So.....I'm looking for a general purpose bike. I've never had a REAL bike in my life, only crap from big-box stores when I was a kid.
I plan on primarily riding on paved streets/roads/bike lanes, I would also like to be able to take it off paved roads down some well-worn trails on the weekends.
But the ones referenced in this thread are fairly pricey. Is obtaining what I'd like possible at a reasonable price? Preferably below $500?
If you want a cheap bike, get a front-suspension normal "mountain" bike with 15 or so speeds. That's the best cheap option for just about anyone who doesn't have a specific reason for something else.
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.
Fuck off. I'll bike in anything I want, and not give a shit. A plastic shield is just that: a shield. A hub gear bike can have its chain completely enclosed.
This might not be an issue FOR YOU, but it is an issue FOR ME.
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.
Statistics can go fuck off too. Seriously. I'm talking about PERSONAL use of bikes, so can only go be PERSONAL experience. It doesn't matter how well a bike part holds up across everyone else and all other bike usage in the world. All that matters is how bikes hold up under MY biking experience.
Since I've been using hub gears (my last three bikes in Berlin) I've not had any chain or gear problems. Except, of course, when I visited New York.
In 2010 I bought a second hand bike when I arrived. After a few days of hard riding, the chain snapped. The bike had obviously not been ridden as hard as I was riding it by the previous owner, and the extra strain snapped the chain. I took it back to the shop (using the metro), and they replaced it.
In 2012 I borrowed Rym's old bike. After five days, the back gears broke, somewhere near the axel, and I took it back to Rym's place (by metro) and left it for him to fix and replace.
I'm not saying hub gears would have been better in these cases, but twice in New York now I've had bikes break. and you know what? It wasn't that bad. I just took the metro instead.
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.
I have backpedal brake AND normal brakes. Idiot. Read what I wrote. I like having both. For typical use I use the normal brakes. The backpedal brake is just for extra.
Again: I am going by MY use case. I DON'T CARE about the extra weight. I don't care about the extra cost. I don't care about durability, because if anything breaks on my bike, I get it fixed.
YOU have other needs and desires. I could keep listing things that I don't like about derailleur gears, and you'd knock down all my points. But I don't need to. I have nothing to prove about your bike use and choices, those are for you to write about.
This is just another example of the iPhone vs Android argument. I like a contained box that does what I want. You want fiddly stuff and repairability. Both are fine.
Hub gears are heavy, inefficient, give you fewer gearing options, and aren't as durable, reliable, or repairable as normal gears.
Blanket statements that are obviously false. I gave a counter example and unless you are going to pull a Scott and bring out the "but they are expensive" qualifier, the points you made are simply wrong.
I do not expect you to do any research on the speedhub but I have only heard good stuff about them including from pro level bikers; no effciency loss, less maintenance than a derailleur, _much_ more durable. MTBR user reviews
The Speedhub is more expensive than competing bicycle gear systems (both hub gears and derailleur gears), but it combines the robustness of hub gears with the gear number and gear range of derailleur gears. It is therefore mainly used in high-quality touring bicycles and in mountain bikes, where its robustness and the lack of (vulnerable) external components is useful.
To use Scott's own analogy, you guys are advocating 486's because the i7's are insanely expensive in comparison. So yeah, good luck with that.
I was generalizing, since shit-ass heavy hub gears are what are installed on most bikes that use them in the US, even though somehow these bikes are more expensive than standard old mountain bikes. Take a look at any given hub-gear bike in New York, and you'll see it has exactly three speeds. That's... not super useful if you actually bike anywhere outside of Manhattan.
I seriously considered something like the performance gears above, but held off due to expense/performance concerns. I spent my money on other things like the carbon fork and better wheels. I fully expect to have hub gears like that in my next bike.
If you go to any bike shop in New York today, the best dollar/performance ratio for a normal person is still a used mountain/trail bike. The second best is a new cheap mountain/trail bike. Bar none, the the cheapest good option for most people. They're usually significantly cheaper than fixies, hub-gear bikes, etc...
Now, the analogy is more like this:
Common hub gears - the kind most people would get on a bike in the US - are 486s.
Standard gears are still the standard, and are the i5/i7 for most uses.
Good hub gears are like Alpha CPUs were in the 90s. ULTRA fast, but ULTRA expensive, nonstandard, and largely unknown/unavailable.
That bike that broke on Luke was more than 15 years old, had almost all original parts, was ridden heavily, and received basically zero maintenance in all of that time.
.Fuck off. I'll bike in anything I want, and not give a shit. A plastic shield is just that: a shield. A hub gear bike can have its chain completely enclosed.
This might not be an issue FOR YOU, but it is an issue FOR ME.
In what way is a plastic shield insufficient compared to a complete enclosure? It accomplishes the same goal with less weight. I know you said you don't care about weight, I'll get to that.
Statistics can go fuck off too. Seriously. I'm talking about PERSONAL use of bikes, so can only go be PERSONAL experience. It doesn't matter how well a bike part holds up across everyone else and all other bike usage in the world. All that matters is how bikes hold up under MY biking experience.
In my experience homeopathy is great medicine! I take it all the time and never get sick.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Rational decisions are based on evidence, not based on personal feelings and experiences. You're simultaneously admitting you have a confirmation bias and claiming that your confirmation bias is correct. Just because you were in a plane crash, but never in a car accident, doesn't mean planes are suddenly less safe than cars.
In 2010 I bought a second hand bike when I arrived. After a few days of hard riding, the chain snapped. The bike had obviously not been ridden as hard as I was riding it by the previous owner, and the extra strain snapped the chain. I took it back to the shop (using the metro), and they replaced it.
In 2012 I borrowed Rym's old bike. After five days, the back gears broke, somewhere near the axel, and I took it back to Rym's place (by metro) and left it for him to fix and replace.
So the two times you had real bikes they were two well-used secondhand bikes that had been beaten to hell. Rym's bike was one he had since high school. Also, strain on the chain is caused by improper shifting, usually going uphill. Not saying it was user error, but it is a possibility. Even then, the chain should not snap unless it was particularly old and shitty.
Do you have any experience at all riding a modern bike that hasn't been heavily used and worn down?
I have backpedal brake AND normal brakes. Idiot. Read what I wrote. I like having both. For typical use I use the normal brakes. The backpedal brake is just for extra.
The ability to pedal backwards is extremely important for getting the pedals into the right position. Often I will be in-between cars and the curb and have to make sure the right or left hand pedal is the one that is up high to avoid scraping the ground. Also, for cornering you need the pedal that is on the inside of the turn to be up so that you can coast around the corner without scraping the pavement. If you already have proper brakes, the backpedal brake is completely pointless and removes an important function of the bike.
Again: I am going by MY use case. I DON'T CARE about the extra weight. I don't care about the extra cost. I don't care about durability, because if anything breaks on my bike, I get it fixed.
I didn't care about the extra weight either, until I test rode some crazy carbon bikes. Even if you are not planning to go fast, reducing weight is still a huge boon. Even if you are an old granny who is going to bike around very slowly, a light bike is a huge help. If you want to go slow, you can do so by barely pedaling at all. If it's flat, you can pedal just a little bit and go much much faster with more stability.
This argument reminds me of when Firefox first came out and was called Phoenix. Rym was using IE at the time. I was expounding upon the greatness that is tabbed browsing. It took him quite awhile to see the light, but now I don't think anyone would say tabbed browsing is dumb. I believe you don't care. It's just one of those things you won't care about until you've had it. Once you have it, you can't live without it. It's not a matter of Android vs. iOS. It's those people who say they don't want smartphones at all. They've never had one before. Once they have one, they can't be parted from it. That's what having a light bike is like.
To use Scott's own analogy, you guys are advocating 486's because the i7's are insanely expensive in comparison. So yeah, good luck with that.
That almost seems like it's the case, but it's not. At best your super expensive hub is equal to normal gears. Equal, Not better. An i7 is light years beyond a 486. I'll happily pay much more money for something much better, but I'm not going to pay multiple times the price for something that is, in the best case, just as good.
I got these two cars here for you. They're exactly the same except this one uses a sOmoflange and a sAmoflange.
What's the difference?
sOmoflange costs $1000 more.
Any other differences?
The internal mechanisms work differently. In all other regards such as speed and efficiency they are pretty much equal.
Hub gears are heavy, inefficient, give you fewer gearing options, and aren't as durable, reliable, or repairable as normal gears.
Inefficient? Last I recall, the energy return was only a few percent less at worst when used properly. According to the wikiped, regular commuter use only gives 2% less energy return, which I'd doubt would even be noticeable, despite that we'll invariably see a claim that it could be noticed in every-day commuting before this thread is through.
Also, as for durable and reliable, that's absolutely false. They're far lower maintenance, just as if not more durable, and far more reliable - due to the fact they're a sealed system, and generally not susceptible to any external factors that will change the wear characteristics.
The worst you're going to get would be hauling it somewhere stupid like Siberia, where the hub oil is going to thicken and/or freeze up. But then again, you're going to have the same problem with the bearing grease and other lubricants on your chain gear bike, and why the fuck are you pedaling around in Siberia anyway because this is a stupid example, so it's a moot point.
I will absolutely give you that they're nowhere near as easily repaired as a derailleur system, though. However, they're more reliable in return, so you should be fixing them somewhere between less often to never, so it's kind of(but not entirely) a moot point. The worst you can realistically do on your commute is slip or break a chain, which would be highly unusual, since the chains are objectively stronger and less susceptible to wear.
Naturally, they're not ideal for everybody in every use-case, but I'm yet to be convinced by either of you that they're objectively bad. Scott's got some good bluster, but is yet to present anything convincing, and a decent portion of what you've said either isn't correct, or is very convincing sounding but quite irrelevant.
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.
Oh fuck off. The weight difference between your average hub system(hub and crankset) and your average external gear system(being the Derailleur, cassette and crankset together, since all are required) can't be that different, a matter of maybe a dozen ounces max unless you're paying ludicrous amounts of money for super light-weight gear on your bike. I mean, you can get forged titanium shimano cranksets that way about as much as a hummingbird's cock if you really want, but frankly, I don't think a ten thousand dollar crankset is going to improve your performance that much outside of a track, where hundredths of a second matter. If you're an average commuter on your bike, and not some lycra-clad danger-junkie speeding around a velodrome with legs like steam pistons, I'd say that extra weight difference is going to have a negligible effect. You're biking to work, not having a fucking drag race or setting world records, for fuck's sake.
Also, it must be said, if that small weight difference is really impeding you enough that it saves you a ton of time and pedaling effort on your average commute, suffice it to say, the problem isn't your gearing system.
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.
Yep. No matter which way you slice it, external gear chains are objectively weaker and more susceptible to wear than hub chains. That's not a matter of opinion or argument.
Statistics can go fuck off too. Seriously. I'm talking about PERSONAL use of bikes, so can only go be PERSONAL experience. It doesn't matter how well a bike part holds up across everyone else and all other bike usage in the world. All that matters is how bikes hold up under MY biking experience.
In my experience homeopathy is great medicine! I take it all the time and never get sick.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Rational decisions are based on evidence, not based on personal feelings and experiences. You're simultaneously admitting you have a confirmation bias and claiming that your confirmation bias is correct. Just because you were in a plane crash, but never in a car accident, doesn't mean planes are suddenly less safe than cars.
And yet you and Rym have been talking about what bike is good for New York, what bikes can be found in shops around New York, and what bikes you see around New York. No matter what statistics you give me about the bikes there, that has no bearing at all on what bike might be most suitable for me in Berlin.
My hub geared bike has 7 speeds, not 3 speeds, as you seem to think.
Get me some statistics about bike use in Berlin in the case of hub gears vs derailleur gears and I'll let them influence me. Until then, you have nothing. Worse than nothing, you have ignorance of Berlin coupled with pigheadedness based on... statistics? No, personal preferences.
Yep. No matter which way you slice it, external gear chains are objectively weaker and more susceptible to wear than hub chains. That's not a matter of opinion or argument.
This is true. A regular chain will only last maybe 20+ years and a big ass hub chain will last longer. Oh man. 20 years. Soooo not durable.
Get me some statistics about bike use in Berlin in the case of hub gears vs derailleur gears and I'll let them influence me. Until then, you have nothing. Worse than nothing, you have ignorance of Berlin coupled with pigheadedness based on... statistics? No personal preferences.
Even if we had statistics what would they show? More people in Berlin ride crappy bikes? Just because more people are doing it doesn't mean it is better. The proportion of fixies in NYC is insanely high compared to other places. That just shows that more people in NYC are stupid and ride fixies on the road.
Everywhere on earth roads are roads. Biking is biking. A more efficient bike is more efficient. A more expensive bike is more expensive. If Berlin is flat, you can get away with less gears. That's about the only difference. The laws of physics aren't somehow different on the other side of the planet.
This is true. A regular chain will only last maybe 20+ years and a big ass hub chain will last longer. Oh man. 20 years. Soooo not durable.
Yeah, and your few ounces of extra weight ain't going to make a difference either, so I wouldn't go casting stones. Plus, where are you getting that 20+ years figure? To borrow an expression, are you sure it's not...nowhere?
Scott also cares a lot about other peoples' bikes suddenly now that he bikes regularly.
Before he was this into it, he'd ignore or argue with my bicycle advice and swear that gears were the same and silly things like that. ;^)
Well, yeah. But that's Scott, man, for good or ill. If I know it, I figure you know it a hundred times better. He's a hot-and-cold kinda guy - if he doesn't care at all, then he's almost entirely indifferent to the point of annoyance at being involved in any way, and reacts with disdain when he feels he's being involved. But when he does care - for example, he gets into an activity - he cares a lot.
As abrasive as he can be, and as much as I argue with him a lot about stuff, I don't think he's approaching these things with ill intentions, quite the opposite. In this example, I don't doubt that he absolutely and genuinely thinks that Hub geared bikes are bad, and doesn't want people to make what he views to be sub-optimal choices that will put them at a disadvantage or even harm them in some fashion. Even if he can, at times, be a bit of a tool in the process, he's a good bloke, and he's trying to do good.
Scott also cares a lot about other peoples' bikes suddenly now that he bikes regularly.
Before he was this into it, he'd ignore or argue with my bicycle advice and swear that gears were the same and silly things like that. ;^)
Not true.
You swore up and down that the gears on your current trek were the same as the gears on my previous trek. They were objectively different (mine were smaller).
You used to say carbon forks were stupid.
You'd argue with me about pedaling cadence.
You seemed very incredulous of the fact that the front brake should be used as one's primary brake. Later, you tried to explain this concept back to me as though I was somehow unaware.
This is true. A regular chain will only last maybe 20+ years and a big ass hub chain will last longer. Oh man. 20 years. Soooo not durable.
Yeah, and your few ounces of extra weight ain't going to make a difference either, so I wouldn't go casting stones. Plus, where are you getting that 20+ years figure? To borrow an expression, are you sure it's not...nowhere?
I got it from Rym's crappy unmaintained mountain bike was close to 20 years old. Really, if you maintain the bike, 20 years is probably a conservative estimate.
The top google result for "how long do bike chains last" say 3000 miles. My chain just crossed 3000 miles and may as well be new.
The weight does matter more than you think. If I bike to work with one water bottle instead of two, it is noticeably easier to pedal. If I bike without a messenger bag, I can usually turn a gear or two higher on my way up the bridge. When I test rode bikes with carbon forks and/or frames I went so fast with so little effort I slightly freaked out and stopped.
Scott also cares a lot about other peoples' bikes suddenly now that he bikes regularly.
Before he was this into it, he'd ignore or argue with my bicycle advice and swear that gears were the same and silly things like that. ;^)
Not true.
You swore up and down that the gears on your current trek were the same as the gears on my previous trek. They were objectively different (mine were smaller).
You used to say carbon forks were stupid.
You'd argue with me about pedaling cadence.
You seemed very incredulous of the fact that the front brake should be used as one's primary brake. Later, you tried to explain this concept back to me as though I was somehow unaware.
The gears were not significantly different. I think you had one extra smaller cog and I had one larger one.
I never said a carbon fork was stupid.
What argument about pedaling cadence? Ideally you should pedal at the same cadence at all times, and shift to maintain that cadence.
The front brake has greater stopping power, and does most of the work. That assumes you haven't figured out some way to bike backwards. That being said having ONLY a front brake, or completely ignoring the rear brake is not so good. Combining the two brakes will help you stop even faster, and judicious use of the rear removes risk of going over the handlebars. I don't believe I've ever said differently.
This coming from the person who wanted a phone without a camera. Yes, I already know you are going to say you had a job where a camera was not permitted. However, you also said such things as "a camera in the phone is stupid" and "why would anyone want a camera in their phone?" Probably just sour grapes because you couldn't have one, or your natural luddism.
Common hub gears - the kind most people would get on a bike in the US - are 486s.
Standard gears are still the standard, and are the i5/i7 for most uses.
Good hub gears are like Alpha CPUs were in the 90s. ULTRA fast, but ULTRA expensive, nonstandard, and largely unknown/unavailable.
Single-gear bikes are 386s.
Fixed-gear bikes are mechanical computers.
If we extend the analogy, though, then there are situations where common hub gears, AKA 486s, may be superior to the standard gear/i5/i7. You seem to ignore this possibility for both the bikes and the CPUs, despite the fact that I've already mentioned that the 486 is superior to the i5/i7 in high radiation environments due to being available in a rad-hardened version. Yeah, it'll be orders of magnitude slower than the i5/i7 when it comes to computational work, but at least it won't fry itself when exposed to the high radiation environment of outer space.
Now, I don't know enough about bikes myself to fully weigh the pros and cons of all the various gearing mechanisms. However, Luke and Churba have pointed out environments and scenarios where even common hub gears are possibly superior to standard gears.
The weight does matter more than you think. If I bike to work with one water bottle instead of two, it is noticeably easier to pedal. If I bike without a messenger bag, I can usually turn a gear or two higher on my way up the bridge. When I test rode bikes with carbon forks and/or frames I went so fast with so little effort I slightly freaked out and stopped.
I'm not entirely sure that's even close to universally applicable, though. I have to put significant weight in a pack or strapped to my bike(well maintained, correctly used) before it makes a noticeable difference to me, at least if it's balanced horizontally, even when biking around both the suburbs and town - which are a lot less flat than Manhattan, tell you that. But I don't know what might account for this difference, if it's the bikes, if it's physiological, or even psychological. I sure as hell don't know if my experience is any closer to universal than yours.
Now, I don't know enough about bikes myself to fully weigh the pros and cons of all the various gearing mechanisms. However, Luke and Churba have pointed out environments and scenarios where even common hub gears are possibly superior to standard gears.
I would say that's more Luke than myself. Still, as with many things, it's a case of figuring out your uses and general area of use, what you want/exists/you can afford, and how to balance that to arrive at what you wish to buy. Without a doubt, there's no shortage of people here willing to answer questions or point you to information.
Get me some statistics about bike use in Berlin in the case of hub gears vs derailleur gears and I'll let them influence me. Until then, you have nothing. Worse than nothing, you have ignorance of Berlin coupled with pigheadedness based on... statistics? No, personal preferences.
Even if we had statistics what would they show? More people in Berlin ride crappy bikes? Just because more people are doing it doesn't mean it is better. The proportion of fixies in NYC is insanely high compared to other places. That just shows that more people in NYC are stupid and ride fixies on the road.
First, you are saying I should discard personal experience and use statistics instead, and then tell me "Even if we had statistics..." Do you have statistics or not? Can I use these non-existent statistics instead of personal experience? How can I do that?
Second, the statistics I want about cycling in Berlin has nothing to do with which kind of gear is more popular. That would be stupid!
What I want is some data on the reliability of hub gears compared to derailleur gears on commuter bikes in Berlin. Do you have that? If so, show it to me. All I know is that the owner of the bike shop told me (and my girlfriend, who also just bought a bike from the same shop): "There's no difference in reliability." He only has person experience to go on, but he's probably got more idea than either you or me.
Everywhere on earth roads are roads. Biking is biking. A more efficient bike is more efficient. A more expensive bike is more expensive. If Berlin is flat, you can get away with less gears. That's about the only difference. The laws of physics aren't somehow different on the other side of the planet.
This paragraph is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to begin. Have you ever cycled in Berlin? Have you ever visited Berlin? Have you ever done extensive cycling outside of New York?
I'm guessing not. If you'd ever biked in Europe you'd know we have something special here: bike lanes! I can cycle extensively around Berlin and not even ride on roads!
Just the security of bikes in New York means you have to make different purchasing decisions, and that's before you even consider bike lanes, road surfaces, park and canal routes, curbs, pot holes, road conditions, elevation changes, wind speed, temperature, humidity, etc, etc, etc.
Having nice bike lanes mean you are able to get away with a shit bike due to improved conditions. It doesn't mean you should prefer a shit bike. Heavier bikes with inferior gears are less efficient whether you are going up Mt. Everest or around a Velodrome.
You have yet to provide any numbers to back up any of your assertions. Until you even try, I'm not going to even consider my bike to by "shit" by any standard at all.
My bike is super comfortable. Comfort trumps "more efficient" unless the efficiency is somehow through the roof. Hub gears are more comfortable to ride with, due to gear gear changing even when stopped, super fast changing between gear 1 (which I use every time I start) and gear 5 (which I slip into as soon as I have the speed), and other considerations.
You can't put numbers on this, because they don't exist. If I was cycling in New York, I'd probably get a bike like yours. In Berlin, for the everyday riding I do here, I want a bike like mine.
Comments
I plan on primarily riding on paved streets/roads/bike lanes, I would also like to be able to take it off paved roads down some well-worn trails on the weekends.
But the ones referenced in this thread are fairly pricey. Is obtaining what I'd like possible at a reasonable price? Preferably below $500?
This might not be an issue FOR YOU, but it is an issue FOR ME. Statistics can go fuck off too. Seriously. I'm talking about PERSONAL use of bikes, so can only go be PERSONAL experience. It doesn't matter how well a bike part holds up across everyone else and all other bike usage in the world. All that matters is how bikes hold up under MY biking experience.
Since I've been using hub gears (my last three bikes in Berlin) I've not had any chain or gear problems. Except, of course, when I visited New York.
In 2010 I bought a second hand bike when I arrived. After a few days of hard riding, the chain snapped. The bike had obviously not been ridden as hard as I was riding it by the previous owner, and the extra strain snapped the chain. I took it back to the shop (using the metro), and they replaced it.
In 2012 I borrowed Rym's old bike. After five days, the back gears broke, somewhere near the axel, and I took it back to Rym's place (by metro) and left it for him to fix and replace.
I'm not saying hub gears would have been better in these cases, but twice in New York now I've had bikes break. and you know what? It wasn't that bad. I just took the metro instead.
I have backpedal brake AND normal brakes. Idiot. Read what I wrote. I like having both. For typical use I use the normal brakes. The backpedal brake is just for extra.
Again: I am going by MY use case. I DON'T CARE about the extra weight. I don't care about the extra cost. I don't care about durability, because if anything breaks on my bike, I get it fixed.
YOU have other needs and desires. I could keep listing things that I don't like about derailleur gears, and you'd knock down all my points. But I don't need to. I have nothing to prove about your bike use and choices, those are for you to write about.
This is just another example of the iPhone vs Android argument. I like a contained box that does what I want. You want fiddly stuff and repairability. Both are fine.
I do not expect you to do any research on the speedhub but I have only heard good stuff about them including from pro level bikers; no effciency loss, less maintenance than a derailleur, _much_ more durable. MTBR user reviewsTo use Scott's own analogy, you guys are advocating 486's because the i7's are insanely expensive in comparison. So yeah, good luck with that.
I seriously considered something like the performance gears above, but held off due to expense/performance concerns. I spent my money on other things like the carbon fork and better wheels. I fully expect to have hub gears like that in my next bike.
If you go to any bike shop in New York today, the best dollar/performance ratio for a normal person is still a used mountain/trail bike. The second best is a new cheap mountain/trail bike. Bar none, the the cheapest good option for most people. They're usually significantly cheaper than fixies, hub-gear bikes, etc...
Now, the analogy is more like this:
Common hub gears - the kind most people would get on a bike in the US - are 486s.
Standard gears are still the standard, and are the i5/i7 for most uses.
Good hub gears are like Alpha CPUs were in the 90s. ULTRA fast, but ULTRA expensive, nonstandard, and largely unknown/unavailable.
Single-gear bikes are 386s.
Fixed-gear bikes are mechanical computers.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. Rational decisions are based on evidence, not based on personal feelings and experiences. You're simultaneously admitting you have a confirmation bias and claiming that your confirmation bias is correct. Just because you were in a plane crash, but never in a car accident, doesn't mean planes are suddenly less safe than cars. So the two times you had real bikes they were two well-used secondhand bikes that had been beaten to hell. Rym's bike was one he had since high school. Also, strain on the chain is caused by improper shifting, usually going uphill. Not saying it was user error, but it is a possibility. Even then, the chain should not snap unless it was particularly old and shitty.
Do you have any experience at all riding a modern bike that hasn't been heavily used and worn down? The ability to pedal backwards is extremely important for getting the pedals into the right position. Often I will be in-between cars and the curb and have to make sure the right or left hand pedal is the one that is up high to avoid scraping the ground. Also, for cornering you need the pedal that is on the inside of the turn to be up so that you can coast around the corner without scraping the pavement. If you already have proper brakes, the backpedal brake is completely pointless and removes an important function of the bike. I didn't care about the extra weight either, until I test rode some crazy carbon bikes. Even if you are not planning to go fast, reducing weight is still a huge boon. Even if you are an old granny who is going to bike around very slowly, a light bike is a huge help. If you want to go slow, you can do so by barely pedaling at all. If it's flat, you can pedal just a little bit and go much much faster with more stability.
This argument reminds me of when Firefox first came out and was called Phoenix. Rym was using IE at the time. I was expounding upon the greatness that is tabbed browsing. It took him quite awhile to see the light, but now I don't think anyone would say tabbed browsing is dumb. I believe you don't care. It's just one of those things you won't care about until you've had it. Once you have it, you can't live without it. It's not a matter of Android vs. iOS. It's those people who say they don't want smartphones at all. They've never had one before. Once they have one, they can't be parted from it. That's what having a light bike is like. That almost seems like it's the case, but it's not. At best your super expensive hub is equal to normal gears. Equal, Not better. An i7 is light years beyond a 486. I'll happily pay much more money for something much better, but I'm not going to pay multiple times the price for something that is, in the best case, just as good.
I got these two cars here for you. They're exactly the same except this one uses a sOmoflange and a sAmoflange.
What's the difference?
sOmoflange costs $1000 more.
Any other differences?
The internal mechanisms work differently. In all other regards such as speed and efficiency they are pretty much equal.
Also, as for durable and reliable, that's absolutely false. They're far lower maintenance, just as if not more durable, and far more reliable - due to the fact they're a sealed system, and generally not susceptible to any external factors that will change the wear characteristics.
The worst you're going to get would be hauling it somewhere stupid like Siberia, where the hub oil is going to thicken and/or freeze up. But then again, you're going to have the same problem with the bearing grease and other lubricants on your chain gear bike, and why the fuck are you pedaling around in Siberia anyway because this is a stupid example, so it's a moot point.
I will absolutely give you that they're nowhere near as easily repaired as a derailleur system, though. However, they're more reliable in return, so you should be fixing them somewhere between less often to never, so it's kind of(but not entirely) a moot point. The worst you can realistically do on your commute is slip or break a chain, which would be highly unusual, since the chains are objectively stronger and less susceptible to wear.
Naturally, they're not ideal for everybody in every use-case, but I'm yet to be convinced by either of you that they're objectively bad. Scott's got some good bluster, but is yet to present anything convincing, and a decent portion of what you've said either isn't correct, or is very convincing sounding but quite irrelevant. Oh fuck off. The weight difference between your average hub system(hub and crankset) and your average external gear system(being the Derailleur, cassette and crankset together, since all are required) can't be that different, a matter of maybe a dozen ounces max unless you're paying ludicrous amounts of money for super light-weight gear on your bike. I mean, you can get forged titanium shimano cranksets that way about as much as a hummingbird's cock if you really want, but frankly, I don't think a ten thousand dollar crankset is going to improve your performance that much outside of a track, where hundredths of a second matter. If you're an average commuter on your bike, and not some lycra-clad danger-junkie speeding around a velodrome with legs like steam pistons, I'd say that extra weight difference is going to have a negligible effect. You're biking to work, not having a fucking drag race or setting world records, for fuck's sake.
Also, it must be said, if that small weight difference is really impeding you enough that it saves you a ton of time and pedaling effort on your average commute, suffice it to say, the problem isn't your gearing system. Yep. No matter which way you slice it, external gear chains are objectively weaker and more susceptible to wear than hub chains. That's not a matter of opinion or argument.
My hub geared bike has 7 speeds, not 3 speeds, as you seem to think.
Get me some statistics about bike use in Berlin in the case of hub gears vs derailleur gears and I'll let them influence me. Until then, you have nothing. Worse than nothing, you have ignorance of Berlin coupled with pigheadedness based on... statistics? No, personal preferences.
As the old aphorism about statistics goes, 45% of them are made up on the spot.
Everywhere on earth roads are roads. Biking is biking. A more efficient bike is more efficient. A more expensive bike is more expensive. If Berlin is flat, you can get away with less gears. That's about the only difference. The laws of physics aren't somehow different on the other side of the planet.
Before he was this into it, he'd ignore or argue with my bicycle advice and swear that gears were the same and silly things like that. ;^)
As abrasive as he can be, and as much as I argue with him a lot about stuff, I don't think he's approaching these things with ill intentions, quite the opposite. In this example, I don't doubt that he absolutely and genuinely thinks that Hub geared bikes are bad, and doesn't want people to make what he views to be sub-optimal choices that will put them at a disadvantage or even harm them in some fashion. Even if he can, at times, be a bit of a tool in the process, he's a good bloke, and he's trying to do good.
You used to say carbon forks were stupid.
You'd argue with me about pedaling cadence.
You seemed very incredulous of the fact that the front brake should be used as one's primary brake. Later, you tried to explain this concept back to me as though I was somehow unaware.
The top google result for "how long do bike chains last" say 3000 miles. My chain just crossed 3000 miles and may as well be new.
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-54059.html
The weight does matter more than you think. If I bike to work with one water bottle instead of two, it is noticeably easier to pedal. If I bike without a messenger bag, I can usually turn a gear or two higher on my way up the bridge. When I test rode bikes with carbon forks and/or frames I went so fast with so little effort I slightly freaked out and stopped.
I never said a carbon fork was stupid.
What argument about pedaling cadence? Ideally you should pedal at the same cadence at all times, and shift to maintain that cadence.
The front brake has greater stopping power, and does most of the work. That assumes you haven't figured out some way to bike backwards. That being said having ONLY a front brake, or completely ignoring the rear brake is not so good. Combining the two brakes will help you stop even faster, and judicious use of the rear removes risk of going over the handlebars. I don't believe I've ever said differently.
This coming from the person who wanted a phone without a camera. Yes, I already know you are going to say you had a job where a camera was not permitted. However, you also said such things as "a camera in the phone is stupid" and "why would anyone want a camera in their phone?" Probably just sour grapes because you couldn't have one, or your natural luddism.
Now, I don't know enough about bikes myself to fully weigh the pros and cons of all the various gearing mechanisms. However, Luke and Churba have pointed out environments and scenarios where even common hub gears are possibly superior to standard gears.
Second, the statistics I want about cycling in Berlin has nothing to do with which kind of gear is more popular. That would be stupid!
What I want is some data on the reliability of hub gears compared to derailleur gears on commuter bikes in Berlin. Do you have that? If so, show it to me. All I know is that the owner of the bike shop told me (and my girlfriend, who also just bought a bike from the same shop): "There's no difference in reliability." He only has person experience to go on, but he's probably got more idea than either you or me. This paragraph is so full of bullshit I don't even know where to begin. Have you ever cycled in Berlin? Have you ever visited Berlin? Have you ever done extensive cycling outside of New York?
I'm guessing not. If you'd ever biked in Europe you'd know we have something special here: bike lanes! I can cycle extensively around Berlin and not even ride on roads!
Just the security of bikes in New York means you have to make different purchasing decisions, and that's before you even consider bike lanes, road surfaces, park and canal routes, curbs, pot holes, road conditions, elevation changes, wind speed, temperature, humidity, etc, etc, etc.
You're so wrong, you're not even wrong any more.
My bike is super comfortable. Comfort trumps "more efficient" unless the efficiency is somehow through the roof. Hub gears are more comfortable to ride with, due to gear gear changing even when stopped, super fast changing between gear 1 (which I use every time I start) and gear 5 (which I slip into as soon as I have the speed), and other considerations.
You can't put numbers on this, because they don't exist. If I was cycling in New York, I'd probably get a bike like yours. In Berlin, for the everyday riding I do here, I want a bike like mine.
1. Everyone bikes on the sidewalk or these little sidewalk-like bike paths
2. Everyone bikes slower than I walk