The cycling industry are a bunch of

MaxwellBygraves

Ah the hybrid.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

:twisted:

stuaff

jamesco wrote:

StuAff wrote:

gilesjuk wrote:

11 speed requires very narrow expensive chain and it clogs up with cruft a lot easier than a bike less cogs. Not to mention more precise components.
.

Twaddle.

11-speed chain - £35.99 to £44.99
8-speed chain - £10.58 - £26.99

The 11-speed chain tool is £123.31!

(all prices from Wiggle)

Parkers have the Chorus 11-speed chain for £28.60, various other places have it for little more. Buy the KMC chain for £33, or the KMC joining link for a tenner, and you won't need the chain tool either. Hardly expensive IMHO.
I've run 8, 9, 10 & 11 speed drivetrains for 12k+ miles over the last two years. None of those have been any bother apart from chain and cassette wear (duh!) The 11 speed (Athena) has been used for a large chunk of that mileage in all weathers with zero fettling apart from degreasing & relubing, and zero problems. Tell a lie, one chain drop.

As i said, twaddle.

nation

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ah the hybrid.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

:twisted:

You could say that of the average family car.

Someone's Ford Focus is not fast enough to race, can't haul as much stuff or carry as many people as an MPV, will struggle on a muddy track relative to a 4x4, isn't as economical as a city car, isn't as comfortable as a luxury car, etc, etc.

That doesn't necessarily imply that they made the wrong choice. It does most things efficiently enough and in an easy to live with fashion that most people that own one will be happy with it.

jamesco

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ah the hybrid.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

:twisted:

Master of one - being jack of all trades! It's not a problem being great at no one thing, if it means that it's good at everything.

jamesco

StuAff wrote:

Buy the KMC chain for £33, or the KMC joining link for a tenner

Your 11-speed joining link costs as much as an entire 8-speed chain, for goodness sake!

MaxwellBygraves

nation wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Ah the hybrid.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

:twisted:

You could say that of the average family car.

Someone's Ford Focus is not fast enough to race, can't haul as much stuff or carry as many people as an MPV, will struggle on a muddy track relative to a 4x4, isn't as economical as a city car, isn't as comfortable as a luxury car, etc, etc.

That doesn't necessarily imply that they made the wrong choice. It does most things efficiently enough and in an easy to live with fashion that most people that own one will be happy with it.

We're not talking cars, we're talking bikes.

I think what I'm trying to say is that a large amount of hybrids and MTBs are sold for use only on the road, which is wrong. They obviously have their place but it's a bit like me suggesting I go off-roading on my carbon roadie. Clearly not the machine for the job.

Why is it 'wrong' to suggest that if you're riding on the road you should probably get a road bike?

nation

I know we're talking bikes, it was an analogy.

It's funny that the thread started out talking about step-through frames and upright seating positions, and has turned into road bike advocacy.

Most hybrids are just road bikes with flat bars and maybe geometry biased more towards comfort than speed. Those are hardly massive compromises.

snailracer

Even a cheap hybrid has 21 gears /triple chainring not because any rider is expected to use them all on a regular basis, but because it is designed to be ridden by riders ranging from the very strong to the very feeble.

It would be correct for any one rider to say that their hybrid has too many gears, but the advantage is that the manufacturer and distributor only have to source and support one chainset (i.e. economies of scale), which helps them sell hybrids for £70 and still make a profit.

EKE_38BPM

I didn't intend this to be another hybrid thread. I definitely didn't intend it to be a discussion on the pros and cons of narrow chains.

I was just wondering how/why the cycling industry managed to persuade the casual cyclist that they need an aluminium frame (which will give a harsher ride than steel when off road), 18+ gears and suspension?

The bike I pictured ticks all of the boxes that the people who ask me for advice would need but a modern version is very difficult to find as the market is being drowned out by multi-geared, aluminium framed bike with suspension to attempt to soak up the harsher ride and I think its a pity.

Also, my aluminium framed road bike was treated with love but the frame still cracked after almost 10 years. The frame on my fixie is el cheapo 18-23 Raleigh steel and gives a less harsh ride. My mate bought it when he was a young teenager and gave it stick as boys do. When he stopped riding and started driving, the bike was dumped in his back garden for 15+ years and was left to become overgrown by bushes and other flora. When I rescued it I stripped to the the frame and had a look at the internals as best I could. There was a little surface rust externally, but inside was fine so I built it up to the fixie I now ride. If the frame did break, any welder could get me back on the road.

Aluminium frames are less durable. Maybe that is what the industry want, disposable bikes that need replacing every 10 years or less?

snailracer

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

...

We're not talking cars, we're talking bikes.

I think what I'm trying to say is that a large amount of hybrids and MTBs are sold for use only on the road, which is wrong. They obviously have their place but it's a bit like me suggesting I go off-roading on my carbon roadie. Clearly not the machine for the job.

Why is it 'wrong' to suggest that if you're riding on the road you should probably get a road bike?

If you're talking about the cheapo hybrids you see on the road in great abundance, well one reason they are so common is because they are cheaper than road bikes.

If you could buy a new 4x4 for £2000 and the nearest family hatchback started at £10000, then the 4x4 would be the rational choice based on economics, even though the hatchback is the more suitable vehicle for driving in a city.

nation

Aluminium is a cheaper material than steel because it's much easier to handle in terms of manufacturing.

The gears thing because it is one of the few "performance" numbers sales people can use to dazzle prospective bike purchasers. Internal hub gears are experiencing something of a resurgence, though.

Suspension because it seems intuitive to most people that they'd be more comfortable on a bike with suspension than a bike without.

More generally because cycling in this country is dominated by the notion that bikes are either toys for kids or sporting equipment. Most places that sell them (until relatively recently) aren't setting out to cater to people looking for transport, so when they encounter someone that is, they sell them what they have.

Jay dubbleU

Most beginners don't know the between steel and ali as far as the ride goes - however in most cases an ali frame is cheaper than a decent steel frame.

I ride a hybrid because it does everything I want - its light enough to do sportives, tough enough for a bit of light off roading and strong enough to carry my stuff to the office and manage a couple of panniers and a tent if I want to go touring. It has hydraulic discs that would stop an elephant and enough front suspension to cope with potholes and trail riding.

I have had road bike in the past but they just don't grab me - I like riding but apart from SCR I'm not into racing or club riding - only the UK and the Americans seem to us drop bars for touring - most others use flat bars because they're more comfortable.

snailracer

EKE_38BPM wrote:

...I was just wondering how/why the cycling industry managed to persuade the casual cyclist that they need an aluminium frame (which will give a harsher ride than steel when off road), 18+ gears and suspension?...

The harshness of aluminium is a bit of a myth, AFAIK. Bike frames, especially at casual rider price points, are essentially rigid. No part of the frame or forks, made of any material, bends by more than 1-2mm when going over bumps. Tyres, saddles, seatpost, handlebars, grips, seat tube angle, etc. account for the noticeable differences.

At the expensive end of the market, it is easier to make a light aluminium frame than a light steel one, in theory, due to the innate characteristics of the material. However, for BSOs, bike frames are nowhere near this theoretical limit - a BSO aluminium frame is likely just as heavy as a BSO steel one. Cheap aluminium frames predominate simply because the big Taiwanese bike manufacturers invested in welding equipment that works on aluminium, not steel. The resulting commoness of alu frames on cheap bikes is a trickle-down effect of aluminium being used on more expensive performance bikes, where it makes a difference.

As for too many gears, I've already posted about that.

EKE_38BPM wrote:

...
Aluminium frames are less durable. Maybe that is what the industry want, disposable bikes that need replacing every 10 years or less?

Customers want bikes that need replacing every 10 years or less - they would have outgrown them or bought another shiny, new one before then. Having said that, I'm still waiting for my MTB to die, but it refuses to

EKE_38BPM

Jay dubbleU wrote:

...only the UK and the Americans seem to us drop bars for touring - most others use flat bars because they're more comfortable.

Flat bars have one position, two with bar ends. Drops have 4+.
Flats don't let you 'hide' from the wind, drops do.

You're not selling flat bars to me so far, feel free to keep trying but I don't rate you're chances of success.

Clank

nation wrote:

Aluminium is a cheaper material than steel because it's much easier to handle in terms of manufacturing.
.

Which manufacturing terms? It's more expensive to produce and more expensive to join.

It may be cheaper to bend and form, but even on that score I'm not certain - butting dies won't be any less expensive, same with forming mandrels, plus plain carbon and cro-moly steels have better formability (less prone to wrinkling). Plus, cheaper bike steels don't suffer from the work hardening issues than aluminiums do. Plus low grade steels don't need annealing post welding. Mind you for cheap frames there's manufacturing steps that are probably avoided......

I'll be conviced if costs can be proved, but experience from other engineering businesses says it's not cost that drives the use of ali i cheap frames.

I'll bet you a nickel is because ave Joe considers aluminium a 'classier' material to build a frame from, even if at that price point perception far exceeds the actual quality. An ali frame, regardless of quality is an added feature. A cool 'must have'.

'Classier' over performance. The same reason why 70 quid bikes come as full suss. It's an added feature - it must be better!

rolf_f

snailracer wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

...Why are bikes like the mixte pictured not made any more?

I think mixte frames are difficult to make in aluminium, the cheapest material for mass-produced bikes suitable for the western markets. The long lateral tubes need to be thin to avoid hitting the rider's feet, and thin tubing = steel. Thin aluminium tubing is neither strong nor stiff enough.

Apparently can be done - alloy Mixte here:



http://themixtegallery.wordpress.com/

EKE_38BPM

snailracer wrote:

As for too many gears, I've already posted about that.

If I remember correctly, [paraphrasing]"Weak riders need more gears to get their fat behinds up the hills."[/paraphrasing].
So everyone who used to ride five speed bikes were some sort of super being?

snailracer wrote:

Customers want bikes that need replacing every 10 years or less

I must have missed that referendum.
Only an idiot votes for designed obsolesence. Wanting to replace your stuff (any thing you own) due to upgrades is fair enough. Having to replace it because it has died always winds me up.

Maybe your MTB is rubbish which is why you want it to die? Why not just sell it if you want shot of it so much?

snailracer

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

...only the UK and the Americans seem to us drop bars for touring - most others use flat bars because they're more comfortable.

Flat bars have one position, two with bar ends. Drops have 4+.
Flats don't let you 'hide' from the wind, drops do.

You're not selling flat bars to me so far, feel free to keep trying but I don't rate you're chances of success.

Actually, bikes in most other countries don't have flatbars either - they have riser bars with swept-back ends. Moreover, they don't need multiple hand positions - the bars are set high, so there is no weight on the wrists and shoulders, so you don't need to change hand positions to relieve pressure. A high bar means you sit upright - all the weight is on your backside (usually on a sprung saddle), not your arms which are not good at supporting weight since we evolved upright walking.
Less aerodynamic and therefore slower? For sure. But in most other countries commuting is not treated as a race and speeds are slow ('cos there are so many other bikes - not like here).

nation

Clank wrote:

nation wrote:

Aluminium is a cheaper material than steel because it's much easier to handle in terms of manufacturing.
.

Which manufacturing terms? It's more expensive to produce and more expensive to join.

I have vague recollections about aluminium manufacturing techniques lending themselves to automation more readily than steel. I can't recall exaclty where I picked that up, though, so I'm open to being corrected.

I thought it was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8t3dqHxCM

but it isn't. He does talk about the prevalence of Aluminium once he's finished his rant about carbon fibre, but mostly in relation to higher end bikes. Good lecture, though.

EKE_38BPM

snailracer wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

...only the UK and the Americans seem to us drop bars for touring - most others use flat bars because they're more comfortable.

Flat bars have one position, two with bar ends. Drops have 4+.
Flats don't let you 'hide' from the wind, drops do.

You're not selling flat bars to me so far, feel free to keep trying but I don't rate you're chances of success.

Actually, bikes in most other countries don't have flatbars either - they have riser bars with swept-back ends. Moreover, they don't need multiple hand positions - the bars are set high, so there is no weight on the wrists and shoulders, so you don't need to change hand positions to relieve pressure. A high bar means you sit upright - all the weight is on your backside (usually on a sprung saddle), not your arms which are not good at supporting weight since we evolved upright walking.
Less aerodynamic and therefore slower? For sure. But in most other countries commuting is not treated as a race and speeds are slow ('cos there are so many other bikes - not like here).

Jay was talking about touring, as was I, not commuting.

Clank

nation wrote:

I thought it was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8t3dqHxCM

but it isn't. He does talk about the prevalence of Aluminium once he's finished his rant about carbon fibre, but mostly in relation to higher end bikes. Good lecture, though.

Loving the CF rant. We have a team in work looking at recycling oppotunities with carbon fibre - and it's mostly as a low grade filler material. One of them in particular will really like that clip and will duly get it forwarded on Monday.

Many thanks for pointing it out! 8)

EKE_38BPM

Didn't know that about carbon fibre. You live and you learn.

Jay dubbleU

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

...only the UK and the Americans seem to us drop bars for touring - most others use flat bars because they're more comfortable.

Flat bars have one position, two with bar ends. Drops have 4+.
Flats don't let you 'hide' from the wind, drops do.

You're not selling flat bars to me so far, feel free to keep trying but I don't rate you're chances of success.

I apologise for not remembering the source but didn't someone say " Drop bars have an infinite number of positions all of which are equally uncomfortable"

Fireblade96

jamesco wrote:

Fireblade96 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

liars!
.....

How/why did the cycling industry persuade innocent cyclists that more gears are better, that steel is rubbish, that MTB style frames are what you want for on-road use?

In the same way that the car industry has persuaded people that they need a DiscoRover to go shopping with. Eminently unsuitable for its actual use, but come The Apocalypse, they'll be able to drive through anything.

Dude, I would have used the exact same example to make the exact opposite point. In the UK there seems to be an obsession with using the most high-performance option available, despite the fact that a little step down in performance - and no step down in real-world use - would make a huge practical difference.

Look at the Ferraris & Lambos driving around Chelsea - uncomfortable, noisy, expensive and can barely get over speed bump. Sports bikes (motorbikes) are an obsession, despite the crowded roads and wrist-breaking position making them a baffling choice.

Same goes for road-bikes, IMHO. City roads are crowded, poorly paved, frequently wet and always require the ability to stop in a second. Road bikes are nice, but just too focused; a few small changes that impact potential (but very rarely realised speed) make a *huge* difference to everyday ridability, and result in a hybrid.

People are free to get what they like (and should get what makes them happy), but most people who cycle wouldn't know what an 'FCN' is or give a toss if they did, they just want to get where they're going with as little hassle as possible.

Ah, I missed this point-missing, I was out riding my bike. In the sunshine.
8)

I wasn't having a go at hybrids, or sensible commuting vehicles - my current commuter bike has mudguards, my car is a Focus Estate. I can do sensible!
What I was really mocking was the opposite extreme, the misconception that road bike*=fragile, won't survive on the mean streets, therefore you get sold something that's heavier and harder work than what you really need (and based on a MTB frame that the manufacturer just happens to have already designed...).

* narrow rims, slick tyres, etc. Flat bar roadies included.

And I haven't a clue what my FCN is, but look at it like handicapping - it's a way of giving less performance-oriented bikes a fair chance in The Game :-)

nation

That is a good point about the perception of fragility.

My MTB is of the relatively lightweight XC variety but I've still hooned it off drops the like of which would never be encountered on the average commute, unless said commuter was doing it wrong. That kind of strength is massive overkill for the purposes of getting about.

notsoblue

nation wrote:

I thought it was this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF8t3dqHxCM

but it isn't. He does talk about the prevalence of Aluminium once he's finished his rant about carbon fibre, but mostly in relation to higher end bikes. Good lecture, though.

Very interesting series of lectures, thanks for sharing!

Jay dubbleU

I have to say in spite of having got sidetracked into the flat/drop hybrid/road discussion that I agree with EKE when it comes to bike shops pointing people in the right direction - Mrs JW's idea of choosing a bike is if she likes the colour - fortunately the shop we normally go to asks potential bike owners a lot of questions about future use etc and I think most people who go there end up with the right bike - however I don't think that happens with some of the big chains - some of the staff in them seem to know less about bikes than me

EKE_38BPM

Jay dubbleU wrote:

I have to say in spite of having got sidetracked into the flat/drop hybrid/road discussion that I agree with EKE when it comes to bike shops pointing people in the right direction...

Thanks, but did you miss the narrow chain digression? I think we can get helmets and RLJing in here too if we try!

Jay dubbleU wrote:

...Mrs JW's idea of choosing a bike is if she likes the colour - fortunately the shop we normally go to asks potential bike owners a lot of questions about future use etc and I think most people who go there end up with the right bike - however I don't think that happens with some of the big chains - some of the staff in them seem to know less about bikes than me

I once went into Halfrauds and asked the monkey assembling a bike a simple question (can't remember what it was) and he says "I don't know nuffink 'bout bikes, I just put 'em together."
This was a bloke in Bike Hut uniform, 'advising', customers, performing services and repairs and assembling newly delivered bikes. Scary.

The Rookie

The only thing I'll say on Hybrids is that its not one bike, they range from MTB's on slicks through rigid MTB's on slicks to near road style frames on 700C wheels with and without suspension through to what are road bikes with flat bars (frames geometry adjusted) if you want to pick on Hybrids at least specify what Hybrid!

If ally is cheaper to make into frames than steel, why are the very cheapest bikes (sub £100) nearly all still steel framed? (even if they weigh 50lbs) most the handling costs (cutting, forming, shaping etc) is similar for the cheapest steels through to the very best.

I commute on a Hybrid as it suites what I want, my bars are set very low (and I've just lowered them by another 20mm by flipping the stem and losing 5mm of spacer), certainly a similar ride height to riding on the hoodz of drops, if not slightly lower.

Simon

EKE_38BPM

The Beginner wrote:

I commute on a Hybrid as it suites what I want, my bars are set very low (and I've just lowered them by another 20mm by flipping the stem and losing 5mm of spacer), certainly a similar ride height to riding on the hoodz of drops, if not slightly lower.

Simon

Sounds to me like what you really want is a road bike!

I'm not hating on hybrids (in this thread), I'm hating on the lack of a bike that there is a market for, for what seems to me to be no good reason.