Beginners guide to commuting?
Comments
-
I have little experience with road bikes, have ridden some, but don't own any.
I hear a lot of warnings/complaints from local roadies about road tires 23mm 10 bar slipping on wet/non-pawed roads. On a hybrid, you can choose tires or wheels with different tires - to your mood, destination or weather.
Most road bicycles don't have enough clearance for tires wider than 28.
I have seen broken rims and snake-bitten road tires on local roads.
The ability to install fenders is essential, so I choose a hybrid (though I tend to use slick tires 32, 28, 23mm) as we don't have many proper touring bikes on sale here. The hybrid has clearance in the frame and brakes.
Re steering, the drop-bar gripping point is generally in front of the front hub,
while flat bar grips or even bar ends are behind the front hub. Steering and balance are different. The frame is longer, and steerer-to-grip distance is shorter in hybrid by 10-12 cm, for the same rider. The hybrid has longer distance between hubs, and it is less common to fly over the bar.
Hi-end custom hybrid isn't so bad to ride either.0 -
Roastiecp wrote:A massive part of the bike comfort equation is in the tyres as these are typically the only suspension a bike has. Road bikes will aways suffer in this area as they usually have only 23mm of air space and types pumped to 8 bar to work properly. Other types of bike may have double that much air space, and at a lower pressure, so less sting and buzz is transmitted through to the contact zones.
Not exactly so. Road bikes tend to have carbon frames which absorb vibrations much better than allu frames with even suspension forks.sarajoy wrote:Flatbar Roadie Cons:
Limited hand positions available
Not so easy to crouch down to reduce drag
Can be a hard ride as majority of rider weight tends to stay on seat
This is easy to overcome.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ptOmgB15vdY/S ... r_ends.jpg
Combined with a long frame, I can go as aero as roadies on dropbars. Have 3 hand positions with easy access to brakes.0 -
Exactly why I just bought and fitted myself some bar endsglebrus wrote:sarajoy wrote:Flatbar Roadie Cons:
Limited hand positions available
Not so easy to crouch down to reduce drag
Can be a hard ride as majority of rider weight tends to stay on seat
This is easy to overcome.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ptOmgB15vdY/S ... r_ends.jpg
Combined with a long frame, I can go as aero as roadies on dropbars. Have 3 hand positions with easy access to brakes.
Mine are actually on the ends, mind! 
0 -
Also to ref an earlier post of yours, the GP4000S is a far far better tire than the GP4000. Sod the colour and invest in a pair![/quote]
Yep, I won't be buying more GP4000 but will leave them on for a while - they'll probably die on me before long anyway. Quite like the look of the GP4000S, in a black sort of way, or maybe the Schwalbe Ultremo R.0 -
sarajoy wrote:Exactly why I just bought and fitted myself some bar ends Mine are actually on the ends, mind!
Your wind drag depends a lot on how wide your have your hands. You don't even need to stoop down as much if you can put your elbows together. And, access to the brakes, mind!
0 -
glebrus wrote:I hear a lot of warnings/complaints from local roadies about road tires 23mm 10 bar slipping on wet/non-pawed roads.
These are two different situations - on wet tarmac, 23mm road tyres without tread are exactly what you want as they simply cut through standing water - it's impossible to aquaplane.
However, as soon as mud or gravel gets involved, 23mm tyres become less than useless. Fortunately, this isn't relevant to most city commuters, but is a very big deal to those who use tracks or tarmac that's regularly muddy.0 -
Bassjunkieuk wrote:I did get an ache at first between thumb and finger where I was riding using the hoods and operating the brakes from up there.
I got this - and it didn't go away or get better, though it didn't happen all the time - on my right hand on both my road bikes. Then, when I pranged the Focus a few weeks ago, the shifter was pushed all the way in and despite my efforts I couldn't push it back to its standard position, so it's marginally more inward pointing than the left hand hood. Which, as it turns out, is exactly the right position for my hand, which no longer aches!0 -
biondino wrote:glebrus wrote:I hear a lot of warnings/complaints from local roadies about road tires 23mm 10 bar slipping on wet/non-pawed roads.
These are two different situations - on wet tarmac, 23mm road tyres without tread are exactly what you want as they simply cut through standing water - it's impossible to aquaplane.
However, as soon as mud or gravel gets involved, 23mm tyres become less than useless. Fortunately, this isn't relevant to most city commuters, but is a very big deal to those who use tracks or tarmac that's regularly muddy.
nor can one aquaplane with even the widest downhill MTB tire, with road grip all things being equal you want wider, most wide tires are not slicks but even so there contact patch will be lot bigger than a 23mm racing tire.0 -
Don't get me started on how I think carbon is rubbish for commuting...glebrus wrote:Not exactly so. Road bikes tend to have carbon frames which absorb vibrations much better than allu frames with even suspension forks.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Shock absorbing ability:glebrus wrote:Roastiecp wrote:Don't get me started on how I think carbon is rubbish for commuting...
I would be very interested to know.
Commuting is typically on real roads with real hazards (potholes, ridges, manhole covers and the like). Carbon frames and forks may be good at taking out road buzz (which has a very small vibration amplitude - i.e. <0.5mm), but given that it doesn't have any real give in it any larger shocks that would come from big road imperfections will still go straight up the seatpost to the rider.
A larger tyre, however, will always have much more ability to absorb bumps, and typically can run at a lower pressure. For example, a 38c tyre will easily absorb sharp bumps up to 25-30mm. A 23c will battle to absorb anything >18mm, but given the high pressure - the shock will largely be felt by the rider.
In summary, for a non-sus bike, the majority of the suspension is in the tyres. The frame may help take out buzz, but not bumps.
Longevity:
Carbon frames have a limited fatigue life and don't like being exposed to big shocks in their lifetime. Obviously this can partly be designed out, but this is at the expense of weight. They also tend to fail catastrophically rather than giving any warning, or remaining serviceable to allow the rider to at least stop safely (ask George Hincapie). Even with regular inspection, it can be difficult to pick up defects with the naked or untrained eye.
In my mind, a commute bike is something that is ridden everyday and that should not need to be fettled like a race machine. It should need the minmum of maintenance, be able to take life's knocks (like being bumped by some inconsiderate plonker when locked up on the bike rack) but above all be reliable regardless. I don't think carbon fibre is suitable for this use at all.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Being able to run wider tyres is about frame clearence, not frame material, thats even assuming you want to run wider tyres in the first place, far from a given.
I don't see what Hincapie's aluminium steerer breaking as a result of damage caused by a crash and then being ridden by a powerful rider over the pave of Paris-Roubaix has to do with a commute on tarmac , let alone using a carbon fibre frame.
From the rest of it, it seems you don't really see the point in carbon fibre frames at all, outside an actual race. Needless to say, others disagree.
Do drivetrains, saddle positions or handlebars need to be "fettled" more on a carbon fibre framed bike? I can't see why...0 -
Justin case everyone is wondering. I plan to update this thread on Thurdays or Friday nights.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
The point that Glebrus and I were discussing was to do with the comfort implications of frame material - more specifically the view that you don't need bigger tyres as carbon can provide the comfort required. So what I said was entirely relevant in this context.Eau Rouge wrote:Being able to run wider tyres is about frame clearence, not frame material, thats even assuming you want to run wider tyres in the first place, far from a given.
Dear, seems I was under the wrong impression - sorry - thanks for correcting me ...Eau Rouge wrote:I don't see what Hincapie's aluminium steerer breaking as a result of damage caused by a crash and then being ridden by a powerful rider over the pave of Paris-Roubaix has to do with a commute on tarmac , let alone using a carbon fibre frame.
That said, I still don't trust composites and particularly carbon fibre for applications that require resilience and the ability to take knocks. I'll mention Roubaix again because it is a wonderful real life "accelerated wear lab" (much the same way cars are driven over abnormally bumpy roads to simulate the effect of accumulated lifetime stresses in a short time period). In Roubaix, teams often switch components (wheels, stems, fork steerers, etc.) from more fragile carbon to metal components that are less likely to suffer catastrophic failure. To me, on a commute bike, robustness and resilience are far more valuable than saving grams.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
I admire your perseverance and dedication to putting this together. Especially in the face of so much criticism from beligerent gits like me.DonDaddyD wrote:Justin case everyone is wondering. I plan to update this thread on Thurdays or Friday nights.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Roastiecp wrote:That said, I still don't trust composites and particularly carbon fibre for applications that require resilience and the ability to take knocks. I'll mention Roubaix again because it is a wonderful real life "accelerated wear lab" (much the same way cars are driven over abnormally bumpy roads to simulate the effect of accumulated lifetime stresses in a short time period). In Roubaix, teams often switch components (wheels, stems, fork steerers, etc.) from more fragile carbon to metal components that are less likely to suffer catastrophic failure. To me, on a commute bike, robustness and resilience are far more valuable than saving grams.
That's more to do with construction than the nature of the material, though. Stuff intended for racing tends towards the delicate because the manufacturers chase weight reduction at all costs.
I've seen carbon XC frames shrug off impacts that would have terminally dented an aluminium frame, and my mate's much abused and many times crashed carbon Cannondale is still rolling fine.0 -
Refer to my previous post where I said:nation wrote:[
That's more to do with construction than the nature of the material, though. Stuff intended for racing tends towards the delicate because the manufacturers chase weight reduction at all costs.
I've seen carbon XC frames shrug off impacts that would have terminally dented an aluminium frame, and my mate's much abused and many times crashed carbon Cannondale is still rolling fine.Roastiecp wrote:Obviously this can partly be designed out, but this is at the expense of weight.
But I must point out that the fatigue resistance (or lack thereof) and failure mode is entirely due the nature of the material. Being a composite, oscillating stresses cause delamination, which in turn cause stress concentrations and failure.
Sure, CF is great for an XC race machine - but it does still have a limited service life.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Roastiecp wrote:The point that Glebrus and I were discussing was to do with the comfort implications of frame material - more specifically the view that you don't need bigger tyres as carbon can provide the comfort required. So what I said was entirely relevant in this context.
I would agree with you that a CF frame is not a substitute for bigger tyres.Roastiecp wrote:That said, I still don't trust composites and particularly carbon fibre for applications that require resilience and the ability to take knocks. I'll mention Roubaix again because it is a wonderful real life "accelerated wear lab" (much the same way cars are driven over abnormally bumpy roads to simulate the effect of accumulated lifetime stresses in a short time period). In Roubaix, teams often switch components (wheels, stems, fork steerers, etc.) from more fragile carbon to metal components that are less likely to suffer catastrophic failure. To me, on a commute bike, robustness and resilience are far more valuable than saving grams.
CF has been used in bike frames for quite a while now, If those bikes went about failing suddenly we would know about it. I've read numerous posts on here that make the point that CF bikes have just as long a life and are as prang-prone as an aluminium or modern steel frame.0 -
Great resource - good work for taking it on and for taking on everyone's feedback. 8)
One thing I would comment on relates to links. I would prefer if you replaced the direct links to products on Evans site with links to the manufacturers site. e.g. for the U-Lock, use this link instead. Thereby you aren't favouring one retailer over the other, and not giving them free advertising.
Another idea is to add links were there have been good discussions on a particular subject. e.g. for Bike Locks, in addition to what you state - that way a variety of opinions can be seen. It also means that you don't need to have too many Sticky Threads.
Some good previous threads:
Locks - Securing your Steed
Bike Shops - The good bike shop list
Online Retailers - Online retailers: Any I have missed??
However, don't forget that one of the key factors to commuting safely is understanding how to ride you bike in a confident way, no matter what shape of bike you have. A section about Cycle Craftand highlighting the availability of cycle training, for example availability for free in London, and that its not just for beginers or kids (I've signed up for some through work ). In my opinion this is more important than the type of bike.
Another, connected area, is the subject of Insurance, both for your bike and third party cover. Some info on CTC, LCC (for Londoners) and BCF schemes for the third party cover would be good.
Once you start commuting and experience some of the issues we face, a lot of people want to get more invovled in stopping hair brained cycle paths etc. A section on how to get involved in improving the cyclists lot, from simple letter writing, specific campaigns on HGV awareness, to local campaign groups, e.g. Aberdeen, London and Warrington. Again, some of these areas can be started as separate threads and linked from this main Beginners Guide thread, to keep the size down.
Finally, don't forget the good Local Bike Shops. Your previous excellent thread one be good to link to.
The good bike shop list
So, keep up the good work! 0 -
Roastiecp wrote:But I must point out that the fatigue resistance (or lack thereof) and failure mode is entirely due the nature of the material. Being a composite, oscillating stresses cause delamination, which in turn cause stress concentrations and failure.
Sure, CF is great for an XC race machine - but it does still have a limited service life.
The same can be said for aluminium, which has comparably poor fatigue performance, but I don't think anyone would reasonably suggest that an alu frame isn't capable of taking life's knocks.0 -
Hmmm... I agree that carbon bikes have been around forever - it is probably not far off 20 years by now - but that doesn't change the basic failure properties of the material. This is how I see it.Eau Rouge wrote:CF has been used in bike frames for quite a while now, If those bikes went about failing suddenly we would know about it. I've read numerous posts on here that make the point that CF bikes have just as long a life and are as prang-prone as an aluminium or modern steel frame.
1) Carbon fibre:
- Natural tendency to fatigue failure (but I concede that modern resins and forming methods improve fatigue strength).
- Impact often causes internal damage (delamination). This is difficult to detect, and can be impossible to detect with the naked eye.
- By nature CF has zero ductility, so failure is catastrophic (it effectively shatters). OK for a race or weekend machine that is obsolete before it fails, less desireable on a commuter.
- Not repairable.
2) Aluminium:
- Also has a natural tendency to fatigue failure - and I will agree that moden composites are closing the gap on aluminium in this regard - but aluminium is still an order of magnitude more resilient. But back to my favourite test bed, it is telling how many pros switch to more reliable alu for stems, steerers and handlebars for Roubaix.
- Impact usually will cause bending (denting), but the structure will remain intact. So it may be bent, but you will very likely still be able to ride it home. You'll also know when it is broken and unsafe to ride because you can see the damage to the structure.
- Depending on the alloy, impact can cause cracking (although this is almost always visible). Don't quote me on this, but I think 7000 series alu alloys are more prone to cracking than 6000 series alloys. Scandium alloys have great resilience so this is much less of an issue in this case.
- Because alu frames are generally heat treated after welding, they are generally not repairable.
3) Steel:
- Steel is naturally springy so has a good resistance to fatigue failure. However, prone to crorossion, and it can be difficult to rust proof the inside of the frame. Can be prone to stress corrosion cracking (a form of corrosion induced fatigue failure) although this is very unusual.
- Impact will cause bending - can typically be cold worked, so can be bent straight again.
- Strength, fatigue resistance and repairability all depend on construction method and the particular alloy. A problem with steel is that although it has lots of strength, to make the frame very light requires very thin wall tubes which are then prone to denting. It can also be difficult to achieve good rigidity and keep weight down. But if you aren't racing, so what?
- Modern alloys are typically a lot less sensitive to temperature and consequently can be welded in construction without heat treatment. This makes steel frames very easily repairable - this is why steel is still the absolute favourite of expedition tourers as steel is the only material that can be repaired by any guy who knows his way around an oxy-acetylene kit.
4) Titanium:
- Just perfect
. And if you do manage to really break it, so what - you can probably afford to buy a new one. David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Apart from the dropbar vs. flatbar discussion,
I would be interested to hear opinions
re strengths, reliability, weight, and comfort,
about hybrid-class machines (or similar in frame/fork materials):
(1) alu frame, CF fork with alu steerer (Giant CRS 1.0, Scott Sub 10)
(2) alu frame, amo fork (Scott Sportster)
(3) alu frame, alu fork (Scott Sub 20)
(4) alu frame and Cr-Mo rigid fork (Giant CRS 2.0 etc.)
(5) lightweight alloy steel frame and rigid steel fork
Assume same hybrid-type wheels and 23c road tires.
Assume similar brakes and components. Do not consider price.
Assume 40 - 50 km round trip, 90% tarmac, 10% old concrete with non-sealed joints (and you have to go over them). Assume your commute can change in future.
What frame/fork materials would be better for commuting?
(Scott markets Sportster as 'allround', Sub as 'city/commuting', Giant markets CRS as 'fitness')0 -
I've never known anyone to wear out a frame, of any material or construction. Any time I've known of a frame to fail it's been crash damage.
Having said that, a steel frame will generally be repairable, whereas alu or CF won't.
I'd be inclined to go for alu frame and carbon fork.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I’m going to try and provide a beginners guide to commuting.
Great effort!
However, IMHO, commuting by bicycle just isn't for beginners.
You don't just buy a new bike and start commuting. What you do with a new bike - is discovering new things in life and working on fitness.
You buy your first 'adult' bike, then a better one, then yet better one, until you know what you need. You learn to ride in traffic. You learn to repair and maintain your bike. You get reasonably fit. You discover kits, lycras, and layers. You learn riding in rain, in winter. You learn what to eat and drink, and when. You learn a lot of things, and it takes one-two years at best. You're lucky if you have good guides.
Only then you can commute. You're not a beginner by then.0 -
Well, you need to meet me at some pointnation wrote:I've never known anyone to wear out a frame, of any material or construction. Any time I've known of a frame to fail it's been crash damage..
I've had failures with steel (rear dropouts on race frame) and alu (fork dropout weld fatigue cracking). I haven't had enough experience with CF on bikes, but being an engineer, and knowing composites specialists, I would still rather trust metal.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
This is a tricky question - because a well designed alu frame may ride better than a carbon or carbon/alu frame.glebrus wrote:I would be interested to hear opinions
re strengths, reliability, weight, and comfort,
about hybrid-class machines (or similar in frame/fork materials):
Also depends on rider preference and how much the rider values low weight.
Personally I'd go for a nice all steel set-up like a Surly Cross Check (or Planet-X Kaffenback if you want something with a more modern feel) - the only drawback being weight, although compared to the hybrids you bracketed, probably not much (if any) weight penalty in reality.
If the (minor) weight penalty of the old fashioned irons puts you off, then the steel frame/carbon fork combo of something like a Condor Fratello would be spot on the money. I like this bike piles - and if you have no intention of running >23c then it would be #1 in my book. {Edit: Ride quality and feel wise, I reckon the Fratello would be the silkiest over bad roads on 23c of all this side of a Van Nic Amazon}
If steel really isn't your thing (i.e. you still have all your own hair), then I'd say alu frame with carbon (alu steerer) fork - or if the budget allows, a carbon tailed cross frame + carbon/alu fork like the Condor Bivo X (which is also done in a flat bar build if that is your thing). Actually, thinking about it - Bivo X (or Planet-X Uncle John) would be da bomb.David
Engineered Bicycles0 -
Just a thought on this. That probably used to be the case - but we now have a situation with cycle lanes being painted everywhere (how useful they are is debatable in places), cycling uptake is soaring, and people are buying much nicer bikes than they might have before, through tax-free cycle schemes - which are generally through employers and hence geared towards commuting on them.glebrus wrote:IMHO, commuting by bicycle just isn't for beginners.
[..lots of stuff a lot of us have been through..]
Only then you can commute. You're not a beginner by then.
So suddenly we do have a stack of inexperienced people wanting to know what is going to be best for them, and many (like me) might not be able to afford a 2nd bike (I do have an old bike but my new one covers all the bases that one did and then some, so it's going on long-term-loan to a friend).
I think there's definitely a call for a "what bike" thread, even for beginners. But also while certain bikes may be chock-full of benefits physiologically for fast road riding, other bikes may have a bit more of the psychological comfort-factor. Feeling safe gets you well on the way to diverting your attention back to the road and actually being safe.0 -
Returning to the OP, have you any guidance on saddle height? I have recently raised the saddles on both my hybrid and tourer by 1cm increments until I now feel that I am generating more "shove". I can still mount/dismount comfortably but when should I cease? The only general advice I can remember receiving, apart from those artcles about sizing your bike, was that it should be "unfeasably high". My courage may not let me go that far.
Many thanks for this thread DDD and for persevering with the updates. Sorry I used the H word earlier, I know it sets off the red mist.The older I get the faster I was0 -
Good article here:Stone Glider wrote:Returning to the OP, have you any guidance on saddle height? I have recently raised the saddles on both my hybrid and tourer by 1cm increments until I now feel that I am generating more "shove". I can still mount/dismount comfortably but when should I cease? The only general advice I can remember receiving, apart from those artcles about sizing your bike, was that it should be "unfeasably high". My courage may not let me go that far.
Many thanks for this thread DDD and for persevering with the updates. Sorry I used the H word earlier, I know it sets off the red mist.
http://www.bikeradar.com/fitness/techni ... ight-14608
Way back when I used the Lemond/Hinault method and use that height to this day.
One tip though. Don't change your seat height too quickly or by too much at a time, especially if you are used to a lower height: your knees won't thank you if you do.0 -
Wow! what a lot of information. Thanks very much, I shall take another piece of your advice and be gradual about any changes I make.
Thanks again.The older I get the faster I was0
