4 ms·

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

by 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
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Carbon fiber doesn't do very well under repeated vibration and shock loads, and is very susceptible to UV damage. This can of course be mitigated, but that's part of why CF frames are expensive. And in the end, the weight savings are rather small, most people do fine on hills as long as they have the appropriate gearing.
nradov 8y ago
Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry (laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).
- modzu 8y ago
  it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%. there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces. we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a commute count. i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow
  - modzu 8y ago
    another way to think about it is this -- you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your bike". yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot, hehe). but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock doesn't. the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else. maybe it does!) does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Walmart bikes are miserable to ride because of the horrible groupsets, not the frame material. Carbon fiber bikes are available now for much less than $10K, but if you're on a tight budget it's usually better to pick a bike with a cheaper metal frame so that you can get a more expensive groupset.

by modzu 8y ago

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
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Carbon fiber doesn't do very well under repeated vibration and shock loads, and is very susceptible to UV damage. This can of course be mitigated, but that's part of why CF frames are expensive. And in the end, the weight savings are rather small, most people do fine on hills as long as they have the appropriate gearing.

nradov 8y ago

Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry (laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).

modzu 8y ago
it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%. there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the differences purely in terms of physical forces. we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a commute count. i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow
- modzu 8y ago
  another way to think about it is this -- you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your bike". yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot, hehe). but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock doesn't. the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else. maybe it does!) does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Walmart bikes are miserable to ride because of the horrible groupsets, not the frame material. Carbon fiber bikes are available now for much less than $10K, but if you're on a tight budget it's usually better to pick a bike with a cheaper metal frame so that you can get a more expensive groupset.