7 ms·

Bicycle Recommendations

64 points by luu 5y ago

mcntsh 5y ago
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.
- rmoriz 5y ago
  Brompton has a very low max weight. 105kg iirc. Bike Friday out of Eugene, OR has foldable bikes up to 150kg.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    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.
    - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        [deleted]
- athrun 5y ago
  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.
  - lokedhs 5y ago
    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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCAwg9OMa84
- brudgers 5y ago
  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.
  - mcntsh 5y ago
    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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
taeric 5y ago
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.
- geocrasher 5y ago
  A smaller contact patch tends to roll better and gives less surface area for something to puncture.
  - pmontra 5y ago
    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.
    - geocrasher 5y ago
      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. You've just reinforced my point ;)
      - pmontra 5y ago
        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.
copperwater69 5y ago
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.
- cranekam 5y ago
  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.
  - Psychlist 5y ago
    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.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  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])
- mrcartmeneses 5y ago
  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!
jl2718 5y ago
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.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  > 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?
  - jerlam 5y ago
    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.
    - mariusor 5y ago
brudgers 5y ago
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.
- Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
  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.
  - vestrigi 5y ago
    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.
    - brudgers 5y ago
      Brompton is a computer for your body?
      - vestrigi 5y ago
        Doesn‘t sound as good if you reverse the analogy but I think it still holds.
holografix 5y ago
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.
- tehabe 5y ago
  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.
  - this_is_not_you 5y ago
    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.
    - Cockbrand 5y ago
      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.
- Psychlist 5y ago
  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.
Psychlist 5y ago
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.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Yeah, the entire article is written by a snobby retrogrouch who has no idea what modern bicycles are like and is largely repeating myths.
- bobetomi 5y ago
  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.
pbsurf 5y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit
- wiredfool 5y ago
  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.
bjarneh 5y ago
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.
- sealaska 5y ago
  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.
- locallost 5y ago
  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.
- systemBuilder 5y ago
  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!)
AllegedAlec 5y ago
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.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >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.
  - AllegedAlec 5y ago
    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.
    - stefs 5y ago
      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.
  - mariusor 5y ago
    > 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.
rambambram 5y ago
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.
Cockbrand 5y ago
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.
- happyraul 5y ago
  Would be curious to have some examples of things that are incorrect or not great wisdom.
  - Cockbrand 5y ago
    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.
    - mpol 5y ago
      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 :)
  - derbOac 5y ago
    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.
stevage 5y ago
> 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.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
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.
- locallost 5y ago
  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.
- microtonal 5y ago
  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.
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  > 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.
BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
> 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.
- ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
  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.
- adrianN 5y ago
  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?
  - stefs 5y ago
    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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- geocrasher 5y ago
  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.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
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.
- microtonal 5y ago
  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.
  - enriquto 5y ago
    > 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?
    - microtonal 5y ago
      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.
    - 5y ago
pawptart 5y ago
> Carbon bike frames are designed only for the loads in “normal riding” but not really for all the random things you might do by accident while owning a bike, like bumping it into walls, over-tightening the seat post, etc 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=w5eMMf11uhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc
- stonogo 5y ago
  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.
- Psychlist 5y ago
  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.
litoE 5y ago
I missed some advice on the choice of saddle. The wrong saddle can be very uncomfortable on your privates.

64 points by luu 5y ago

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.

rmoriz 5y ago
Brompton has a very low max weight. 105kg iirc. Bike Friday out of Eugene, OR has foldable bikes up to 150kg.
- brudgers 5y ago
  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.
  - Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      [deleted]
athrun 5y ago
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.
- lokedhs 5y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCAwg9OMa84
brudgers 5y ago
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.
- mcntsh 5y ago
  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.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

taeric 5y ago

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.

geocrasher 5y ago
A smaller contact patch tends to roll better and gives less surface area for something to puncture.
- pmontra 5y ago
  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.
  - geocrasher 5y ago
    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. You've just reinforced my point ;)
    - pmontra 5y ago
      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.

copperwater69 5y ago

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.

cranekam 5y ago
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.
- Psychlist 5y ago
  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.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
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])
mrcartmeneses 5y ago
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!

jl2718 5y ago

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.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
> 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?
- jerlam 5y ago
  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.
  - mariusor 5y ago

brudgers 5y ago

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.

Doctor_Fegg 5y ago
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.
- vestrigi 5y ago
  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.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    Brompton is a computer for your body?
    - vestrigi 5y ago
      Doesn‘t sound as good if you reverse the analogy but I think it still holds.

holografix 5y ago

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.

tehabe 5y ago
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.
- this_is_not_you 5y ago
  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.
  - Cockbrand 5y ago
    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.
Psychlist 5y ago
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.

Psychlist 5y ago

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.

KennyBlanken 5y ago
Yeah, the entire article is written by a snobby retrogrouch who has no idea what modern bicycles are like and is largely repeating myths.
bobetomi 5y ago
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.

pbsurf 5y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

wiredfool 5y ago
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.

bjarneh 5y ago

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.

sealaska 5y ago
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.
locallost 5y ago
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.
systemBuilder 5y ago
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!)

AllegedAlec 5y ago

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.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>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.
- AllegedAlec 5y ago
  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.
  - stefs 5y ago
    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.
- mariusor 5y ago
  > 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.

rambambram 5y ago

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.

Cockbrand 5y ago

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.

happyraul 5y ago
Would be curious to have some examples of things that are incorrect or not great wisdom.
- Cockbrand 5y ago
  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.
  - mpol 5y ago
    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 :)
- derbOac 5y ago
  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.

stevage 5y ago

> 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.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

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.

locallost 5y ago
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.
microtonal 5y ago
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.
Freak_NL 5y ago
> 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.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

> 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.

ReleaseCandidat 5y ago
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.
adrianN 5y ago
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?
- stefs 5y ago
  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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
geocrasher 5y ago
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.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

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.

microtonal 5y ago
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.
- enriquto 5y ago
  > 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?
  - microtonal 5y ago
    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.
  - 5y ago

pawptart 5y ago

> Carbon bike frames are designed only for the loads in “normal riding” but not really for all the random things you might do by accident while owning a bike, like bumping it into walls, over-tightening the seat post, etc 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=w5eMMf11uhM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfjjiHGuHoc

stonogo 5y ago
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.
Psychlist 5y ago
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.

litoE 5y ago

I missed some advice on the choice of saddle. The wrong saddle can be very uncomfortable on your privates.