex with PEG and some light fibers so it’s sticky but it flows.
1. Flats [revised]: use quality tires and learn to change it and patch a tube. But I know you don’t want to do that before you start riding, and some roads will flat anything (e.g.: I flatted 7 times in one day riding from SF to LA in armadillos). So what then? Maybe try: big fat tires, Tuffy strips, sealant, and tubeless.*
2. Minor repairs: always bring pump, tire levers, tube, patch kit, multi-tool, and a dollar bill.
3. Rain: always bring a light shell and gloves.
4. Safety: run both front and rear lights in constant mode day and night. Helmet always.
5. Crotch pain: Get padded bike underwear, and switch it out post-ride to keep it dry.
6. Slowness: Yes; it’s slower than a car. Plan accordingly. Get the fastest bike you’re willing to pay for, but mostly just work on making yourself faster.
7. Back pain: there are some posture effects of spending all that time on a bike. You’ll need to do some stretching or strengthening, or whatever; I’m not really sure because I used to think I knew what I was doing in this area, but it’s always been a fight and I think I’m losing it.
* no flash, I was wrong
* I’ve gone back and forth on tubeless. One trick I came up with is bonding the butyl tube to the inside of the tire with vulcanizing cement. You can also do the same with a layer of thick latex between the tire and a latex tube, which seems to work a little better at the cost of some leakage. I mix my own latex with PEG and some light fibers so it’s sticky but it flows.
> 2. Minor repairs: always bring pump, tire levers, tube, patch kit, multi-tool, and a dollar bill.
Ok I'll bite, I've replaced my fair share of bicycle tires/punture repairs, what do you need the dollar bill for?
Ok I'll bite, I've replaced my fair share of bicycle tires/punture repairs, what do you need the dollar bill for?
You use the dollar bill as a tire boot. If the tire is so damaged that the tube bulges out of tire (and prevents proper inflation), then you use the dollar bill to reinforce the tire by shoving it between the damaged tire and the tube.
Also, if you couldn't find the burr that punctured your tire in the first place and it's still embedded in the tire, having the thick plastic/paper between it and the tube helps with preventing another issue.
Safety: run both front and rear lights in flash mode all day and night.
Please don't do that :(. Flashing lights are terrible. In the dark it's really hard to estimate the distance to a cyclist coming from the opposite direction with flashing lights. Secondly, the flashing is annoying to the eyes of other people in traffic as they try to adjust to light-dark-light-dark-light-... all the time.
For these reasons, flashing lights are forbidden in some countries (e.g. in The Netherlands, where cycling is one of the most popular methods of transportation) [1].
Just have the lights always on.
[1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/fiets/vraag-en-antw...
Please don't do that :(. Flashing lights are terrible. In the dark it's really hard to estimate the distance to a cyclist coming from the opposite direction with flashing lights. Secondly, the flashing is annoying to the eyes of other people in traffic as they try to adjust to light-dark-light-dark-light-... all the time.
For these reasons, flashing lights are forbidden in some countries (e.g. in The Netherlands, where cycling is one of the most popular methods of transportation) [1].
Just have the lights always on.
[1] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/fiets/vraag-en-antw...
What's so fucking annoying is that while experts agree that flashing lights decrease visibility and safety, all separate battery operated lights sold have this dumb setting. Lots of people buying them instinctively feel that the strobe setting must make them easier to spot and just use that.
Some Chinese manufacturer once set the standard, and now all these lights have a single button that switches between off, half-brightness, full-brightness, and this much-maligned strobe.
Some Chinese manufacturer once set the standard, and now all these lights have a single button that switches between off, half-brightness, full-brightness, and this much-maligned strobe.
Re: flashers. Point taken. Definitely no front flashers at night. I tend to think they might do something positive in bright daylight on long open roads, but I wouldn’t be the expert on other people seeing me.
1 and 2. there are tires which are less likely to flat, e.g. the Schwalbe Marathon Plus.
2. a well maintained bicycle is very reliable, even if it is older
3. yeah, it is like walking. get a rain coat when your forecast says it might rain.
4. my advice get a hub dynamo to power your lights, never worry about charged batteries again. flash mode is not a good idea, also illegal in some places. helmets are overrated and are essentially victim blaming. But I get where is this coming from, instead of building a safe infrastructure the cities put the responsibility to be safe on the bicycle rider.
5. get a better sattle, never really had an issue.
6. very much depends on the place, in my town I'm as fast as a car on many daily routes, simply because I can use more direct routes.
7. what kind of bicycle are you using? everyday bicycles shouldn't do that, a good bicycle let's you ride w/o backpain. maybe your bicycle is too small or too big for you, they are not a one size fits all kind of thing.
It is not about becoming a "biker" or "cyclist" it is about that a bicycle is a good mode of everyday transportation and a very much less harmful one for cities. Not just in the Netherlands.
2. a well maintained bicycle is very reliable, even if it is older
3. yeah, it is like walking. get a rain coat when your forecast says it might rain.
4. my advice get a hub dynamo to power your lights, never worry about charged batteries again. flash mode is not a good idea, also illegal in some places. helmets are overrated and are essentially victim blaming. But I get where is this coming from, instead of building a safe infrastructure the cities put the responsibility to be safe on the bicycle rider.
5. get a better sattle, never really had an issue.
6. very much depends on the place, in my town I'm as fast as a car on many daily routes, simply because I can use more direct routes.
7. what kind of bicycle are you using? everyday bicycles shouldn't do that, a good bicycle let's you ride w/o backpain. maybe your bicycle is too small or too big for you, they are not a one size fits all kind of thing.
It is not about becoming a "biker" or "cyclist" it is about that a bicycle is a good mode of everyday transportation and a very much less harmful one for cities. Not just in the Netherlands.
>Schwalbe Marathon Plus
Yes, I went from having a puncture every 250 miles to not having one over the last 6,000 miles.
My only problem was getting hold of them during the pandemic.
Yes, I went from having a puncture every 250 miles to not having one over the last 6,000 miles.
My only problem was getting hold of them during the pandemic.
> 1 and 2. there are tires which are less likely to flat, e.g. the Schwalbe Marathon Plus.
I can't even remember my last flat since I've stopped being a student on a budget, got a job and bought a more upscale bicycle with those tyres. That's over ten years ago with a single daily use bicycle. I've changed them once I think; just due to the thread wearing down. They really do work at preventing punctures.
> 6. very much depends on the place, in my town I'm as fast as a car on many daily routes, simply because I can use more direct routes.
And parking is rarely a problem too.
I can't even remember my last flat since I've stopped being a student on a budget, got a job and bought a more upscale bicycle with those tyres. That's over ten years ago with a single daily use bicycle. I've changed them once I think; just due to the thread wearing down. They really do work at preventing punctures.
> 6. very much depends on the place, in my town I'm as fast as a car on many daily routes, simply because I can use more direct routes.
And parking is rarely a problem too.
Literally do not follow a single piece of advice this person is giving regarding tubes and tires.
Nobody in their right mind bonds tubes to tires (in two decades of cycling I've never heard of this nonsense.) Nobody wastes their time or energy mixing up custom goo for whatever this person is doing it with it.
Do not use sealant in tubes, only tubeless. All you will do is make for a big mess. Buy tires with the right level of flat protection you need, don't ride in debris, ride with suitable tire pressure, and when you get a flat, figure out why you got the flat, and address it if relevant.
Do not use latex tubes (you can't even buy them in most stores because they're vastly inferior to artificial rubber tubes in every way imaginable.)
Nobody in their right mind bonds tubes to tires (in two decades of cycling I've never heard of this nonsense.) Nobody wastes their time or energy mixing up custom goo for whatever this person is doing it with it.
Do not use sealant in tubes, only tubeless. All you will do is make for a big mess. Buy tires with the right level of flat protection you need, don't ride in debris, ride with suitable tire pressure, and when you get a flat, figure out why you got the flat, and address it if relevant.
Do not use latex tubes (you can't even buy them in most stores because they're vastly inferior to artificial rubber tubes in every way imaginable.)
> Safety: run both front and rear lights in flash mode all day and night
Do not fucking do this. Not only it is a pain in the arse for other people, it's also actively dangerous. In the dark it can make it look like you're further away, behind a hedge of something that'd block light. Lights should be on continously.
> Helmet always.
Really no reason to.
> Crotch pain: Get padded bike underwear, and switch it out post-ride to keep it dry.
Just get a better saddle, and ensure the saddle's in the right position and leaning. Either a softer one, or, if you're on a bike with a forward leaning posture, a saddle with a hole in it.
Do not fucking do this. Not only it is a pain in the arse for other people, it's also actively dangerous. In the dark it can make it look like you're further away, behind a hedge of something that'd block light. Lights should be on continously.
> Helmet always.
Really no reason to.
> Crotch pain: Get padded bike underwear, and switch it out post-ride to keep it dry.
Just get a better saddle, and ensure the saddle's in the right position and leaning. Either a softer one, or, if you're on a bike with a forward leaning posture, a saddle with a hole in it.
> 5. Crotch pain: Get padded bike underwear, and switch it out post-ride to keep it dry.
Having padded shorts helps, but saddle sores are usually a result of poor fitness and poor ride ergonomics. Most bikes sold to casual riders enforce a very vertical position in which a lot of the body's weight is supported by the butt, which then gets "bruised" and over exerted. A comfortable ride is one where you rest your weight equally on your arms, legs and butt.
My advice for people suffering saddle sores is to ride more and get stronger legs and better pedaling technique that can support their weight over the complete pedal stroke.
Having padded shorts helps, but saddle sores are usually a result of poor fitness and poor ride ergonomics. Most bikes sold to casual riders enforce a very vertical position in which a lot of the body's weight is supported by the butt, which then gets "bruised" and over exerted. A comfortable ride is one where you rest your weight equally on your arms, legs and butt.
My advice for people suffering saddle sores is to ride more and get stronger legs and better pedaling technique that can support their weight over the complete pedal stroke.
Riding in normal underwear definitely causes problems because of the seams. This is why you shouldn't wear underwear under cycling shorts.
My point was meant for novice riders which probably don't ride the distances where regular wear vs cycling bibs really have an impact. For a 5km ride to work and 5km back I think it's safe to leave the padded shorts at home but you could still have a sore bum because of bad fitness.
For me, the most important property of a bike is how well it stores. Even if I ride an average of an hour a day, >95% of the time, stored is how the bike is being used (p-hacking that is left an exercise for the reader).
So now I have a Brompton. It lives between rides in an ordinary closet (or cupboard as a Brit might say). Taking it from the closet to the outside and unfolding it is the second easiest ride prep method I know of —- the easiest is outside unlocked (price of outside and unlocked are obvious).
Hauling it requires no now-you-have-two-awkward-pieces-of-metal car rack or disassembly, so the decision to take it somewhere to ride is only do I want to ride it.
And it is a piece of masterful engineering that does everything a bike needs to do reasonably well and doesn’t encourage the purchase of Lycra or obsession over specifications. YMMV.
So now I have a Brompton. It lives between rides in an ordinary closet (or cupboard as a Brit might say). Taking it from the closet to the outside and unfolding it is the second easiest ride prep method I know of —- the easiest is outside unlocked (price of outside and unlocked are obvious).
Hauling it requires no now-you-have-two-awkward-pieces-of-metal car rack or disassembly, so the decision to take it somewhere to ride is only do I want to ride it.
And it is a piece of masterful engineering that does everything a bike needs to do reasonably well and doesn’t encourage the purchase of Lycra or obsession over specifications. YMMV.
My age-old contention in these threads is that if Apple wants to get into the mobility space, they should quit footling around with self-driving cars and just buy Brompton.
Quality of engineering, miniaturisation, lightness, battery technology (for e-bikes), customer experience… it’s a perfect fit. The Mac wasn’t codenamed “Bicycle” for nothing.
Quality of engineering, miniaturisation, lightness, battery technology (for e-bikes), customer experience… it’s a perfect fit. The Mac wasn’t codenamed “Bicycle” for nothing.
My guess is that the Mac was code named “bicycle” because Jobs loved the analogy of the computer being like a bicycle for your brain, it’ll let you leverage your own capacity to go much further/get things done much faster.
I mean you’re right about Brompton but I suppose folding bikes just look “too silly” for most people, that Apple would want to be associated with them, sadly.
I mean you’re right about Brompton but I suppose folding bikes just look “too silly” for most people, that Apple would want to be associated with them, sadly.
I loved the "hydraulic brakes are different and hard to maintain"... that's changed in the last few years, they're now common, reliable, and plug'n'play. I have been fitting them to my bikes as upgrades because for under $100 you get a lever+caliper that will just work forever. Pad replacement with disks is no harder than on rim brakes, and with hydros you have to replace them less often ... and they work better. I haven't bled bydro brakes for at least 10 years.
The exception is if you have drop bars, because hydraulic brakes are still kinda new there. But if you're looking at beginner guides you should have drop bars anyway.
The exception is if you have drop bars, because hydraulic brakes are still kinda new there. But if you're looking at beginner guides you should have drop bars anyway.
Yeah, I very much disagree with the hydraulic brakes part too.
Every bike shop employee I've talked to told me hydraulic brake maintenance is harder, but you need to do it so infrequently that they take less total effort. They feel great and have been working great for me with no work needed so far.
I used to have mechanical disc brakes and IMO they were worse than both rim and hydraulic disc brakes. They constantly needed adjustments, the cables stretched, they rubbed and made awful noises, and they weren't nearly as precise or effective as hydraulic disc brakes.
Every bike shop employee I've talked to told me hydraulic brake maintenance is harder, but you need to do it so infrequently that they take less total effort. They feel great and have been working great for me with no work needed so far.
I used to have mechanical disc brakes and IMO they were worse than both rim and hydraulic disc brakes. They constantly needed adjustments, the cables stretched, they rubbed and made awful noises, and they weren't nearly as precise or effective as hydraulic disc brakes.
Yeah, the entire article is written by a snobby retrogrouch who has no idea what modern bicycles are like and is largely repeating myths.
I’m surprised to see no mention (maybe I missed it?) of hub gears and belt vs chain.
I really enjoy shifting gears while stopped at a traffic light and not worrying about grease or monthly maintenance.
7 gears seem enough to me.
I really enjoy shifting gears while stopped at a traffic light and not worrying about grease or monthly maintenance.
7 gears seem enough to me.
hub gears with a belt instead of a chain was a big reason for my current bicycle. Also having a hub dynamo (which is/should be standard nowadays) a nice thing.
Yes, the price goes up quite a bit but I think it pays off in the long term. I think those bikes are especially interesting for people who just want to go from A to B and don't consider themselves "cyclists" (aka use it for sport). Add some puncture-proof tyres and you have a bicycle that will most likely just regular maintenance once a year.
That said, when something does go wrong with the belt/drivetrain/hub it becomes a pain in the arse.
That said, when something does go wrong with the belt/drivetrain/hub it becomes a pain in the arse.
I strongly agree - if you don't enjoy taking care of your bike and just see it as a utility, belt drive + hub gearing + dynamo hub + disc brakes + puncture proof tires is the way to go.
Don't ever try a Rohloff or Pinion. Just say no and walk away.
I did not know that and a couple of thousand dollars later I'm never going back. All the gears you want, any time you want them, and a great deal of "it just works". Admittedly it does feel a bit weird to say "time to change the oil in my bicycle" :) Which, BTW, happens more often than changing the chain.
I did not know that and a couple of thousand dollars later I'm never going back. All the gears you want, any time you want them, and a great deal of "it just works". Admittedly it does feel a bit weird to say "time to change the oil in my bicycle" :) Which, BTW, happens more often than changing the chain.
If you aren't in it for pure fitness, get an electric bike.
All of a sudden headwinds and hills are afterthoughts.
Usually you can get thicker more durable tires. Carry cargo/racks with little regard to reduced aero and more weight. You can keep up with the spandex crowd in a mixed outing. You can go 20mph (at least, be careful with ones that go faster than you can handle) in almost all situations. Bike locks can be heavy and non-aero too.
They are in a rapid, rapid phase of evolution. Likely they will become critical to urban lifestyles.
All of a sudden headwinds and hills are afterthoughts.
Usually you can get thicker more durable tires. Carry cargo/racks with little regard to reduced aero and more weight. You can keep up with the spandex crowd in a mixed outing. You can go 20mph (at least, be careful with ones that go faster than you can handle) in almost all situations. Bike locks can be heavy and non-aero too.
They are in a rapid, rapid phase of evolution. Likely they will become critical to urban lifestyles.
> If you aren't in it for pure fitness, get an electric bike.
Depends heavily on terrain, weather, and the health of the rider.
Get an electric bike if you wouldn't get on a normal bicycle otherwise. Get a normal bicycle if that works for you. The health benefits are substantial, they're cheaper, less likely to be stolen (because everyone wants en e-bike), and it's one less thing that can break or need replacing in time. Not having a battery to back you up also stops you from getting dependant on it.
I don't own a bike for pure fitness (that's a desirable side effect), I own one because it is my means of transportation (outside of public transport for longer distances) and damn convenient, but I'm not about to give up the (significant) health benefit for a little more comfort I don't need now.
Depends heavily on terrain, weather, and the health of the rider.
Get an electric bike if you wouldn't get on a normal bicycle otherwise. Get a normal bicycle if that works for you. The health benefits are substantial, they're cheaper, less likely to be stolen (because everyone wants en e-bike), and it's one less thing that can break or need replacing in time. Not having a battery to back you up also stops you from getting dependant on it.
I don't own a bike for pure fitness (that's a desirable side effect), I own one because it is my means of transportation (outside of public transport for longer distances) and damn convenient, but I'm not about to give up the (significant) health benefit for a little more comfort I don't need now.
I'm willing to be most people who ride an e-bike are seeing an improvement to their fitness. The reason is it wasn't a choice between an e-bike and a road bike. Rather it was a choice between an e-bike vs the car or an e-bike vs walking or a long ride on the e-bike vs a short ride on a road bike.
I have both an ebike and a couple of "normal" bikes. I use my ebike for commuting to the office - because with that I know at the end of a longer day when I'm tired (which happens on a relatively unpredictable basis for me) I won't be dreading the ride back home. You can dial down the electric assistance to make it more of a fitness experience and this is what I typically do outside of that situation.
Charging batteries is a hassle. Having to even think about it is a hassle. I like bikes because they are basically hassle free. They need no fuel, almost no maintenance. I put it in my basement and pick it up the next day without thinking about it once in between. I don't care that much if it gets stolen since I paid less than a 100 for it 7 years ago.
So get an ebike if you feel like it or need it, but don't underestimate the simplicity of a trusty old fashioned bike.
So get an ebike if you feel like it or need it, but don't underestimate the simplicity of a trusty old fashioned bike.
If you aren't in it for pure fitness, get an electric bike.
If you are physically fit, I'd rather say: get a good bike within your budget. For example, 1200 Euro will buy you a very decent non-electric bike, that will probably be a smooth ride. 1200 Euro will buy you quite a miserable eBike. 500-600 of the cost is the engine and battery pack, so a 1200 Euro eBike is roughly a 600 Euro bike (so, usually not great).
If you have 2000-2500 Euro to spend, you can get a decent eBike or a high-end regular bike.
If you are physically fit, I'd rather say: get a good bike within your budget. For example, 1200 Euro will buy you a very decent non-electric bike, that will probably be a smooth ride. 1200 Euro will buy you quite a miserable eBike. 500-600 of the cost is the engine and battery pack, so a 1200 Euro eBike is roughly a 600 Euro bike (so, usually not great).
If you have 2000-2500 Euro to spend, you can get a decent eBike or a high-end regular bike.
I bought a bicycle and every single seat in the shop I tested was horrible.
Why the hell is the default shape a gooch destroyer? I'd rather a round wooden bar stool seat than that.
I literally can't find anything except that design online either.
Why the hell is the default shape a gooch destroyer? I'd rather a round wooden bar stool seat than that.
I literally can't find anything except that design online either.
I assume it’s not really possible to make a saddle with a radically different shape that still supports the rider and allows their legs to pedal the bike.
For what it’s worth after some time in the saddle your body will get used to it and it’ll be less uncomfortable. Even now, after decades of cycling, it takes a while to get comfortable again after a prolonged period off the bike.
For what it’s worth after some time in the saddle your body will get used to it and it’ll be less uncomfortable. Even now, after decades of cycling, it takes a while to get comfortable again after a prolonged period off the bike.
Nah, it's trivial. They're called recumbents.
More usefully, upright bike saddle fit is largely about the spacing of your sit bones. There's tutorials online on how to measure that, and some saddles tell you what spacing they're designed for. The alternative is to go to a proper bike shop and try a variety of saddles to find on you like. But it's tedious, because seat height, handlebar height, handlebar distance, seat to pedal horizontal distance and fore-aft tilt all affect that too.
If it really bothers you pay for a "bike fit", there are people who do this for a living and can make a huge difference to how you feel on the bike.
More usefully, upright bike saddle fit is largely about the spacing of your sit bones. There's tutorials online on how to measure that, and some saddles tell you what spacing they're designed for. The alternative is to go to a proper bike shop and try a variety of saddles to find on you like. But it's tedious, because seat height, handlebar height, handlebar distance, seat to pedal horizontal distance and fore-aft tilt all affect that too.
If it really bothers you pay for a "bike fit", there are people who do this for a living and can make a huge difference to how you feel on the bike.
There's models without the front bulge (aimed at people wearing dresses so it doesn't show a bulge coming from between their legs). Were the angles of those seats adjusted accordingly? Might work better for you if they're angled downwards. The majority of the weight should be on the back side, the middle part is more to prevent rotating motions [citation needed])
As someone who cycles every day, has done so for the last 20 years and rides a variety of different bikes (I’ve got 6), I can probably help on this one...
Basically people with this problem are often trying to sit on the wrong part of their body and/or have the wrong length saddle for their riding position.
I’ll start with the first problem of sitting on the wrong part.
What people often try to do is treat a saddle like a chair and attempt to sit on the fleshy parts of their bum — on the glutes (arse muscles). Instead what you want to do is sit on your “sit bones”. The sit bones are part of your pelvis and can be found on either side of your balls or vulva (depending on your biological sex, naturally). It can take a little time to get used to having pressure on your sit bones. Using padded cycling shorts can help with making the transition to regular cycling, and can be necessary if you do more than an hour per day in the saddle even for experienced riders. The temptation is often to get a bigger, softer saddle but this will have the effect of putting pressure on your squishy bits, so even if it feels more comfy when you first sit on it, within 5 minutes you’ll be hurting. You want a saddle that is only slightly wider than your sit bones.
The 2nd part of the equation is saddle length. The long and short of it is that you need a shorter saddle for more upright bikes and a longer one for bikes with a lower front stack. This is because if you are more upright your kegs would rub on a longer saddle. Your local bike shop can tell you what saddle length is appropriate.
There is one more thing to think about and this applies especially to women, and that’s the gutter in the middle of the saddle. Many women find a deep gutter can help take pressure off their vulva and keep the weight on the sit bones.
In conclusion, no their isn’t a giant conspiracy by the cycling industry and local bike shops to hurt you. Instead you just need to update your technique so that you are on your sit bones instead of the fleshy bits. A smaller, harder saddle is going to be infinitely more comfortable than a big squishy one.
Trust your local bike shop, and if you are having difficulty adjusting get some padded cycling shorts.
Good saddles I have experience of using include Brooks (various leather saddles depending on the bike) Sella Italia Turbo (I use this on my single speed) and Fiz:ik Areone (SP OK?). None of these are cheap but cheaper, good saddles are numerous.
Trust your local bike shop and lean in to it. It might take a few weeks to adjust, but you’ll get there.
Happy riding!
Basically people with this problem are often trying to sit on the wrong part of their body and/or have the wrong length saddle for their riding position.
I’ll start with the first problem of sitting on the wrong part.
What people often try to do is treat a saddle like a chair and attempt to sit on the fleshy parts of their bum — on the glutes (arse muscles). Instead what you want to do is sit on your “sit bones”. The sit bones are part of your pelvis and can be found on either side of your balls or vulva (depending on your biological sex, naturally). It can take a little time to get used to having pressure on your sit bones. Using padded cycling shorts can help with making the transition to regular cycling, and can be necessary if you do more than an hour per day in the saddle even for experienced riders. The temptation is often to get a bigger, softer saddle but this will have the effect of putting pressure on your squishy bits, so even if it feels more comfy when you first sit on it, within 5 minutes you’ll be hurting. You want a saddle that is only slightly wider than your sit bones.
The 2nd part of the equation is saddle length. The long and short of it is that you need a shorter saddle for more upright bikes and a longer one for bikes with a lower front stack. This is because if you are more upright your kegs would rub on a longer saddle. Your local bike shop can tell you what saddle length is appropriate.
There is one more thing to think about and this applies especially to women, and that’s the gutter in the middle of the saddle. Many women find a deep gutter can help take pressure off their vulva and keep the weight on the sit bones.
In conclusion, no their isn’t a giant conspiracy by the cycling industry and local bike shops to hurt you. Instead you just need to update your technique so that you are on your sit bones instead of the fleshy bits. A smaller, harder saddle is going to be infinitely more comfortable than a big squishy one.
Trust your local bike shop, and if you are having difficulty adjusting get some padded cycling shorts.
Good saddles I have experience of using include Brooks (various leather saddles depending on the bike) Sella Italia Turbo (I use this on my single speed) and Fiz:ik Areone (SP OK?). None of these are cheap but cheaper, good saddles are numerous.
Trust your local bike shop and lean in to it. It might take a few weeks to adjust, but you’ll get there.
Happy riding!
Very good info, just want to add one thing: if you haven't biked for some time, your butt will hurt after the first couple of rides.
+1 for this. Also, in my experience the SQLab saddle system with different widths depending on anatomy and posture on the bike makes a lot of difference. I'm running SQLab saddles on 75% of my bikes now - the commuter/beater won't get a fancy seat for the short distances I ride it on.
> I literally can't find anything except that design online either.
Two examples of saddles for people who ride wearing a skirt:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/selle-comfort-rocky-fietszadel-r...
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/selle-comfort-zadel-rok-22-cm-da...
Similar models ought to exist worldwide. Though in general, following the advice some of the other posters have given is more effective.
Most people can use normal saddles. I would recommend getting one suitable for your plumbing down there though (i.e., unisex is convenient, but a good saddle tends to be suitable for either penises or vulva's, not both).
Two examples of saddles for people who ride wearing a skirt:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/selle-comfort-rocky-fietszadel-r...
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/selle-comfort-zadel-rok-22-cm-da...
Similar models ought to exist worldwide. Though in general, following the advice some of the other posters have given is more effective.
Most people can use normal saddles. I would recommend getting one suitable for your plumbing down there though (i.e., unisex is convenient, but a good saddle tends to be suitable for either penises or vulva's, not both).
I missed some advice on the choice of saddle. The wrong saddle can be very uncomfortable on your privates.
> I’ve used both rim brakes and disc brakes quite a bit now, and I’ve found disc brakes to be a lot more reliable. Rim brakes are fiddly: you can easily adjust them wrong and have no braking power. Disc brakes are a lot harder to screw up since they’re more self-contained.
My experience is the opposite. I ride a cyclocross bike which I've had for 12 years. I've done everything on it. It has cantilever brakes, and they're just ridiculously simple to maintain. Nothing ever goes wrong with them. Every year or two I change the pads. They're incredibly forgiving. Even with the pad wearing away, I don't need to adjust anything, there's just a little bit more travel in the lever.
By contrast, my partner has a disk brake on the front - same bike otherwise. It's a constant hassle, because there is so little tolerance. If the disk is slightly out of true, it makes noise. If the wheel is put on the tiniest bit incorrectly, it's unrideable. They seem to need adjusting frequently, and it's just plain fiddly.
I'm going to switch to disks for my next bike, just because I'm sick of wearing out rims. For everything else I prefer rim brakes.
My experience is the opposite. I ride a cyclocross bike which I've had for 12 years. I've done everything on it. It has cantilever brakes, and they're just ridiculously simple to maintain. Nothing ever goes wrong with them. Every year or two I change the pads. They're incredibly forgiving. Even with the pad wearing away, I don't need to adjust anything, there's just a little bit more travel in the lever.
By contrast, my partner has a disk brake on the front - same bike otherwise. It's a constant hassle, because there is so little tolerance. If the disk is slightly out of true, it makes noise. If the wheel is put on the tiniest bit incorrectly, it's unrideable. They seem to need adjusting frequently, and it's just plain fiddly.
I'm going to switch to disks for my next bike, just because I'm sick of wearing out rims. For everything else I prefer rim brakes.
This is clearly an opinion piece of someone with some, but not too much self-taught knowledge about bicycles. It should be taken as such - it's quite opinionated, not always correct, and certainly doesn't contain great wisdom. Most of it is at least not plain wrong, and generally adhering to the advice given won't cause harm.
Would be curious to have some examples of things that are incorrect or not great wisdom.
A lot of that has already been covered in other comments, e.g. frame material. One thing that caught my eye was the recommendation for mechanical disc brakes. In my experience, these always suck. They don't stop properly, they need a lot of lever force, and they're quite sensitive to cable drag.
Hydraulic brakes hardly ever need maintenance apart from changing the pads, especially when used for commuting/recreational riding. Manufacturers tell you to change the hydraulic fluid once every few years, which should be done at the local bike store and can be combined with a general check-up which is a good idea once in a while anyway.
The reason that mechanical disc brakes are horrible is because they often are cheap and bottom of the line. You could use TRP Spyre which have a different reputation. It still won't be as light on the hand as hydraulic, but there may be the other advantages so there is a reasonable compromise possible. And with bicycles, everything is a compromise :)
I think the article is getting too much criticism really. There are some things that are maybe overgeneralizations, but its advice isn't too bad for someone looking for a general-purpose bike. A lot of it is solidly within the gravel biking camp, for better or worse, that perspective isn't too bad of advice for someone who just wants an everyday bike.
Some things that strike me as a little off:
1. Frame material is hard to generalize about, and I wouldn't rank order them quite the same way as the author has, or at least for the same reasons. Top-end aluminum is very very nice, very light and strong, for example. There's pros and cons to everything. ey
2. I'd maybe stick closer to 28-32 mm for a tire, but their advice isn't too far off the mark. Tire choice depends a lot on use. Gravel or some snow you might heed the author's advice, but for blacktop skinnier would be better. Skinnier tires were overrated for awhile, now wider is better is maybe overstated advice. You want the skinniest tire your typical riding surface can afford vibration-wise in general. Wider than your riding surface needs just adds unnecessary weight. By the same token, you could underestimate how much variation in riding surface you encounter.
3. They dismiss weight waaay too easily, although this is becoming common advice now, even in some racing circles. Weight matters, although there's diminishing returns to less weight, especially around 10kg or so. You can overdo it and become a weight weenie unnecessarily, and at some point losing more weight won't matter. But all other things being equal, lighter is more comfortable and easier ("all other things being equal" is the catch though).
4. The disc versus rim brake and mechanical versus hydraulic disc thing is complicated (although the way the author writes about it seems to acknowledge this). All are fine; disc brakes stop better but the difference is often not one that has much practical consequence, and disc brakes can be just as futzy in their own way (they can be harder to maintain when you do need to do maintenance), and they weigh more and are less aerodynamic. My sense is the primary reason disc brakes are being pushed is because they are easier to use with wider tires. Hydraulic disc brakes are much better now, and are more differentiated from rim brakes than mechanical brakes in terms of stopping power, but mechanical disc brakes can be much easier to service when you need to (although rim are probably easier still).
Honestly, the bike community is full of myths and people pushing personal subjective preferences as if they're objective laws of nature. So you have to take everything, and I mean everything with a grain of salt. Bike companies push new products based on sketchy lab assumptions, that leads to purchasing trends based fear of loss of parts or desire for status, or to avoid feeling out of date. These then become incorrect maxims that are replaced by new FUD trends and pushback etc etc. There's constant bickering over extreme positions that oversimplify everything.
Some things that strike me as a little off:
1. Frame material is hard to generalize about, and I wouldn't rank order them quite the same way as the author has, or at least for the same reasons. Top-end aluminum is very very nice, very light and strong, for example. There's pros and cons to everything. ey
2. I'd maybe stick closer to 28-32 mm for a tire, but their advice isn't too far off the mark. Tire choice depends a lot on use. Gravel or some snow you might heed the author's advice, but for blacktop skinnier would be better. Skinnier tires were overrated for awhile, now wider is better is maybe overstated advice. You want the skinniest tire your typical riding surface can afford vibration-wise in general. Wider than your riding surface needs just adds unnecessary weight. By the same token, you could underestimate how much variation in riding surface you encounter.
3. They dismiss weight waaay too easily, although this is becoming common advice now, even in some racing circles. Weight matters, although there's diminishing returns to less weight, especially around 10kg or so. You can overdo it and become a weight weenie unnecessarily, and at some point losing more weight won't matter. But all other things being equal, lighter is more comfortable and easier ("all other things being equal" is the catch though).
4. The disc versus rim brake and mechanical versus hydraulic disc thing is complicated (although the way the author writes about it seems to acknowledge this). All are fine; disc brakes stop better but the difference is often not one that has much practical consequence, and disc brakes can be just as futzy in their own way (they can be harder to maintain when you do need to do maintenance), and they weigh more and are less aerodynamic. My sense is the primary reason disc brakes are being pushed is because they are easier to use with wider tires. Hydraulic disc brakes are much better now, and are more differentiated from rim brakes than mechanical brakes in terms of stopping power, but mechanical disc brakes can be much easier to service when you need to (although rim are probably easier still).
Honestly, the bike community is full of myths and people pushing personal subjective preferences as if they're objective laws of nature. So you have to take everything, and I mean everything with a grain of salt. Bike companies push new products based on sketchy lab assumptions, that leads to purchasing trends based fear of loss of parts or desire for status, or to avoid feeling out of date. These then become incorrect maxims that are replaced by new FUD trends and pushback etc etc. There's constant bickering over extreme positions that oversimplify everything.
"widest possible tires" from the article sounds wrong, not because of width but because wider tires are typically knobby type (don't know if that's the right word?). Tires for mountain bike use are far from optimal for city/pavement usage - they're noisier, can produce micro vibrations, and often feel much worse when cornering. Semi slick tires with some water channels are better in almost all cases, except on very soft surfaces. You don't have to put super narrow tires, but some medium width semi slick tires greatly improve pavement ride compared to m/b tires.
Good (supple) wide, low pressure tires are _awesome_ on pavement. 650x42, or my favs, the Rat Trap Pass 26x2.1. They're expensive ($80 each), but they're a game changer. (They're good for 5-7% speed increase on my tandem over the Schwable 26x40mm that I was running). Bad chip seal? no problem. Gravel? no problem. Smooth road? like buttah.
Nice writeup. I would like to add that coaster brakes are my favorite. The whole flow of cycling becomes so much more smooth. Braking by hand (on a lever) is shocky, always last-minute, more like stop-go-stop-go. Very tiresome, not only for the hands but for my whole body. I notice that I pay more attention to the road and traffic, look more forward and cycle more defensive with coaster brakes.
Some disadvantages: if my chain breaks, I have a problem. Although I must add I live in pretty flat Netherlands. But there are some steap long hills here that I like to ride once in a while, which give me another problem. I noticed my braking power reduced significantly when I kept braking for one or two minutes. Which is not strange, since the braking happens around the hub, so all the force concentrates there. This could be the specific brakes that were on my bike back then, but it scared me nonetheless.
Some disadvantages: if my chain breaks, I have a problem. Although I must add I live in pretty flat Netherlands. But there are some steap long hills here that I like to ride once in a while, which give me another problem. I noticed my braking power reduced significantly when I kept braking for one or two minutes. Which is not strange, since the braking happens around the hub, so all the force concentrates there. This could be the specific brakes that were on my bike back then, but it scared me nonetheless.
Regarding aluminum vs. steel - I've had two aluminum frames crack after a couple years of normal riding (no crashes). Trek, to their credit, honored their warranty and replaced the bikes. Given enough time, aluminum will always fail; steel will not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
Yes and no. But more no.
Yes, steel has a fatigue limit, but it’s unlikely to come into play because of the requirements to be in that regime (mainly, bikes are too light) while at the same time, fatigue is highly sensitive to the details of the shape of the connection and any initial imperfections from welds.
Personally, I’ve had an aluminum bike and a steel bike fail in fatigue, both starting in welds.
Yes, steel has a fatigue limit, but it’s unlikely to come into play because of the requirements to be in that regime (mainly, bikes are too light) while at the same time, fatigue is highly sensitive to the details of the shape of the connection and any initial imperfections from welds.
Personally, I’ve had an aluminum bike and a steel bike fail in fatigue, both starting in welds.
I'm a bit of a bike nerd and I feel like a lot of the author's recommendations are purely for other bike nerds -- Velo Orange, All City? Steel frame with wide drop bars, fat tires and disc brakes?
My go-to recommendation for a bike that will fit the needs of 99% of people riding on pavement, is a Brompton. It folds up small, very quickly, making it easy to take on the train or throw in the back seat of your car. They also come with racks, bag mounts, dynamo lights/fenders/a bell and they have very workable gear ranges. People take them on trans-continental bike tours even.
My go-to recommendation for a bike that will fit the needs of 99% of people riding on pavement, is a Brompton. It folds up small, very quickly, making it easy to take on the train or throw in the back seat of your car. They also come with racks, bag mounts, dynamo lights/fenders/a bell and they have very workable gear ranges. People take them on trans-continental bike tours even.
Brompton has a very low max weight. 105kg iirc. Bike Friday out of Eugene, OR has foldable bikes up to 150kg.
The Brompton max weight is 110kg.
The last I looked, the Bike Friday that folds as small as a Brompton had a lower max weight.
The higher load Bike Friday models only folded in half rather than thirds.
The other aspect of Bike Friday is that the buyer has to choose components. That’s fine for an existing enthusiast, but a dunning kuger for an average novice.
The last I looked, the Bike Friday that folds as small as a Brompton had a lower max weight.
The higher load Bike Friday models only folded in half rather than thirds.
The other aspect of Bike Friday is that the buyer has to choose components. That’s fine for an existing enthusiast, but a dunning kuger for an average novice.
I don’t really see the point of the BF Pakit (the small one) compared to a Brompton. The bigger BFs are great bikes though - I have a New World Tourist as my daily driver. But if portability is your aim then Bromptons are unbeatable.
[deleted]
I agree 100%.
When looking at using a bike for transportation, you'd typically want racks/mounts, lights, fenders, a bell, internal gears, upright geometry, etc.
If you live in an area with a good transportation network, you'll want it to be foldable so you can leverage multi-modal transport options.
When looking at using a bike for transportation, you'd typically want racks/mounts, lights, fenders, a bell, internal gears, upright geometry, etc.
If you live in an area with a good transportation network, you'll want it to be foldable so you can leverage multi-modal transport options.
And it can hold it own against most other bikes. This is not really a scientific study, but it does show that it's a fantastic bike. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCAwg9OMa84
they have very workable gear ranges
My advice is choose a bike for it’s low gears because you will spend more time riding up hills and into the wind than downhill and with a tailwind…even if the distances even out.
My advice is choose a bike for it’s low gears because you will spend more time riding up hills and into the wind than downhill and with a tailwind…even if the distances even out.
The lowest gear on a 6-speed Brompton is 33.1 gear inches and with a 44T chainring it can go to 29.1. Considering how light the bike itself is, that's very reasonable!
For reference to those who are unfamiliar with gear inches... My touring bike bottoms out at 26.5 gear inches and I've ridden it thousands of km, loaded across a lot of hilly/off-road terrain. A typical road bike might have 25-30 as its lowest, and a new touring bike might get closer to 20.
For reference to those who are unfamiliar with gear inches... My touring bike bottoms out at 26.5 gear inches and I've ridden it thousands of km, loaded across a lot of hilly/off-road terrain. A typical road bike might have 25-30 as its lowest, and a new touring bike might get closer to 20.
[deleted]
Nice page. I think this is all great advice I wish I had gotten.
Oddly, I find smaller tires more comfortable. I also have better experience not popping them on debris. Expecting this is mostly confirmation bias.
Oddly, I find smaller tires more comfortable. I also have better experience not popping them on debris. Expecting this is mostly confirmation bias.
A smaller contact patch tends to roll better and gives less surface area for something to puncture.
The contact area depends only on the pressure. A wide tire has the same contact area of a narrow one if the pressure is the same. The geometry of the contact area differs. It's always a rectangle but for a wide tire the longest edge is right-to-left, for the narrow one is front-to-back. This means that a narrow tire is less round than a wide one and rolls less effectively. It must be pumped to a higher pressure to be roll as well as the wider tire. So it gets a smaller contact area, transfers more vibrations to the rider and rolls the same.
In my experience a narrower tire on the same bicycle has the advantage of a lighter wheel (even if when the rim is the same, which usually is not). Two lighter wheels give quicker accelerations and a lighter bicycle.
In my experience a narrower tire on the same bicycle has the advantage of a lighter wheel (even if when the rim is the same, which usually is not). Two lighter wheels give quicker accelerations and a lighter bicycle.
It must be pumped to a higher pressure to be roll as well as the wider tire. So it gets a smaller contact area, transfers more vibrations to the rider and rolls the same.
I know. I added a not obvious explanation. Even now among cyclists it's common to think that higher pressure means going faster. Actually there is an optimal combination of rider and bike weight, road surface, tire, tube, rim. Pros are currently riding 25 mm tires which were anathema a few years ago.
BTW, if you optimize avoiding punctures you probably want sturdy thick heavy tires.
BTW, if you optimize avoiding punctures you probably want sturdy thick heavy tires.
25 is about the sweet spot for me. I thought pros were on 19s. And the local shop only had 32s, on the regular.
Though, for me, I suspect it is largely nostalgia. 25 is about the size of the first road bike I had, and that brings a ton of good memories for how well that bike rode. I didn't realize, until then, just how different the acceleration could feel between bikes.
Though, for me, I suspect it is largely nostalgia. 25 is about the size of the first road bike I had, and that brings a ton of good memories for how well that bike rode. I didn't realize, until then, just how different the acceleration could feel between bikes.
I wish this myth would stop being perpetuated. Yes, aluminum frames typically crack or dent rather than splinter and become immediately hazardous, but if you hit something hard enough to break a carbon frame, you'll have done even more damage to an aluminum one. If you hit the deck that hard, you're best off getting the frame professionally inspected and replaced if necessary.
I think this fear stems from a gut feeling that metal is more ductile and durable than "plastic", but what you're dealing with is far, far stronger than plastic.
I always like to show these videos to illustrate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eMMf11uhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc