Now that I'm living in a city, I need a good bike, so today I went to the coolest bike shop in the city (run by a Chicagoan who worked as a bike mechanic in Holland for a year before starting a shop in our city) and scoped stuff out. They were all brands I'd never heard of, and were all expressly built for long, daily city riding in any weather conditions.
The next bike is going to be a Vanmoof with a Nexus 7, roller brakes, and all the fixins.
Now that I'm living in a city, I need a good bike, so today I went to the coolest bike shop in the city (run by a Chicagoan who worked as a bike mechanic in Holland for a year before starting a shop in our city) and scoped stuff out. They were all brands I'd never heard of, and were all expressly built for hard, long, daily riding in cities.
The next bike is going to be a Vanmoof with a Nexus 7, roller brakes, and all the fixins.
I shit on that overpriced hipster trash. Any bike that doesn't meet the following requirements is shit.
1) Real gears. No hub gears. No single speeds. Absolutely NO FIXIES. 2) Standard shaped frame. No step-through allowed. If you can't mount, the bike is the wrong size for you. 3) Real brakes, front and rear. They can be v-brakes, calipers, or disc brakes. 4) Must be street legal in your locale. Front and rear lights at night. Reflectors. No motors. 5) Even if electricity or motors are legal where you live, they are still for pussies who don't want to pedal. If you want a motor, get a licensed motor vehicle. Moped is the minimum. 6) Men's frame and seat for men. Women's frame and seat for women. It's not sexism, it's physiology. 7) Bike must be the correct size for the rider with correct seat height. 8) Exception for trick bikes if you are actually engage in trick biking. If you ride a trick bike around town for transportation, die in a fire. 9) Exception for fixies if you are engaging in the sport of track biking on a velodrome. If you even put it near a public street, you should be shot on sight.
Specifically this bike, Rubin. It's not electric and meets almost all your requirements. Here are my rebuttals on the ones it does not:
1) Why not hub gears? Gears are there to change the amount of work involved in pedaling; why do I care how they do it? Hub gears make more sense for Chicago because the weather here is abysmal. Our winters are a living hell of constant snow and salt, and we don't have a summer as much as a fucking monsoon season.
3) Brakes are there to stop the bike. Why do I care how they do it? Additionally, roller brakes are sealed against the elements, which is (again) really goddamned important in my city.
I put it to you that if you want a go-fast bike, you should buy a dedicated go-fast bike (that meets your specs), and that European city bikes are the ideal choice for commute and day-to-day utility cycling. This was my experience abroad, and I believe Luke would back me up.
1) Why not hub gears? Hub gears suck ass for many reasons. The biggest reason is that if they break, you are fucked. One-speed riders say this about regular gears. They are halfwits. With regular gears, you just put the chain back on the cog and start going again. Hub gears? Get ready to walk.
The other major problem is you can't remove the rear wheel easily at all. Get a flat? Well, shit. Also hub gears are more expensive, heavier, and less efficient than a normal derailleur. You are paying more for less.
As for theoretical weather protection. You are making some kind of assumption that regular gears are going to just stop working in bad weather. Regular gears are just fine in any weather you are going to encounter. They aren't going to suddenly stop working if they get wet or dirty. If they are properly lubricated, they will be well protected from the elements. People all round the world ride bikes with standard gears in crazier weather than you will encounter with no problems whatsoever. For that amount of money you can get a much lighter bike, with a carbon fork and real gears. You'll wish you had them when you are pedaling headfirst into the famous Chicago winds.
2) Why not roller brakes? Roller brakes are for children's bikes. There's a reason you don't see them on non-hipster adult bikes. They have a fraction of the stopping power of other brakes. It sure will be a shame when you get in a horrible accident because the roller brakes didn't stop you in time. And again, you are severely overestimating the effect of weather on real brakes. The sheer stopping power of caliper and linear pull brakes is so strong a little water matters not. Disc brakes in particular are almost completely unaffected by weather. Oh yeah, and roller brakes weigh a fuckton.
There's a horrible trend in the biking world of glorifying obsolete technologies. Unlike the computer world where an Apple // isn't going to get you very far, a crappy bike still moves. This allows people to maintain delusions that these obsolete biking technologies are somehow actually superior. As if in some universe a Pentium II is better than an i7. Yeah, not everyone needs an i7. That means you buy an i3 or an i5, not a 486. You definitely don't go around trying to claim a 486 is in any way better than an i7 for any purpose whatsoever. I could at least respect these people if they proudly admitted they were choosing form over function, but they almost universally make up some bullshit reason that poop is better than chocolate.
Of course, you shouldn't go spending thousands on a CAAD 10. That's ridiculous. But for far less than $1000 you can get a bike with carbon fork, proper gears, and proper brakes. Even if you don't try to go fast on it, that doesn't matter. It will be insanely more efficient when you are going slow. Going a meager 10 mph on some tank of a bike will take much more effort and sweat than it will on a cheaper more efficient bike. If you get to a hill, you won't have to stand up and push hard. You can just sit down and relax in the low gear pedaling without even breathing hard because you have an efficient and modern bike. Yeah, sure. You aren't going to buy a Ferrari. But why buy the equivalent of a 15 year old car when you can get a modern car for less money?
Might I suggest something like this?
Specialized Sirrus Elite $830
Carbon fork. Internal cables. Proper gears and brakes. Perfect tires for a city.
5) Even if electricity or motors are legal where you live, they are still for pussies who don't want to pedal. If you want a motor, get a licensed motor vehicle. Moped is the minimum.
What if you built it yourself for mad science engineering experiments?
5) Even if electricity or motors are legal where you live, they are still for pussies who don't want to pedal. If you want a motor, get a licensed motor vehicle. Moped is the minimum.
What if you built it yourself for mad science engineering experiments?
Sure, just keep it off public streets unless it is a legally licensed motor vehicle.
You definitely don't go around trying to claim a 486 is in any way better than an i7 for any purpose whatsoever.
I got one way a 486 is better than an i7: radiation hardening. If you have to use a CPU in a high radiation environment, like, oh, outer space, the 486 is clearly superior to the i7 in that they actually have radiation-hardened versions of it. There are no rad-hard i7s as of yet, and probably won't be for some time as the rad-hard versions typically come out several years after the normal ones (the rad-hard 486 came out in the late 90's/early 2000's, for example, whereas the original 486 came out around 1990).
I personally guarantee it will not magically fail even in Siberian weather, let alone Chicago.
While we do get that you're being hyperbolic for the sake of making a point, I guarantee that it will. Though non-magically, it's cold enough in Siberia that all of your bearing grease and lubricants will basically go solid or near enough to, so you ain't going fucking anywhere unless you've got some serious low-temperature lubricants.
Scott: your rant about old technology is highly inconsistent with your rant about hub gears sucking. Not only on a philosophincal level but also on a practical level. Se for example the pinnacle of hub gears the Roloff Speedhub; same overall gearing as a 27 gear derailleurs system at similar weight as said derailleur system, all the advantages of an internal system without the (admittedly common in other manufacturers) difficulties of removing the rear wheel.
I'm serieously considering getting one of those when my current Shimano XTR system goes kaputt.
1) Why not hub gears? Hub gears suck ass for many reasons. The biggest reason is that if they break, you are fucked.
I have never understood this argument. Not for city bikes. Maybe if you are cycling between Bumfuck and Nobtown in cold weather and your life literally depends on your bike not breaking down... then worrying about fail-safe or fail-hard of bike components might be worth considering.
But if anything breaks in a city? Any breakage is equal. You take it home on the subway or train or bus or whatever. It could be the gears that break, or a wheel that breaks, or as was the case with my previous hub gear bike, the front fork that breaks.
Even if your normal gears break, they still need fixing. Just like anything else on the bike.
I've now had three hub gear bikes, and have never had a single problem with the gears. I had four or five normal geared bikes before that, and I had gear changing problems or breakages with all of them eventually. You anecdotal evidence may differ, but for my situation the slight extra weight is hardly noticeable and the benefits are obvious.
Also I can change gears at a standstill, and immediately. While approaching a stop I don't need to worry about changing down gears to be ready to ride off again. That's a really nice feature for riding in my city.
TLDR: Hub gears aren't evil, Scott is highly opinionated but incorrect for anyone outside of his own specific situation and desired comfort levels.
Scott: your rant about old technology is highly inconsistent with your rant about hub gears sucking. Not only on a philosophincal level but also on a practical level. Se for example the pinnacle of hub gears the Roloff Speedhub; same overall gearing as a 27 gear derailleurs system at similar weight as said derailleur system, all the advantages of an internal system without the (admittedly common in other manufacturers) difficulties of removing the rear wheel.
I'm serieously considering getting one of those when my current Shimano XTR system goes kaputt.
Ok, so maybe there is one hub on earth that is up to snuff. How much are you ready to pay for it? The 14 speed version is $1200+ on Amazon. I wonder how much the 27 speed version is.
At that price you can get an entire bicycle. It costs as much as, or more than, Shimano Dura Ace gears, which are the top of the line. It costs as much as a full set of Shimano Ultegra components, which would include brakes and everything else. So even if that one fancy hub is as good as normal gears, in what way is it superior? If it's not superior, how do you justify its price?
Looks to me like the best hub on earth is barely on par with standard gearing while costing as much as the best gears money can buy.
Scott doesn't have an argument. He has an opinion about his own use case and preferences. He's going to give loads of examples as to why he thinks he's right, and he *is* right, but only for his own use case.
Personally, none of the benefits of derailleur gears apply to me, and I really dislike them. On the other hand, all of the benefits of hub gears apply to me, and I really like them.
Scott won't be able to understand this, and he'll keep thinking he is in an argument, or even winning the argument, while the rest of us are having an adult conversation about bike use and suggestions for those buying new bikes.
Scott doesn't have an argument. He has an opinion about his own use case and preferences. He's going to give loads of examples as to why he thinks he's right, and he *is* right, but only for his own use case.
Personally, none of the benefits of derailleur gears apply to me, and I really dislike them. On the other hand, all of the benefits of hub gears apply to me, and I really like them.
Scott won't be able to understand this, and he'll keep thinking he is in an argument, or even winning the argument, while the rest of us are having an adult conversation about bike use and suggestions for those buying new bikes.
You have yet to name even one benefit of hub gears that derailleur gears do not have. They do the same thing less efficiently and cost more money. The only reason you have is "you like them." In other words, you like more expensive things that are empirically worse and less efficient than other things. I could respect that hipster attitude if you embraced it rather than denied it.
You have yet to name even one benefit of hub gears that derailleur gears do not have.
See my previous post:
Also I can change gears at a standstill, and immediately. While approaching a stop I don't need to worry about changing down gears to be ready to ride off again. That's a really nice feature for riding in my city.
And in case you missed it, I also said I've found hub gears to be more reliable than derailleur gears.
Other benefits include: 1. Less complexity at the pedal crank end, leading to reduced bulk near my leg. This means the front is completely enclosed and I never have to worry about clips or straps to keep my trousers from getting caught.
2. The chain doesn't have to be bent laterally at all, which means hub gear bikes have stronger chains. Again, I've had chains on previous bikes break, but never on a hub gear bike.
3. I have a back pedal brake. My girlfriend's hub gear bike had that functionality turned off, so can pedal backwards. I like having the extra brake in addition to the two normal brakes, but this is a preference thing.
Yeah, don't try to say hub gears are better in bad weather. Water will get in their and fuck up your shit eventually.
Regular gears? Mountain bikes use them. I've forded motherfucking streams up to my neck with them. Ridden through mud wherein by bike sank a solid six inches, the chain itself immersed. Ridden through snow and on sand.
Hub gears are heavy, inefficient, give you fewer gearing options, and aren't as durable, reliable, or repairable as normal gears.
The reason hub gears are perceived to last to long is that the majority of people who use them don't bike hard, fast, or far.
The reason hub gears are perceived to last to long is that the majority of people who use them don't bike hard, fast, or far.
Everything you have said is true. If I was going mountain biking, I'd get the best bike possible, and I'd want derailleur gears. If they broke, I'd probably be able to fix them well enough to keep riding.
However, in a city, for a commute, biking fast, hard, or far is not my priority. Berlin is totally flat. I can get anywhere in the city on my bike in under an hour. Hard and fast biking isn't an option, nor is it needed.
For a typical commute that doesn't include steep or large hills, but has lots of starts and stops at traffic lights, the benefits of hub gears far outweigh the cost and weight disadvantages. By far.
You have yet to name even one benefit of hub gears that derailleur gears do not have.
See my previous post:
Also I can change gears at a standstill, and immediately. While approaching a stop I don't need to worry about changing down gears to be ready to ride off again. That's a really nice feature for riding in my city.
And in case you missed it, I also said I've found hub gears to be more reliable than derailleur gears.
Other benefits include: 1. Less complexity at the pedal crank end, leading to reduced bulk near my leg. This means the front is completely enclosed and I never have to worry about clips or straps to keep my trousers from getting caught.
2. The chain doesn't have to be bent laterally at all, which means hub gear bikes have stronger chains. Again, I've had chains on previous bikes break, but never on a hub gear bike.
3. I have a back pedal brake. My girlfriend's hub gear bike had that functionality turned off, so can pedal backwards. I like having the extra brake in addition to the two normal brakes, but this is a preference thing.
Your move!
1. Bike in shorts, not pants. If you must wear pants, the problem is also easily solved by having a plastic shield over the gear. My bike even has one. The straps or clips are not necessary.
2) I have never had a chain on a bike break ever in my life. Again, we both have anecdotes. Get some statistics about how often bike chains break. It is extremely rare on any bike. If it happens at all, it is likely because of poor maintenance letting the chain get rusty. It could also be due to improper gear shifting when the tension is too high, but even then only if the chain is very old and rusted.
3) Your preference is to use a braking system that is empirically inferior and has less braking power. If you have a preference, that's ok. Just don't try to argue that the inferior technology you prefer is not inferior.
Luke, you keep talking about bikes breaking down. Any bike, even a Huffy from Wal-Mart with no maintenance and heavy usage will last for many many years. For any bike of any variety to have a severe breakdown of the derailleur or chain is incredible. Those bikes must have been purposefully damaged, extremely old, or extremely cheap to have breakages of that nature.
If you want to compare cheap old bikes that are never maintained properly, then yes. I'll give you that one. A gigantic heavy steel monstrosity of a bike with hub gears and roller brakes will probably last more years than a proper bike if you don't maintain either one. The same way that a Ford pickup truck will last an incredibly long time even if you treat it like shit.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to ride one. At least a pickup truck has added utility. A crappy bike is just crappy.
The reason hub gears are perceived to last to long is that the majority of people who use them don't bike hard, fast, or far.
Everything you have said is true. If I was going mountain biking, I'd get the best bike possible, and I'd want derailleur gears. If they broke, I'd probably be able to fix them well enough to keep riding.
However, in a city, for a commute, biking fast, hard, or far is not my priority. Berlin is totally flat. I can get anywhere in the city on my bike in under an hour. Hard and fast biking isn't an option, nor is it needed.
For a typical commute that doesn't include steep or large hills, but has lots of starts and stops at traffic lights, the benefits of hub gears far outweigh the cost and weight disadvantages. By far.
Frequent starts and stops is even more reason to get a light bike. All that added weight kills your acceleration off the line. If there are tons of lights, making it past a few more before they turn red will add up to tons of saved time, not to mention saved pedaling effort.
Comments
The next bike is going to be a Vanmoof with a Nexus 7, roller brakes, and all the fixins.
1) Real gears. No hub gears. No single speeds. Absolutely NO FIXIES.
2) Standard shaped frame. No step-through allowed. If you can't mount, the bike is the wrong size for you.
3) Real brakes, front and rear. They can be v-brakes, calipers, or disc brakes.
4) Must be street legal in your locale. Front and rear lights at night. Reflectors. No motors.
5) Even if electricity or motors are legal where you live, they are still for pussies who don't want to pedal. If you want a motor, get a licensed motor vehicle. Moped is the minimum.
6) Men's frame and seat for men. Women's frame and seat for women. It's not sexism, it's physiology.
7) Bike must be the correct size for the rider with correct seat height.
8) Exception for trick bikes if you are actually engage in trick biking. If you ride a trick bike around town for transportation, die in a fire.
9) Exception for fixies if you are engaging in the sport of track biking on a velodrome. If you even put it near a public street, you should be shot on sight.
1) Why not hub gears? Gears are there to change the amount of work involved in pedaling; why do I care how they do it? Hub gears make more sense for Chicago because the weather here is abysmal. Our winters are a living hell of constant snow and salt, and we don't have a summer as much as a fucking monsoon season.
3) Brakes are there to stop the bike. Why do I care how they do it? Additionally, roller brakes are sealed against the elements, which is (again) really goddamned important in my city.
I put it to you that if you want a go-fast bike, you should buy a dedicated go-fast bike (that meets your specs), and that European city bikes are the ideal choice for commute and day-to-day utility cycling. This was my experience abroad, and I believe Luke would back me up.
The other major problem is you can't remove the rear wheel easily at all. Get a flat? Well, shit. Also hub gears are more expensive, heavier, and less efficient than a normal derailleur. You are paying more for less.
As for theoretical weather protection. You are making some kind of assumption that regular gears are going to just stop working in bad weather. Regular gears are just fine in any weather you are going to encounter. They aren't going to suddenly stop working if they get wet or dirty. If they are properly lubricated, they will be well protected from the elements. People all round the world ride bikes with standard gears in crazier weather than you will encounter with no problems whatsoever. For that amount of money you can get a much lighter bike, with a carbon fork and real gears. You'll wish you had them when you are pedaling headfirst into the famous Chicago winds.
2) Why not roller brakes? Roller brakes are for children's bikes. There's a reason you don't see them on non-hipster adult bikes. They have a fraction of the stopping power of other brakes. It sure will be a shame when you get in a horrible accident because the roller brakes didn't stop you in time. And again, you are severely overestimating the effect of weather on real brakes. The sheer stopping power of caliper and linear pull brakes is so strong a little water matters not. Disc brakes in particular are almost completely unaffected by weather. Oh yeah, and roller brakes weigh a fuckton.
There's a horrible trend in the biking world of glorifying obsolete technologies. Unlike the computer world where an Apple // isn't going to get you very far, a crappy bike still moves. This allows people to maintain delusions that these obsolete biking technologies are somehow actually superior. As if in some universe a Pentium II is better than an i7. Yeah, not everyone needs an i7. That means you buy an i3 or an i5, not a 486. You definitely don't go around trying to claim a 486 is in any way better than an i7 for any purpose whatsoever. I could at least respect these people if they proudly admitted they were choosing form over function, but they almost universally make up some bullshit reason that poop is better than chocolate.
Of course, you shouldn't go spending thousands on a CAAD 10. That's ridiculous. But for far less than $1000 you can get a bike with carbon fork, proper gears, and proper brakes. Even if you don't try to go fast on it, that doesn't matter. It will be insanely more efficient when you are going slow. Going a meager 10 mph on some tank of a bike will take much more effort and sweat than it will on a cheaper more efficient bike. If you get to a hill, you won't have to stand up and push hard. You can just sit down and relax in the low gear pedaling without even breathing hard because you have an efficient and modern bike. Yeah, sure. You aren't going to buy a Ferrari. But why buy the equivalent of a 15 year old car when you can get a modern car for less money?
Might I suggest something like this?
Specialized Sirrus Elite $830
Carbon fork. Internal cables. Proper gears and brakes. Perfect tires for a city.
http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bikes/multi-use/sirrus/sirruselite
I personally guarantee it will not magically fail even in Siberian weather, let alone Chicago.
It's pretty good so far.
It's a fixie.
I'm serieously considering getting one of those when my current Shimano XTR system goes kaputt.
Scott: riding a heavy bike is for idiots.
Everyone else: we have different dividing lines between pussy and idiot than you do.
But if anything breaks in a city? Any breakage is equal. You take it home on the subway or train or bus or whatever. It could be the gears that break, or a wheel that breaks, or as was the case with my previous hub gear bike, the front fork that breaks.
Even if your normal gears break, they still need fixing. Just like anything else on the bike.
I've now had three hub gear bikes, and have never had a single problem with the gears. I had four or five normal geared bikes before that, and I had gear changing problems or breakages with all of them eventually. You anecdotal evidence may differ, but for my situation the slight extra weight is hardly noticeable and the benefits are obvious.
Also I can change gears at a standstill, and immediately. While approaching a stop I don't need to worry about changing down gears to be ready to ride off again. That's a really nice feature for riding in my city.
TLDR: Hub gears aren't evil, Scott is highly opinionated but incorrect for anyone outside of his own specific situation and desired comfort levels.
http://www.amazon.com/Rohloff-Speedhub-Speeds-16t-Silver/dp/B001GSOPOC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372332720&sr=8-1&keywords=speedhub
At that price you can get an entire bicycle. It costs as much as, or more than, Shimano Dura Ace gears, which are the top of the line. It costs as much as a full set of Shimano Ultegra components, which would include brakes and everything else. So even if that one fancy hub is as good as normal gears, in what way is it superior? If it's not superior, how do you justify its price?
Looks to me like the best hub on earth is barely on par with standard gearing while costing as much as the best gears money can buy.
Personally, none of the benefits of derailleur gears apply to me, and I really dislike them. On the other hand, all of the benefits of hub gears apply to me, and I really like them.
Scott won't be able to understand this, and he'll keep thinking he is in an argument, or even winning the argument, while the rest of us are having an adult conversation about bike use and suggestions for those buying new bikes.
Other benefits include:
1. Less complexity at the pedal crank end, leading to reduced bulk near my leg. This means the front is completely enclosed and I never have to worry about clips or straps to keep my trousers from getting caught.
2. The chain doesn't have to be bent laterally at all, which means hub gear bikes have stronger chains. Again, I've had chains on previous bikes break, but never on a hub gear bike.
3. I have a back pedal brake. My girlfriend's hub gear bike had that functionality turned off, so can pedal backwards. I like having the extra brake in addition to the two normal brakes, but this is a preference thing.
Your move!
Regular gears? Mountain bikes use them. I've forded motherfucking streams up to my neck with them. Ridden through mud wherein by bike sank a solid six inches, the chain itself immersed. Ridden through snow and on sand.
Hub gears are heavy, inefficient, give you fewer gearing options, and aren't as durable, reliable, or repairable as normal gears.
The reason hub gears are perceived to last to long is that the majority of people who use them don't bike hard, fast, or far.
However, in a city, for a commute, biking fast, hard, or far is not my priority. Berlin is totally flat. I can get anywhere in the city on my bike in under an hour. Hard and fast biking isn't an option, nor is it needed.
For a typical commute that doesn't include steep or large hills, but has lots of starts and stops at traffic lights, the benefits of hub gears far outweigh the cost and weight disadvantages. By far.
2) I have never had a chain on a bike break ever in my life. Again, we both have anecdotes. Get some statistics about how often bike chains break. It is extremely rare on any bike. If it happens at all, it is likely because of poor maintenance letting the chain get rusty. It could also be due to improper gear shifting when the tension is too high, but even then only if the chain is very old and rusted.
3) Your preference is to use a braking system that is empirically inferior and has less braking power. If you have a preference, that's ok. Just don't try to argue that the inferior technology you prefer is not inferior.
Luke, you keep talking about bikes breaking down. Any bike, even a Huffy from Wal-Mart with no maintenance and heavy usage will last for many many years. For any bike of any variety to have a severe breakdown of the derailleur or chain is incredible. Those bikes must have been purposefully damaged, extremely old, or extremely cheap to have breakages of that nature.
If you want to compare cheap old bikes that are never maintained properly, then yes. I'll give you that one. A gigantic heavy steel monstrosity of a bike with hub gears and roller brakes will probably last more years than a proper bike if you don't maintain either one. The same way that a Ford pickup truck will last an incredibly long time even if you treat it like shit.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea to ride one. At least a pickup truck has added utility. A crappy bike is just crappy.