4 ms·

I’d love more bikes in our town, but it’s not very flat. Is there some data on how much flat does the town have to be to get around on a bike? (I guess electric

by zoul 8y ago

I’d love more bikes in our town, but it’s not very flat. Is there some data on how much flat does the town have to be to get around on a bike? (I guess electric bikes change that equation a bit, but they’re still quite expensive.)

alonmower 8y ago
San Francisco is a big biking town and is very much not flat. You can get around on a bike in a hilly city, it's a combination of learning slightly longer but flatter routes to where you're going and getting used to the hills as you get in better biking shape.
- 5parks1 8y ago
  This seems to contradict the 8-80 rule mentioned in the article. "Getting in better biking shape" is a realistic goal for someone healthy and middle aged, but notsomuch for an 8 or 80 year old.
  - modzu 8y ago
    i knew an 80 year old who cycled a fair bit every day, and this guy was not exactly in great shape. he just had a nice little bike with a lot of gears so he could ride it at a comfortable pace
adrianN 8y ago
How would that data look like? It depends a lot on your personal fitness level what you'd consider too steep. Just looking at number of cyclists has so many confounding variables that I don't think you can infer something about the influence of local geography.
modzu 8y ago
hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and probably hillier places have less cycling. everyone quotes Amsterdam as a great model, but its flat geography is easily suited for cycling -- a better model would be a place that has challenging geography AND still succeeds with great infrastructure. i do think things are moving in the right direction though, people are starting to wake up and realize that there are countless personal and social benefits to cycling
- Luc 8y ago
  30% of new bikes sold in the Netherlands are electric. In Belgium, 40%. No need for carbon frames - electric engines flatten all terrain.
  - modzu 8y ago
    but electric engines don't flatten your stomach
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      You still have to peddle, in the EU they don't have throttles.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Carbon frames have significant drawbacks compared to metal frames, especially for everyday bikes. Sure, the weight reduction matters when you're racing, but carbon frames don't stand up very well to the bumps and scrapes of a bike commute. If you crash a metal frame, it may bend a bit, and if it's unsafe to ride, it's generally immediately obvious. A carbon frame can look perfectly fine, but suddenly snap at an inopportune moment. For commuting and everyday riding, you want something slightly heavier and beefier. Most bikes these days are aluminum, and some people still swear by lugged steel frames for their durability.
  - modzu 8y ago
    i generally agree with you, but i also think it's a little more complex -- carbon fiber is extremely strong for its weight -- if you have an accident that is going to render it unsafe, you are sure likely to know. its true you can bend a steel frame back into shape (not so much with aluminum), but steel also rusts, and with anything the quality of the build matters (what do the welds look like, is it lugged, etc) in any case im talking about a future where carbon is cheaper and replacing it doesn't cost the equivalent of a college degree if anyone wants to read far too much about this stuff, ya gotta read sheldon brown: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

by zoul 8y ago

alonmower 8y ago

San Francisco is a big biking town and is very much not flat. You can get around on a bike in a hilly city, it's a combination of learning slightly longer but flatter routes to where you're going and getting used to the hills as you get in better biking shape.

5parks1 8y ago
This seems to contradict the 8-80 rule mentioned in the article. "Getting in better biking shape" is a realistic goal for someone healthy and middle aged, but notsomuch for an 8 or 80 year old.
- modzu 8y ago
  i knew an 80 year old who cycled a fair bit every day, and this guy was not exactly in great shape. he just had a nice little bike with a lot of gears so he could ride it at a comfortable pace

adrianN 8y ago

How would that data look like? It depends a lot on your personal fitness level what you'd consider too steep. Just looking at number of cyclists has so many confounding variables that I don't think you can infer something about the influence of local geography.

modzu 8y ago

hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and probably hillier places have less cycling. everyone quotes Amsterdam as a great model, but its flat geography is easily suited for cycling -- a better model would be a place that has challenging geography AND still succeeds with great infrastructure. i do think things are moving in the right direction though, people are starting to wake up and realize that there are countless personal and social benefits to cycling

Luc 8y ago
30% of new bikes sold in the Netherlands are electric. In Belgium, 40%. No need for carbon frames - electric engines flatten all terrain.
- modzu 8y ago
  but electric engines don't flatten your stomach
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    You still have to peddle, in the EU they don't have throttles.
KozmoNau7 8y ago
Carbon frames have significant drawbacks compared to metal frames, especially for everyday bikes. Sure, the weight reduction matters when you're racing, but carbon frames don't stand up very well to the bumps and scrapes of a bike commute. If you crash a metal frame, it may bend a bit, and if it's unsafe to ride, it's generally immediately obvious. A carbon frame can look perfectly fine, but suddenly snap at an inopportune moment. For commuting and everyday riding, you want something slightly heavier and beefier. Most bikes these days are aluminum, and some people still swear by lugged steel frames for their durability.
- modzu 8y ago
  i generally agree with you, but i also think it's a little more complex -- carbon fiber is extremely strong for its weight -- if you have an accident that is going to render it unsafe, you are sure likely to know. its true you can bend a steel frame back into shape (not so much with aluminum), but steel also rusts, and with anything the quality of the build matters (what do the welds look like, is it lugged, etc) in any case im talking about a future where carbon is cheaper and replacing it doesn't cost the equivalent of a college degree if anyone wants to read far too much about this stuff, ya gotta read sheldon brown: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html https://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html