Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
bicycle tech
309 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Kunich
Dec 29, 2020, 6:37:07 PM12/29/20
to
I have an 11 speed manual Dura Ace 9000 series, an 8000 series Ultegra Di2 and two Di2 11 speed Dura Ace bikes. I also had a 10 speed Campy Record manual shifting bike.
As I have noted before, the 10 speed has more speeds than necessary and a 9 speed was probably too many as well. I find it hard to believe that even pros can use this many speeds and myself I spend a great deal of time shifting through the gears in the hills to get to the 4 or 5 speeds I actually use.
On the flats I also only use 4 or 5 speeds and these overlap a bit.
The one advantage of the 11 speed is that the chain is more flexible than those on the older 10 speed chain and so there is less cross chain noise if you manage to do that (usually on the high speed flats then hitting a roller.)
The latest Shimano patent is for what appears to be a wireless 12 or 13 speed Di2. SRAM has been killing them in the racing marketplace because you don't have to run wires which makes service and rebuilding easy. The other day when I had a flat and had to remove the rear wheel it accidently pulled the rear derailleur wire out and I had to stop after getting under way to plug it in again. So there are a lot of advantages to wireless. But 13 Speeds? Or maybe even 14 speeds? Wireless setups really have no limit to the speeds. You just have a rear derailleur that is designed for a specific number of speeds. I think that this would be the perfect time for Shimano to backwalk a little and allow you to set-up the thing for any number of speeds that you would like. I wouldn't mind returning to 9 speeds which is a good 8 speed setup with one additional climbing gear added. This was Armstrong's original idea and it sold like hotcakes. But now the manufacturers are stuck in a rut and think that they have to increase the numbers of speeds to sell new groups. That is already backfiring on them since fewer and fewer people are buying groups. They, like the top of the line carbon fiber bikes are simply too expensive and wear out just too fast. My 11 speed 105 chain wore out in 500 miles though the new middle range KMC seems like new after twice that.
Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
As I have noted before, the 10 speed has more speeds than necessary and a 9 speed was probably too many as well. I find it hard to believe that even pros can use this many speeds and myself I spend a great deal of time shifting through the gears in the hills to get to the 4 or 5 speeds I actually use.
On the flats I also only use 4 or 5 speeds and these overlap a bit.
The one advantage of the 11 speed is that the chain is more flexible than those on the older 10 speed chain and so there is less cross chain noise if you manage to do that (usually on the high speed flats then hitting a roller.)
The latest Shimano patent is for what appears to be a wireless 12 or 13 speed Di2. SRAM has been killing them in the racing marketplace because you don't have to run wires which makes service and rebuilding easy. The other day when I had a flat and had to remove the rear wheel it accidently pulled the rear derailleur wire out and I had to stop after getting under way to plug it in again. So there are a lot of advantages to wireless. But 13 Speeds? Or maybe even 14 speeds? Wireless setups really have no limit to the speeds. You just have a rear derailleur that is designed for a specific number of speeds. I think that this would be the perfect time for Shimano to backwalk a little and allow you to set-up the thing for any number of speeds that you would like. I wouldn't mind returning to 9 speeds which is a good 8 speed setup with one additional climbing gear added. This was Armstrong's original idea and it sold like hotcakes. But now the manufacturers are stuck in a rut and think that they have to increase the numbers of speeds to sell new groups. That is already backfiring on them since fewer and fewer people are buying groups. They, like the top of the line carbon fiber bikes are simply too expensive and wear out just too fast. My 11 speed 105 chain wore out in 500 miles though the new middle range KMC seems like new after twice that.
Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
Frank Krygowski
Dec 29, 2020, 9:04:36 PM12/29/20
to
On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
>
>
> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear. It's extremely rare to find a bike
without a sufficiently high gear. These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
so high it would be faster to coast. Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
tuning is really necessary? It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference. I suspect that over the
decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
though it really makes no difference.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears. You can
get that with five cogs and a half step front setup, although it requires double shifting
more often than many would like. So, you can get the same single shifting 8 cogs. Two
chainrings with that can give you plenty of range unless you're doing loaded touring or
pedaling a tandem or recumbent. For those cases, use a triple.
About a "forever" group, I can't say why Shimano would ever do that. It's not in their
best interests, even if it would work better for many riders.
- Frank Krygowski
Sir Ridesalot
Dec 29, 2020, 9:48:31 PM12/29/20
to
I've had many times when a slight variation in incline would mean a gear change that to the next lower gear was too low yet the gear I was in was too high for sustained use. Due to that, a few years back I bought two Sun Race 9-cogs cassettes and took them apart and then reassembled on as a corncob 11-19 teeth cogset for my dropbar MTB with 1.5" slick tires. I absolutely love that cogset for a lot of my really long days in the saddle. Each gear shift is just enough lower to be comfortable but without fear of spinning out or pedaling a too high a cadence.
Others needs/wants vary and what works for me may not work for them.
I don't think that Shimano or any other component manufacturer will ever make a Universal shifter as that would cut into sales of the Latest and greatest gearsets and relater shifting mechanism. The closest we ever will come to a universal gear shifter would be a return to friction shifters.
I laugh at some of the changes in bicycle components. They kept adding rear cogs until the chainstays got pretty wide and interfered with the pedal strokes of riders with larger feet. Then, suddenly, one chainring setups became the rage pushed by component makers. After a few more years of those I'll expect that the latest/greatest thing being introduced on new bikes will be a double chainring set.
Cheers
AMuzi
Dec 29, 2020, 9:55:54 PM12/29/20
to
wheels with 8-9-10-11-12 formats have been universally 130mm
for 32 years. In 'bicycle product cycle years' that's
forever and a day.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Lou Holtman
Dec 30, 2020, 4:45:41 AM12/30/20
to
Op woensdag 30 december 2020 om 00:37:07 UTC+1 schreef cycl...@gmail.com:
It is all about the range you need, the steps between gears you can bear/accept and the willingness to change cassettes for different terrain. So it is all about personal preference. For my riding I found that the durability didn't change much going from 9-10-11 speed so cost is not an issue for me especially when you stay with Shimano (SRAM and Campagnolo is a different matter). I am very pleased with my 2*11 speed 48/31 front 14/28 back setup on my gravel bike. In the rare case I go vertical wall climbing I can throw on a 11-32 cassette. I scratch my head with the 1*11-12-13 setups with a 9-10 tooth highest gear sprocket.
Lou
Lou
Wolfgang Strobl
Dec 30, 2020, 9:59:52 AM12/30/20
to
Am Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:04:33 -0800 (PST) schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com>:
>On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
>
>For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
>for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
Right.
>It's extremely rare to find a bike
>without a sufficiently high gear.
Not around here. A lot of People still use old, cheap folding biycles or
MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
>These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
>practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
>so high it would be faster to coast.
Sure. But neither do I have the strength or skills Jobst had, nor do I
know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
"performant". My road bike, bought in January 2010, has a Shimano 6703
group (3x10), 52/38/30 front, 12-25 read initialy. In the beginning of
2019, I replaced the somewhat worn middle chainring and replaced the
sprocket cluster by an 11-28 one, mostly in order to extend the low gear
for our vacation in France (Perigord). 11 vs. 12 doesn't make much
difference, I can certainly do without. But I like to be able to pedal
with low force and low cadence, instead of even lower force and a high
cadence, for example when riding down a long, but not step slope,
together with my wife, who prefers not to ride as fast as physics or her
muscles would allow. Just an example - there are many situations where
I like to have it that way.
>Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
>ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
>
>Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>tuning is really necessary?
Gear inches is a funny measure, because it doesn't relates to anything.
Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
>It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
>over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
I wouldn't call 100 rpm vs 127 rpm "fine tuning".
>I suspect that over the
>decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
A large group of not especially strong riders have got an obsession with
high cadence spinning, that's for sure. While I agree to the notion
that low cadence with high force (and insufficient riding technique) is
damaging the knees, it seems absurd to me when people riding on flat
terrain at slow speed (say: 22 km/h) do that, because they see
TdF-Riders going up a 18% slope spinning that fast, or because some
"cycling expert" told them to do so.
Recpipes that don't specify the range of application aren't worth a
dime.
>They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
>though it really makes no difference.
>
>Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
11/14 is a difference of 27%.
When changing from 12/25 to 11/28, I didn't really care about the 12/11
difference (9%), it is noticeable, but not that relevant. But I don't
care much about the slightly bigger jumps over the range, either. I
care about the limits, though, because, well, they _are_ limits.
>You can
>get that with five cogs and a half step front setup, although it requires double shifting
>more often than many would like. So, you can get the same single shifting 8 cogs. Two
>chainrings with that can give you plenty of range unless you're doing loaded touring or
>pedaling a tandem or recumbent. For those cases, use a triple.
1x11 or 12 isn't that uncommon, anymore and 12-speed hubs sell well, for
a reason. While I'm happy with my 3x10 drive, I see the limitations.
I've broken resp. worn too many middle chainrings to find it funny,
anymore.
>
>About a "forever" group, I can't say why Shimano would ever do that. It's not in their
>best interests, even if it would work better for many riders.
I don't really understand it. People who ride much need replacement for
broken or worn parts. These are expensive, sometimes in total more
expensive than a whole group . People who don't ride much won't buy a
new bike every three years, anyway.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
<frkr...@gmail.com>:
>On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
>
>For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
>for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
>It's extremely rare to find a bike
>without a sufficiently high gear.
MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
>These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
>practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
>so high it would be faster to coast.
know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
"performant". My road bike, bought in January 2010, has a Shimano 6703
group (3x10), 52/38/30 front, 12-25 read initialy. In the beginning of
2019, I replaced the somewhat worn middle chainring and replaced the
sprocket cluster by an 11-28 one, mostly in order to extend the low gear
for our vacation in France (Perigord). 11 vs. 12 doesn't make much
difference, I can certainly do without. But I like to be able to pedal
with low force and low cadence, instead of even lower force and a high
cadence, for example when riding down a long, but not step slope,
together with my wife, who prefers not to ride as fast as physics or her
muscles would allow. Just an example - there are many situations where
I like to have it that way.
>Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
>ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
>
>Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>tuning is really necessary?
Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
<https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
>It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
>over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
>I suspect that over the
>decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
high cadence spinning, that's for sure. While I agree to the notion
that low cadence with high force (and insufficient riding technique) is
damaging the knees, it seems absurd to me when people riding on flat
terrain at slow speed (say: 22 km/h) do that, because they see
TdF-Riders going up a 18% slope spinning that fast, or because some
"cycling expert" told them to do so.
Recpipes that don't specify the range of application aren't worth a
dime.
>They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
>though it really makes no difference.
>
>Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
When changing from 12/25 to 11/28, I didn't really care about the 12/11
difference (9%), it is noticeable, but not that relevant. But I don't
care much about the slightly bigger jumps over the range, either. I
care about the limits, though, because, well, they _are_ limits.
>You can
>get that with five cogs and a half step front setup, although it requires double shifting
>more often than many would like. So, you can get the same single shifting 8 cogs. Two
>chainrings with that can give you plenty of range unless you're doing loaded touring or
>pedaling a tandem or recumbent. For those cases, use a triple.
a reason. While I'm happy with my 3x10 drive, I see the limitations.
I've broken resp. worn too many middle chainrings to find it funny,
anymore.
>
>About a "forever" group, I can't say why Shimano would ever do that. It's not in their
>best interests, even if it would work better for many riders.
broken or worn parts. These are expensive, sometimes in total more
expensive than a whole group . People who don't ride much won't buy a
new bike every three years, anyway.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
Tom Kunich
Dec 30, 2020, 12:04:41 PM12/30/20
to
On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 6:59:52 AM UTC-8, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> I don't really understand it. People who ride much need replacement for
> broken or worn parts. These are expensive, sometimes in total more
> expensive than a whole group . People who don't ride much won't buy a
> new bike every three years, anyway.
I think that my comments regarding a "forever group" were perhaps misunderstood. Everything wears out or breaks for many reasons. Having a method of setting a bike up exactly as you like it and being able to maintain it for as long as it pleases you seems to me to be a reasonable goal. I find that an 11-28 with a 50-34 is perfectly fine as a 9 speed or even an 8 speed and the gaps between gears work well. What's more, a 9 speed chain lasts all hell and gone longer than a 12 speed without wearing the cogs out.
> I don't really understand it. People who ride much need replacement for
> broken or worn parts. These are expensive, sometimes in total more
> expensive than a whole group . People who don't ride much won't buy a
> new bike every three years, anyway.
Frank Krygowski
Dec 30, 2020, 12:34:58 PM12/30/20
to
On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
membership in a pretty large bike club, I know only one other person who ever bought one, and she doesn't ride it.
> >These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
> >practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
> >so high it would be faster to coast.
> Sure. But neither do I have the strength or skills Jobst had, nor do I
> know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
> "performant".
Actually, most people who think of gearing talk in terms of tooth counts. They're much more likely to
say "52-14" rather than "100 gear inches" let alone "8 meters." It works well enough for them because
they would never consider a non-derailleur gear or a widely different wheel diameter. Those of us with
small wheel bikes and/or internal geared hubs need something different.
(Hmm. As I recall, Great Britain is on the 'metric system', but still using miles for distance. Do British cyclists
still talk in terms of gear inches?)
> Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
> with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
> rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
>
> Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
>
> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
>
> I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
> tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
> >It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
> >over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
> I wouldn't call 100 rpm vs 127 rpm "fine tuning".
A 6% downhill is a perfect example of wasted pedaling. IIRC, that's good for well over 40 mph or 20 m/s
by coasting. Pedaling that is probably slower than coasting in a tuck. I'd relax and enjoy the ride.
> >I suspect that over the
> >decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
adjacent 15 tooth cog is only 7% change.
- Frank Krygowski
> Am Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:04:33 -0800 (PST) schrieb Frank Krygowski :
> >On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
> >
> >For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
> >for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
> Right.
> >It's extremely rare to find a bike
> >without a sufficiently high gear.
> Not around here. A lot of People still use old, cheap folding biycles or
> MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
> these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
> common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
Folding bikes are vanishingly rare in my area. We own three (one of which is terribly low quality). Otherwise, despite my long
> >On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
> >
> >For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
> >for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
> Right.
> >It's extremely rare to find a bike
> >without a sufficiently high gear.
> Not around here. A lot of People still use old, cheap folding biycles or
> MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
> these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
> common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
membership in a pretty large bike club, I know only one other person who ever bought one, and she doesn't ride it.
> >These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
> >practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
> >so high it would be faster to coast.
> Sure. But neither do I have the strength or skills Jobst had, nor do I
> know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
> "performant".
> >Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
> >ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
> >
> >Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
> >tuning is really necessary?
> Gear inches is a funny measure, because it doesn't relates to anything.
> Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
> equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
> wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
I agree, your system (which I know as "development") is much more logical. But nobody here uses it!
> >ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
> >
> >Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
> >tuning is really necessary?
> Gear inches is a funny measure, because it doesn't relates to anything.
> Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
> equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
> wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
Actually, most people who think of gearing talk in terms of tooth counts. They're much more likely to
say "52-14" rather than "100 gear inches" let alone "8 meters." It works well enough for them because
they would never consider a non-derailleur gear or a widely different wheel diameter. Those of us with
small wheel bikes and/or internal geared hubs need something different.
(Hmm. As I recall, Great Britain is on the 'metric system', but still using miles for distance. Do British cyclists
still talk in terms of gear inches?)
> Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
> with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
> rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
>
> Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
>
> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
>
> I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
> tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
> >It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
> >over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
> I wouldn't call 100 rpm vs 127 rpm "fine tuning".
by coasting. Pedaling that is probably slower than coasting in a tuck. I'd relax and enjoy the ride.
> >I suspect that over the
> >decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
> >They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
> >though it really makes no difference.
> >
> >Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
> 11/14 is a difference of 27%.
I'm talking about the difference between adjacent gears - as in, shifting from a 14 tooth cog to the
> >though it really makes no difference.
> >
> >Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
> 11/14 is a difference of 27%.
adjacent 15 tooth cog is only 7% change.
- Frank Krygowski
Wolfgang Strobl
Dec 30, 2020, 6:24:48 PM12/30/20
to
Am Wed, 30 Dec 2020 09:34:56 -0800 (PST) schrieb Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com>:
>On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>> Am Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:04:33 -0800 (PST) schrieb Frank Krygowski :
>> >On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
>> >
>> >For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
>> >for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
>> Right.
>> >It's extremely rare to find a bike
>> >without a sufficiently high gear.
>> Not around here. A lot of People still use old, cheap folding biycles or
>> MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
>> these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
>> common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
>
>Folding bikes are vanishingly rare in my area. We own three (one of which is terribly low quality). Otherwise, despite my long
>membership in a pretty large bike club, I know only one other person who ever bought one, and she doesn't ride it.
Well, I don't currently own a folding bike and never did. Folding bike
like this one
<ttps://www.tip-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Klapprad_c_HS_4.jpg>,
called "Klapprad" around here, are still in use. Not as often as, say 50
years ago, but some very old ones are still in use, for a simple reason:
nobody uses these heavily, so they don't wear as much as better bikes
do. So people who just need a junk bike use these. In addition,
average riding distances are lower in my town than in your town, but we
have more cycling traffic, so chances are good to notice suche a bike
now and then.
Bikes like these are still sold cheaply, see for example
<https://www.hellweg.de/Marken/KS-Cycling/Faltrad-Cityfold-27cm-grau.html>.
Unbelievable. I just checked and didn't expect that.
>
>> >These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
>> >practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
>> >so high it would be faster to coast.
>> Sure. But neither do I have the strength or skills Jobst had, nor do I
>> know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
>> "performant".
>> >Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
>> >ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
>> >
>> >Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>> >tuning is really necessary?
>> Gear inches is a funny measure, because it doesn't relates to anything.
>> Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
>> equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
>> wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
>
>I agree, your system (which I know as "development") is much more logical. But nobody here uses it!
>Actually, most people who think of gearing talk in terms of tooth counts.
Most people I know don't think much about it at all. Actually, it isn't
that difficult to visit a local bicycle store, get some advice and by a
somewhat suitable bicycle. Most people don't have the faintest idea
about the gear ratios in teir cars transmission, either.
>They're much more likely to
>say "52-14" rather than "100 gear inches" let alone "8 meters." It works well enough for them because
>they would never consider a non-derailleur gear or a widely different wheel diameter.
Well, people buy bicycles for their children, don't they? We started
with a tiny bike with 12" wheels, then 16", 20", 24" ... Buying new and
used bicyles with wildly varying wheel sizes is one of a many jobs a
parent has. :-)
>Those of us with
>small wheel bikes and/or internal geared hubs need something different.
>
>(Hmm. As I recall, Great Britain is on the 'metric system', but still using miles for distance. Do British cyclists
>still talk in terms of gear inches?)
No idea. Even here, zoll and inch still live in tools an plumbing. My
torque wrench has a 1/4"-drive, I own ratchets with 1/2", 3/8" and 1/4"
drives.
>
>> Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
>> with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
>> rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
>>
>> Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
>>
>> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
>>
>> I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
>> tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
>> >It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
>> >over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
>> I wouldn't call 100 rpm vs 127 rpm "fine tuning".
>
>A 6% downhill is a perfect example of wasted pedaling.
On a perfect road, perhaps. I have various examples here, where I can
accelerate to that speed and _then_ coast for a while, but won't reach
that speed without heavy pedaling.
Did you notice that 58 km/h (~16 m/s) needs roughly 300 W in the
situation depicted above? 100 rpm seems like a good fit for that. That's
what you get with 52/11
>IIRC, that's good for well over 40 mph or 20 m/s
>by coasting.
Just by coasting, in a position which is doable on a road with traffic?
I doubt it. 20 m/s or 72 km/h will need a steep slope of about 10% and
sufficient length. 6% is good for about 55 km/h, both according to my
calculator and my experience.
>Pedaling that is probably slower than coasting in a tuck. I'd relax and enjoy the ride.
Won't work. We aren't in the Alps, around here. Steep slopes usually
end faster than one gets to speed, around here.
>
>
>> >I suspect that over the
>> >decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
>
>> >They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
>> >though it really makes no difference.
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
>> 11/14 is a difference of 27%.
>
>I'm talking about the difference between adjacent gears - as in, shifting from a 14 tooth cog to the
>adjacent 15 tooth cog is only 7% change.
11 tooth or 14 tooth on the smallest cog doesn't have a difference to
the next smaller cog, because there is none. I was still questioning
your remark
>Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>tuning is really necessary?
I don't really care about the difference between 12 and 11 teeth, but I
_do_ care if I have an 11 (or 12) teeth cog below 14 or not. Because it
does make a difference in situations I care about. Actually, I do care
about it and like it that way, because I _don't_ depend on that fine
tuning wrt. the gears between 11 and 28 (or 12 and 25 before).
Actually, I'm doing exactly what you initially suggested for non-racers:
I value the range of my gears, not the number of speeds. 11-28 instead
of 12-25 extends the range. It may change the number of speeds too, or
it may not. In my view, it does not, but I don't really care.
<frkr...@gmail.com>:
>On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 9:59:52 AM UTC-5, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>> Am Tue, 29 Dec 2020 18:04:33 -0800 (PST) schrieb Frank Krygowski :
>> >On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 6:37:07 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Any comments about the increasing numbers of speeds, any advantage of them and if Shimano should take advantage to make a "forever" group that would shift any number of speeds, self adjusting to the spacing and width of the cogsets?
>> >
>> >For non-racers, the important thing is not the number of speeds. It's having a sufficient range
>> >for one's riding, which mostly means a sufficiently low gear.
>> Right.
>> >It's extremely rare to find a bike
>> >without a sufficiently high gear.
>> Not around here. A lot of People still use old, cheap folding biycles or
>> MTB style bicyles sold in large DIY stores as a commodity item. Often,
>> these don't have gears high enough to allow fast riding. It is not
>> common, anymore, but calling it extremely rare would be misleading.
>
>Folding bikes are vanishingly rare in my area. We own three (one of which is terribly low quality). Otherwise, despite my long
>membership in a pretty large bike club, I know only one other person who ever bought one, and she doesn't ride it.
like this one
<ttps://www.tip-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Klapprad_c_HS_4.jpg>,
called "Klapprad" around here, are still in use. Not as often as, say 50
years ago, but some very old ones are still in use, for a simple reason:
nobody uses these heavily, so they don't wear as much as better bikes
do. So people who just need a junk bike use these. In addition,
average riding distances are lower in my town than in your town, but we
have more cycling traffic, so chances are good to notice suche a bike
now and then.
Bikes like these are still sold cheaply, see for example
<https://www.hellweg.de/Marken/KS-Cycling/Faltrad-Cityfold-27cm-grau.html>.
Unbelievable. I just checked and didn't expect that.
>
>> >These days many, many bikes come with a high gear that's
>> >practically useless. As Jobst pointed out many times, people now pedal downgrades in gears
>> >so high it would be faster to coast.
>> Sure. But neither do I have the strength or skills Jobst had, nor do I
>> know a law which forces me to stick to riding behaviours which are
>> "performant".
>> >Anything over 100 gear inches is probably just a vanity
>> >ornament. Anything over 110 certainly is. (We don't even have that on our tandem.)
>> >
>> >Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>> >tuning is really necessary?
>> Gear inches is a funny measure, because it doesn't relates to anything.
>> Around here, we use "Entfaltung", which isn't the _diameter_ of an
>> equivalent penny farthing bicycles wheel, but the the circumfence of the
>> wheel, i.e. how far you get with one revolution.
>
>I agree, your system (which I know as "development") is much more logical. But nobody here uses it!
>Actually, most people who think of gearing talk in terms of tooth counts.
that difficult to visit a local bicycle store, get some advice and by a
somewhat suitable bicycle. Most people don't have the faintest idea
about the gear ratios in teir cars transmission, either.
>They're much more likely to
>say "52-14" rather than "100 gear inches" let alone "8 meters." It works well enough for them because
>they would never consider a non-derailleur gear or a widely different wheel diameter.
with a tiny bike with 12" wheels, then 16", 20", 24" ... Buying new and
used bicyles with wildly varying wheel sizes is one of a many jobs a
parent has. :-)
>Those of us with
>small wheel bikes and/or internal geared hubs need something different.
>
>(Hmm. As I recall, Great Britain is on the 'metric system', but still using miles for distance. Do British cyclists
>still talk in terms of gear inches?)
torque wrench has a 1/4"-drive, I own ratchets with 1/2", 3/8" and 1/4"
drives.
>
>> Anyway, 14 vs 11 is more than a quarter more. When riding down a hill
>> with about 60 km/h, for my bicyle that would make a difference of 100
>> rpm vs 127 rpm. I prefer 100 rpm, thank you very much.
>>
>> Have a look at a concrete example from the beginning of this month
>>
>> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/entfaltung.jpg>
>>
>> I'm not that strong, but when going down a 6% ramp and with a little
>> tailwind, I can easily do 60 km/h, too, without going to be exhausted.
>> >It's well known that power output vs. cadence is essentially flat
>> >over a wide range; so the fine tuning is just personal preference.
>> I wouldn't call 100 rpm vs 127 rpm "fine tuning".
>
>A 6% downhill is a perfect example of wasted pedaling.
accelerate to that speed and _then_ coast for a while, but won't reach
that speed without heavy pedaling.
Did you notice that 58 km/h (~16 m/s) needs roughly 300 W in the
situation depicted above? 100 rpm seems like a good fit for that. That's
what you get with 52/11
>IIRC, that's good for well over 40 mph or 20 m/s
>by coasting.
I doubt it. 20 m/s or 72 km/h will need a steep slope of about 10% and
sufficient length. 6% is good for about 55 km/h, both according to my
calculator and my experience.
>Pedaling that is probably slower than coasting in a tuck. I'd relax and enjoy the ride.
end faster than one gets to speed, around here.
>
>
>> >I suspect that over the
>> >decades, many cyclists have gotten a "princess and pea" mentality regarding that.
>
>> >They've been trained to perceive and dislike slight differences from their ideal cadence, even
>> >though it really makes no difference.
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a 10% difference between adjacent gears.
>> 11/14 is a difference of 27%.
>
>I'm talking about the difference between adjacent gears - as in, shifting from a 14 tooth cog to the
>adjacent 15 tooth cog is only 7% change.
the next smaller cog, because there is none. I was still questioning
your remark
>Between 100 gear inches (52-14) and whatever low gear you feel you need, how much fine
>tuning is really necessary?
_do_ care if I have an 11 (or 12) teeth cog below 14 or not. Because it
does make a difference in situations I care about. Actually, I do care
about it and like it that way, because I _don't_ depend on that fine
tuning wrt. the gears between 11 and 28 (or 12 and 25 before).
Actually, I'm doing exactly what you initially suggested for non-racers:
I value the range of my gears, not the number of speeds. 11-28 instead
of 12-25 extends the range. It may change the number of speeds too, or
it may not. In my view, it does not, but I don't really care.
sms
Dec 30, 2020, 9:03:14 PM12/30/20
to
On 12/30/2020 3:23 PM, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, I'm doing exactly what you initially suggested for non-racers:
> I value the range of my gears, not the number of speeds. 11-28 instead
> of 12-25 extends the range. It may change the number of speeds too, or
> it may not. In my view, it does not, but I don't really care.
In my area folding bicycles are very common. Just in my own little
neighborhood I see bike fridays, Dahons, and Bromptons. My next door
neighbor has a higher-end Dahon, and they are not even really into
bicycling.
The big reason for folding bicycles is to not get bumped from the
Caltrain commuter train which limits the number of bicycles per train.
It used to be necessary to use a folder on BART which prohibited regular
bicycles during peak commute hours but they've since dropped that
restriction.
Even though the Caltrain bicycle capacity has gone way up over the
years, it's still not enough during normal, non-pandemic, times during
commute hours, on the express trains. Depending on the equipment, each
train can carry 72 or 80 bicycles. But because of the lack of viable
transit from train stations to housing-rich or jobs-rich areas, a LOT of
passengers want to bring their bicycles. Folding bicycles are much less
trouble because you don't constantly have to be jumping up to be moving
bicycles around so people can get their bikes off at the right station
and you don't have to worry about theft. Also, regular bicycles tend to
get banged up a lot on the train.
While the low gears on my Dahon Speed TR (SRAM Dual Drive 3x7) are
sufficient for most hills, the high gears leave something to be desired
in some cases.
On my old touring bicycle I have a 52/14 which is 97.57 gear inches and
on occasion I've wanted something higher, maybe around 105 to 110, but
back then the rear cluster on a touring bicycle was typically 14-34, and
the largest front chainring was 52.
<snip>
> Actually, I'm doing exactly what you initially suggested for non-racers:
> I value the range of my gears, not the number of speeds. 11-28 instead
> of 12-25 extends the range. It may change the number of speeds too, or
> it may not. In my view, it does not, but I don't really care.
neighborhood I see bike fridays, Dahons, and Bromptons. My next door
neighbor has a higher-end Dahon, and they are not even really into
bicycling.
The big reason for folding bicycles is to not get bumped from the
Caltrain commuter train which limits the number of bicycles per train.
It used to be necessary to use a folder on BART which prohibited regular
bicycles during peak commute hours but they've since dropped that
restriction.
Even though the Caltrain bicycle capacity has gone way up over the
years, it's still not enough during normal, non-pandemic, times during
commute hours, on the express trains. Depending on the equipment, each
train can carry 72 or 80 bicycles. But because of the lack of viable
transit from train stations to housing-rich or jobs-rich areas, a LOT of
passengers want to bring their bicycles. Folding bicycles are much less
trouble because you don't constantly have to be jumping up to be moving
bicycles around so people can get their bikes off at the right station
and you don't have to worry about theft. Also, regular bicycles tend to
get banged up a lot on the train.
While the low gears on my Dahon Speed TR (SRAM Dual Drive 3x7) are
sufficient for most hills, the high gears leave something to be desired
in some cases.
On my old touring bicycle I have a 52/14 which is 97.57 gear inches and
on occasion I've wanted something higher, maybe around 105 to 110, but
back then the rear cluster on a touring bicycle was typically 14-34, and
the largest front chainring was 52.
Tom Kunich
Dec 31, 2020, 12:46:36 PM12/31/20
to
jbeattie
Dec 31, 2020, 1:22:03 PM12/31/20
to
Not my cup of tea, but we have a store devoted to them. https://tinyurl.com/yc4ycyhl
My commute is not multi-modal, although my commute route is multimodal -- and a rat race pre-COVID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=kieljohnson I have a convenient rack at work, and expect to use it again when I return to my office one year. I may ride in today to pick up Christmas swag from clients. I have a swanky Specialized face mask.
-- Jay Beattie.
Tom Kunich
Dec 31, 2020, 3:04:51 PM12/31/20
to
jbeattie
Dec 31, 2020, 3:48:03 PM12/31/20
to
-- Jay Beattie.
Tom Kunich
Dec 31, 2020, 4:58:16 PM12/31/20
to
sms
Dec 31, 2020, 5:14:51 PM12/31/20
to
On 12/31/2020 10:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 9:46:36 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> On Thursday, December 31, 2020 at 9:46:36 AM UTC-8, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I spent 20 years working in the Cupertino, Mt, View and Santa Clara area and being an avid cyclist was always aware of cyclists and extremely rarely saw a folding bike even on the rapid transit or trains.
>
> Folding bikes are clearly a thing now on SF/Bay Area transit. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20026262/i-carried-a-folding-bike-everywhere/ http://sfappeal.com/2011/05/muni-allows-riders-wedge-folding-bikes-onto-their-buses-trains/
Tom is wrong of course™.
Folding bicycle popularity really went up in the past ten or so years
with both the expansion of tech firms in San Francisco and with San
Francisco becoming a bedroom community for younger Silicon Valley tech
workers. Caltrain used to crowded SJ-SF in the morning and SF-SJ in the
evening, but now the reverse commute is nearly as popular.
When you get to 4th and Townsend in San Francisco you can get on a bus
or streetcar to go to the Financial District (and in a year or so the
new underground line will open and that goes to Chinatown. But it's
usually faster, and always cheaper, to bike from the station to the
jobs-rich areas. If Caltrain is ever finally extended to the Transbay
Terminal then there will be less of a need for "the last mile" transit.
Similarly, when you get to the stations down the Peninsula a bicycle is
very useful for the last mile (or two or three miles) since the public
transit options are so limited. Big firms will have shuttles from the
station, but smaller companies will not.
Personally, I found a folding bicycle to be much less trouble on
Caltrain. You never get bumped with a folder, but you often get bumped,
especially from the "Baby Bullet" with a full size bicycle. You don't
have to constantly be jumping up to rearrange bicycles when someone
needs to get their bicycle out of the stack. Your bicycle doesn't get
all scratched up. You don't need to constantly be watching it (bicycle
theft from the bicycle cars has occurred). When you arrive at the
station you get right off without waiting for the non-bicycle passengers
to exit. You aren't restricted to only the bike cars with a folder, in
fact you want to avoid the bike car and put your folder in the luggage
storage area of a non-bike car.
In San Francisco, another folder advantage is that you can almost always
take the bicycle into your building and store it. You really don't want
to lock your bicycle outside in San Francisco since part or all of it is
likely to be gone by the end of the day.
Ironically, the one place that hassled me about my folding bicycle was
at the Metropolitan Transportation Commission building. I was my city's
representative to MTC/ABAG and I always took Caltrain + bike. When I
told the agency person I was not going to attend meetings because MTC
was anti-bicycle, suddenly they took me and my bicycle, and that of
another irate attendee, to a huge back room with a large number of
dual-level bicycle storage racks, insisting that it was normally only
for employees, and that they might get in trouble for letting us store
our bicycles there.
It is true that if you're cycling from a suburb of Silicon Valley, to a
tech firm in Silicon Valley, you're not likely to need a folder. Most
companies have secure bicycle storage, and even locking a bicycle
outside is pretty safe. One day my wife locked her bicycle to standpipe
of the building behind her and when she came out at the end of the day
her bicycle was still there but the building was gone.
jbeattie
Dec 31, 2020, 5:25:05 PM12/31/20
to
The world is different at commute time, which you probably sleep through.
-- Jay Beattie.
Tom Kunich
Dec 31, 2020, 6:01:01 PM12/31/20
to
On the other hand I have ridden the mass transit quite a bit and driven in the Silicon Valley area a great deal which is inaccessible to most of the mass transit so that it there WERE folding bikes in any large numbers you would see them during commute hours. And I neither see them in Silicon Valley nor have I seen them on the mass transit which I take to San Francisco during commute hours to do Marin County rides. Also the Ferry goes from the Ferry Building in San Francisco to several stops in Marin and it also goes to Oakland and Alameda - North Oakland, Berkeley and Alameda are bedroom communities for the San Francisco skyscraper crowd. If there were ever any folding bikes on those ferries they were such a small number that they never made themselves visible. And on the Ferry you have to put all of the bikes either in the central lower deck bike area of on the back deck. So I would have seen them.
The massive belief of you leftists that you are being told the truth by 18 and 19 year old "reporters" hoping to get a degree in journalism shows your utter lack of any skepticism. There no longer is any journalism. It is a dead profession populated by editorials rather than news.
sms
Dec 31, 2020, 6:13:21 PM12/31/20
to
On 12/31/2020 2:25 PM, jbeattie wrote:
<snip>
> Well, moron, see below. And I didn't say they were common. They are a "thing," meaning that they are becoming popular as an option -- as is obvious from the press and SMS' first-hand experience as a someone with a job and a commute.
>
> The world is different at commute time, which you probably sleep through.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Tom's experience on public transit is obviously very limited, probably
to BART and A/C Transit.
Actually "common" is an accurate description when it comes to folding
bicycles on public transit in the Bay Area, but it varies by location
and by transit agency.
On Muni Metro in San Francisco (light rail) only folding bikes are
allowed. Muni buses can take two full size bikes on a rack, but a folder
means that you won't have to worry about snagging one of those two slots.
Folders used to be the only bicycles allowed on BART during peak commute
hours in the commute direction, but now they no longer have any
restrictions. Still, folders are less of a hassle even on BART,
especially when the trains are crowded.
Folders are still common on Caltrain even though bicycle capacity is 72
to 80 bicycles per train. Without a folder there is a good chance of
being bumped, NB if you get on north of Sunnyvale or Mountain View, and
southbound in San Francisco, especially on the express trains. On the
local trains it's unlikely that you'll be bumped, it just takes a lot
longer (the express trains are slow, but the local trains are
agonizingly slow).
Ironically, the cheapest way to cross the bay into San Francisco by
transit is only if you have a bicycle with you: $1 on the Caltrans
shuttle
<https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-popular-links/crossing-thebay-by-bike>.
<snip>
> Well, moron, see below. And I didn't say they were common. They are a "thing," meaning that they are becoming popular as an option -- as is obvious from the press and SMS' first-hand experience as a someone with a job and a commute.
>
> The world is different at commute time, which you probably sleep through.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
to BART and A/C Transit.
Actually "common" is an accurate description when it comes to folding
bicycles on public transit in the Bay Area, but it varies by location
and by transit agency.
On Muni Metro in San Francisco (light rail) only folding bikes are
allowed. Muni buses can take two full size bikes on a rack, but a folder
means that you won't have to worry about snagging one of those two slots.
Folders used to be the only bicycles allowed on BART during peak commute
hours in the commute direction, but now they no longer have any
restrictions. Still, folders are less of a hassle even on BART,
especially when the trains are crowded.
Folders are still common on Caltrain even though bicycle capacity is 72
to 80 bicycles per train. Without a folder there is a good chance of
being bumped, NB if you get on north of Sunnyvale or Mountain View, and
southbound in San Francisco, especially on the express trains. On the
local trains it's unlikely that you'll be bumped, it just takes a lot
longer (the express trains are slow, but the local trains are
agonizingly slow).
Ironically, the cheapest way to cross the bay into San Francisco by
transit is only if you have a bicycle with you: $1 on the Caltrans
shuttle
<https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-popular-links/crossing-thebay-by-bike>.
sms
Dec 31, 2020, 6:47:03 PM12/31/20
to
On 12/31/2020 12:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
<snip>
> Not often, but I can read. https://www.planetizen.com/node/35469 https://ridethisbike.com/bart-folding_bikes_policy.htm I would also defer to SMS.
Tom is wrong of course™, but those links that you posted are outdated.
See <https://www.bart.gov/guide/bikes/bikeRules>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
During non-commute hours, bikes are allowed on all trains except the
first car or any crowded car.
During commute hours (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM, weekdays),
bikes are not allowed in the first three cars of any train.
Folded bikes are allowed in all cars at all times.
Regardless of any other rule, bikes are never allowed on crowded cars.
Use your good judgment and only board cars that can comfortably
accommodate you and your bicycle.
Bicyclists must hold their bikes while on the trains.
Bicyclists must use elevators or stairs, not escalators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have taken a full size bike on BART multiple times. It's fine, but
it's often not that pleasant.
If the train is crowded it's a hassle.
It's also a hassle to be holding your bicycle for the entire ride,
usually standing. Sometimes you can get a seat where there it's possible
to be holding your bicycle while seated, but often not.
Not being able to use escalators is a hassle. Often elevators are out of
order and there is some weirdness at some BART stations where the
elevator goes between the paid and unpaid areas of a station. If you
take the elevator from the street level into the station you've bypassed
the fare gates. You have to back and swipe your ticket or scan your
Clipper Card. When you leave the station you need to do the reverse.
<snip>
> Not often, but I can read. https://www.planetizen.com/node/35469 https://ridethisbike.com/bart-folding_bikes_policy.htm I would also defer to SMS.
See <https://www.bart.gov/guide/bikes/bikeRules>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
During non-commute hours, bikes are allowed on all trains except the
first car or any crowded car.
During commute hours (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:30 to 6:30 PM, weekdays),
bikes are not allowed in the first three cars of any train.
Folded bikes are allowed in all cars at all times.
Regardless of any other rule, bikes are never allowed on crowded cars.
Use your good judgment and only board cars that can comfortably
accommodate you and your bicycle.
Bicyclists must hold their bikes while on the trains.
Bicyclists must use elevators or stairs, not escalators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I have taken a full size bike on BART multiple times. It's fine, but
it's often not that pleasant.
If the train is crowded it's a hassle.
It's also a hassle to be holding your bicycle for the entire ride,
usually standing. Sometimes you can get a seat where there it's possible
to be holding your bicycle while seated, but often not.
Not being able to use escalators is a hassle. Often elevators are out of
order and there is some weirdness at some BART stations where the
elevator goes between the paid and unpaid areas of a station. If you
take the elevator from the street level into the station you've bypassed
the fare gates. You have to back and swipe your ticket or scan your
Clipper Card. When you leave the station you need to do the reverse.
ritzann...@gmail.com
Jan 1, 2021, 12:15:37 PM1/1/21
to
I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
AMuzi
Jan 1, 2021, 12:24:43 PM1/1/21
to
On 1/1/2021 11:15 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to
leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
>
Any and every bicycle can be folded. Just ask the CTA!
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to
leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
>
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACTA.JPG
Tom Kunich
Jan 1, 2021, 12:32:27 PM1/1/21
to
Tom Kunich
Jan 1, 2021, 12:44:12 PM1/1/21
to
On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 9:15:37 AM UTC-8, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
You and I have more or less the same experience. While I have seen folders it has always been a unique experience that stood out sharply in the crowds. I have taken many of the public transit in the bay area and on the one's in which you could expect it such as the San Francisco Ferry service since that ends on Market St. in the financial area of San Francisco and originates in Alameda, Oakland very close to Piedmont and North Oakland and Emeryville and Berkeley which all have upper class bedroom communities, if they were going to be common anywhere that would be it. Also from all of the Marin County area which are almost entirely the rich and ultrarich. I don't find it odd that Beattie reads a paper about San Francisco and believes it and is then supported by Scharf who probably has never ridden mass transit in his life. People who are crazy together tend to stay together. Hey Jay, how are those "mostly peaceful demonstrations" going where only one or two buildings are burned to the group and people with guns prevent the fire department from putting them out?
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
Lou Holtman
Jan 1, 2021, 1:41:45 PM1/1/21
to
Op vrijdag 1 januari 2021 om 18:15:37 UTC+1 schreef russell...@yahoo.com:
https://l1.nl/l1nws-opening-ondergrondse-fietsenstalling-ns-station-maastricht-138655/
We have a similar parking in my city.
Lou
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare. Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990. Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not certain you would want to leave your bike locked up anywhere unless you had 10 Kryptonite locks on it and many heavy chains wrapped around it. I'm doubting there were any folding bikes used for commuting in Chicago.
Dutch way:
https://l1.nl/l1nws-opening-ondergrondse-fietsenstalling-ns-station-maastricht-138655/
We have a similar parking in my city.
Lou
Frank Krygowski
Jan 1, 2021, 4:35:27 PM1/1/21
to
On Friday, January 1, 2021 at 12:15:37 PM UTC-5, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet.
I agree, regarding midwest bicycling. Our folders are unusual enough that pedestrians
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet.
have stopped us to ask about them. I've seen more folding bikes in Europe, but still
not very many, percentagewise, compared to "normal" bikes. (Around here, I actually
see more recumbents than folders, although both are vanishingly rare.)
> Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see them in use.
him about it, and he was super-enthusiastic, saying "It's changed my life!" He said it
enabled him to efficiently use the train to get to his job in the city, instead of driving
in and searching for parking, or using other ways to get from the train station to his
office. And the lightning fast fold was very impressive.
Our Bike Friday NWTs are optimized for ride quality rather than quick folding. But while
in Helsinki, I found a shop that specialized in folders. I test rode a Brompton. Really,
its ride quality didn't seem bad at all; but then, the test ride was only a couple miles.
We've done over 50 miles on rides with the Fridays, sometimes towing trailers.
Our use of our Fridays is now different than it used to be. I'd now value a quicker and
more compact fold. I'd almost be tempted to resurrect the ancient Dahon, but it's
really heavy. Weight matters a lot more in a bike that you sometimes want to carry.
- Frank Krygowski
sms
Jan 1, 2021, 5:40:28 PM1/1/21
to
On 1/1/2021 11:15 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them
> in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on
> my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those
> sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the
> road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But
> I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in
> other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare.
> Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here
> do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see
> them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990.
> Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not
> allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall
> the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park
> bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not
> certain you would want to
<snip>
> I'll add some comments on folding bicycles. I have seen a few of them
> in 40 years of road riding. I can probably count the total number on
> my two hands. Maybe two hands and feet. Maybe. Most of those
> sightings would have been on RAGBRAI. 10,000+ bicycles per day on the
> road for a week. Most of my riding has been in the midwest USA. But
> I did ride around Europe back in 1992. And have ridden a few rides in
> other states in the USA. Its very rare to see a folding bike. Rare.
> Where I live mass public transportation means the bus. The buses here
> do have bike racks on the front. Hold 2 bikes I think. Rarely I see
> them in use. Rarely. I did spend a summer in Chicago back in 1990.
> Used the Elevated train in Chicago. Fairly certain bikes were not
> allowed on that mass public transportation system. And as I recall
> the train stations, I do not even think there was anyplace to park
> bikes if you rode to and from the stations. Being Chicago I am not
> certain you would want to
Folding bicycles are definitely a regional thing. You see a lot of them
in New York City and a lot in the San Francisco Bay Area. In NYC it's
also because of the tiny apartments, in the Bay Area it's primarily to
be able to take it on all kinds of transit without any hassle, and to be
able to take the bicycle into your workplace for safekeeping.
And of course if you to Japan, Taiwan, or China, you'll see a lot of
folders in the cities.
I bought my Bromptons in Taipei, back when Brompton had licensed a
Taiwanese company to manufacture bikes for sale in Asia. I was going to
Taiwan a lot for work and every time I went I brought back another
Brompton. I had four of them at one time. $235 each.
It's amazing to see all the different kinds of folders that have been
designed, and the different ways that they fold. One nice feature that
is present on the Brompton, and on very few other folders (one Dahon has
it) is that it folds with the chain on the inside.
Folders for touring are also useful for when parts of the trip need to
be on some sort of transit.
ritzann...@gmail.com
Jan 2, 2021, 2:01:09 PM1/2/21
to
AMuzi
Jan 2, 2021, 2:28:40 PM1/2/21
to
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a CAMPAGNOLO groupset! The tragedy.
>
Not only. That was a real Italian built Bianchi race bike.
>
Fell off a CTA bus rack on Lake Shore Drive after our recent
service.
Notice the green sticker is still on that brand new
Campagnolo crank.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 2, 2021, 2:44:21 PM1/2/21
to
- Frank Krygowski
jbeattie
Jan 2, 2021, 2:47:19 PM1/2/21
to
-- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
Jan 2, 2021, 3:22:04 PM1/2/21
to
Owner went through an administrative process and got a
settlement don't know the amount.
sms
Jan 2, 2021, 6:20:30 PM1/2/21
to
On 1/1/2021 9:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
> Any and every bicycle can be folded. Just ask the CTA!
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACTA.JPG
I'm guessing that the lifetime frame warranty doesn't apply.
<snip>
> Any and every bicycle can be folded. Just ask the CTA!
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACTA.JPG
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 2, 2021, 11:10:10 PM1/2/21
to
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 13:28:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Any and every bicycle can be folded. Just ask the CTA!
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACTA.JPG
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a CAMPAGNOLO groupset! The tragedy.
>Not only. That was a real Italian built Bianchi race bike.
>Fell off a CTA bus rack on Lake Shore Drive after our recent
>service.
>
>Notice the green sticker is still on that brand new
>Campagnolo crank.
Very sad. Nice bicycle.
>>> Any and every bicycle can be folded. Just ask the CTA!
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/BIACTA.JPG
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is a CAMPAGNOLO groupset! The tragedy.
>Not only. That was a real Italian built Bianchi race bike.
>Fell off a CTA bus rack on Lake Shore Drive after our recent
>service.
>
>Notice the green sticker is still on that brand new
>Campagnolo crank.
I'm trying to visualize what happened. I wish that the wheels and
saddle had been in the picture. It also looks like the left half of
the handlebars, left brake lever, and front brake calipers are
missing. Not much left of both pedals.
Near as I can guess(tm), the bicycle fell off the front bus rack, on
the bicycles right side, followed by the bus pushing the bicycle
forward first by the saddle, and later by the seat stays. Near as I
can tell from Google Images, Chicago Transit uses two brands of
bicycle carriers, both of which include a support arm over the front
wheel. That should have prevented the bicycle from falling off the
carrier. The red Byk Rak arm in the photo below looks seriously
inadequate. The Sportsworks arm seems ok:
<https://www.transitchicago.com/howto/bring-your-bike-bus/>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=cta+bus+bicycle+carrier&tbm=isch>
There's not much paint loss which suggests that the bus didn't push
the bicycle very far. I dunno. Not enough info to make a tolerable
guess.
25,000 lb bus versus 18 lb bicycle. Bus usually wins.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
AMuzi
Jan 3, 2021, 11:07:39 AM1/3/21
to
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oIVXgw8BBQE/T7UQ7DyLGJI/AAAAAAAAA4A/1_rDkFEUczw/s1600/680header_bikeandride%5B1%5D.jpg
This being in a middle lane of an expressway, the Bianchi
was repeatedly hit before recovery. Owner reports the new
wheels were shredded to bits.
p.s. Chicago bus bike rack story:
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151120/englewood/woman-insists-shes-bike-sits-on-cta-bus-rack-video/
Tom Kunich
Jan 3, 2021, 11:53:02 AM1/3/21
to
Watching Scharf pontificate on things he knows nothing about save perhaps rules that no one follows demonstrates why he lost his election after a single term of demonstrating his ignorance to his electorate.
jbeattie
Jan 3, 2021, 12:42:10 PM1/3/21
to
-- Jay Beattie.
sms
Jan 3, 2021, 12:58:33 PM1/3/21
to
On 1/3/2021 9:42 AM, jbeattie wrote:
<snip>
> No reports of bikes lost off the Sportworks two-bike racks used on TriMet buses in the Portland area. They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and we'll see how those do.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
In Portland is three bikes per bus enough? For Santa Clara Valley,
occasionally two bike capacity isn't enough but you can bring a full
size bicycle into the bus if the bus is pretty empty and the drive
allows it. And if you're familiar with VTA, it's very rare for a bus to
not be mostly empty.
And in a recent survey, 98% of Santa Clara County residents said that
they believed that their neighbors should take the bus to work.
<snip>
> No reports of bikes lost off the Sportworks two-bike racks used on TriMet buses in the Portland area. They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and we'll see how those do.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
occasionally two bike capacity isn't enough but you can bring a full
size bicycle into the bus if the bus is pretty empty and the drive
allows it. And if you're familiar with VTA, it's very rare for a bus to
not be mostly empty.
And in a recent survey, 98% of Santa Clara County residents said that
they believed that their neighbors should take the bus to work.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 3, 2021, 2:16:11 PM1/3/21
to
there visiting. I was told I had to get an official lesson using a
simulator to be allowed to put my bike on a rack. I did do the lesson
and maybe got some sort of card showing I was qualified, but I never
actually needed to use that service. I guess the lesson requirement soon
went away.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich
Jan 3, 2021, 2:38:40 PM1/3/21
to
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 3, 2021, 3:00:22 PM1/3/21
to
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:42:08 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:
>They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and
>we'll see how those do.
>-- Jay Beattie.
Why not put antlers on the front of the bus and just hang bicycles
wherever possible?
Existing Sportworks 3 position bus racks:
<https://www.sportworks.com/products/transit-bike-racks>
It would be fairly easy to design bike carrier for buses that can be
expanded to a ridiculous number of bicycles. Just make the carrier
rack for each bicycle removable with two short sections of the
mounting pipes attached. An additional bicycle carrier could be added
by simply adding a carrier rack. No need to drag around a single rack
made for 3 bicycles when the number of racks could be adjusted to
match the demand. I suspect that this would also help with the bus
parking situation, which I've been told is a problem. However, I've
noticed that vendors like to stagger the bicycles, which helps reduce
the overall length. Looks like 3 mounting pipes might be needed.
The idea is so obvious that I suspected that someone had already
patented the idea. However, I couldn't find anything using Google
Patent search.
Maybe have the bus push or tow a bicycle trailer?
<https://www.sportworks.com/product/bicycle-trailer>
wrote:
>They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and
>we'll see how those do.
>-- Jay Beattie.
wherever possible?
Existing Sportworks 3 position bus racks:
<https://www.sportworks.com/products/transit-bike-racks>
It would be fairly easy to design bike carrier for buses that can be
expanded to a ridiculous number of bicycles. Just make the carrier
rack for each bicycle removable with two short sections of the
mounting pipes attached. An additional bicycle carrier could be added
by simply adding a carrier rack. No need to drag around a single rack
made for 3 bicycles when the number of racks could be adjusted to
match the demand. I suspect that this would also help with the bus
parking situation, which I've been told is a problem. However, I've
noticed that vendors like to stagger the bicycles, which helps reduce
the overall length. Looks like 3 mounting pipes might be needed.
The idea is so obvious that I suspected that someone had already
patented the idea. However, I couldn't find anything using Google
Patent search.
Maybe have the bus push or tow a bicycle trailer?
<https://www.sportworks.com/product/bicycle-trailer>
AMuzi
Jan 3, 2021, 3:33:39 PM1/3/21
to
than double a two-bike unit because as one adds bicycles,
the farthest one out has more leverage. The materials are
necessarily different (moreso on a 5-bike).
In cities, spearing a pedestrian with that extra six or
eight feet of steel tube out in front of the bus may be a
problem.
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 3, 2021, 3:46:36 PM1/3/21
to
support tube are sufficiently long, a wire rope cable attached from
the ends of the support tubes to the roof of the bus, should help. It
might be tricky getting the last bicycle in and out of the rack, but I
think it can be managed, possibly with a single cable in the middle.
If that's unacceptable, larger tubing diameters should suffice.
>In cities, spearing a pedestrian with that extra six or
>eight feet of steel tube out in front of the bus may be a
>problem.
and cow catchers. I guess for a bicycle rack, a pair of padded boxing
gloves on the ends of the support tubes would be sufficient.
sms
Jan 3, 2021, 4:36:34 PM1/3/21
to
On 1/3/2021 12:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
<snip>
> Note that a four bicycle hitch rack is much more expensive than double a
> two-bike unit because as one adds bicycles, the farthest one out has
> more leverage. The materials are necessarily different (moreso on a
> 5-bike).
I've seen hitch racks where the use of a hitch rack strap
<https://www.curtmfg.com/part/18050> is recommended to reduce take some
of the weight off the hitch. But that won't work on a front rack on a
bus. It's be nice if the bus manufacturers included support for bicycle
racks on the front of a bus that didn't put all the weight onto the bottom.
I see that Mini includes support for a custom bicycle rack
<https://www.shopminiusa.com/PRODUCT/1698/MINI-REAR-BIKE-RACK-AND-LICENSE-PLATE-HOLDER>
and I know someone had one, and it was stolen, and it was very expensive.
<snip>
> Note that a four bicycle hitch rack is much more expensive than double a
> two-bike unit because as one adds bicycles, the farthest one out has
> more leverage. The materials are necessarily different (moreso on a
> 5-bike).
<https://www.curtmfg.com/part/18050> is recommended to reduce take some
of the weight off the hitch. But that won't work on a front rack on a
bus. It's be nice if the bus manufacturers included support for bicycle
racks on the front of a bus that didn't put all the weight onto the bottom.
I see that Mini includes support for a custom bicycle rack
<https://www.shopminiusa.com/PRODUCT/1698/MINI-REAR-BIKE-RACK-AND-LICENSE-PLATE-HOLDER>
and I know someone had one, and it was stolen, and it was very expensive.
jbeattie
Jan 3, 2021, 4:44:01 PM1/3/21
to
-- Jay Beattie.
jbeattie
Jan 3, 2021, 5:10:01 PM1/3/21
to
-- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
Jan 3, 2021, 5:23:10 PM1/3/21
to
Touring maybe?) on that rack! What a classy neighborhood!
John B.
Jan 3, 2021, 6:06:06 PM1/3/21
to
On Sun, 03 Jan 2021 12:00:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:42:08 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and
>>we'll see how those do.
>>-- Jay Beattie.
>
>Why not put antlers on the front of the bus and just hang bicycles
>wherever possible?
>
>Existing Sportworks 3 position bus racks:
><https://www.sportworks.com/products/transit-bike-racks>
>
>It would be fairly easy to design bike carrier for buses that can be
>expanded to a ridiculous number of bicycles. Just make the carrier
>rack for each bicycle removable with two short sections of the
>mounting pipes attached. An additional bicycle carrier could be added
>by simply adding a carrier rack. No need to drag around a single rack
>made for 3 bicycles when the number of racks could be adjusted to
>match the demand. I suspect that this would also help with the bus
>parking situation, which I've been told is a problem. However, I've
>noticed that vendors like to stagger the bicycles, which helps reduce
>the overall length. Looks like 3 mounting pipes might be needed.
>
>The idea is so obvious that I suspected that someone had already
>patented the idea. However, I couldn't find anything using Google
>Patent search.
>
>Maybe have the bus push or tow a bicycle trailer?
><https://www.sportworks.com/product/bicycle-trailer>
But why would one want to put a bicycle on a bus? After all bicycles
are touted as a means of transportation. Is this an indication that
they aren't? Ride the bus to work, get off a block from the office and
then ride in on the bike? "Oh yes, I ride a bike to work"?
--
Cheers,
John B.
wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 09:42:08 -0800 (PST), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
>wrote:
>
>>They're launching the three-bike racks on the eBuses, and
>>we'll see how those do.
>>-- Jay Beattie.
>
>Why not put antlers on the front of the bus and just hang bicycles
>wherever possible?
>
>Existing Sportworks 3 position bus racks:
><https://www.sportworks.com/products/transit-bike-racks>
>
>It would be fairly easy to design bike carrier for buses that can be
>expanded to a ridiculous number of bicycles. Just make the carrier
>rack for each bicycle removable with two short sections of the
>mounting pipes attached. An additional bicycle carrier could be added
>by simply adding a carrier rack. No need to drag around a single rack
>made for 3 bicycles when the number of racks could be adjusted to
>match the demand. I suspect that this would also help with the bus
>parking situation, which I've been told is a problem. However, I've
>noticed that vendors like to stagger the bicycles, which helps reduce
>the overall length. Looks like 3 mounting pipes might be needed.
>
>The idea is so obvious that I suspected that someone had already
>patented the idea. However, I couldn't find anything using Google
>Patent search.
>
>Maybe have the bus push or tow a bicycle trailer?
><https://www.sportworks.com/product/bicycle-trailer>
are touted as a means of transportation. Is this an indication that
they aren't? Ride the bus to work, get off a block from the office and
then ride in on the bike? "Oh yes, I ride a bike to work"?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 3, 2021, 6:17:12 PM1/3/21
to
On 1/3/2021 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> You have to get a little way out of town before you get a trailer. https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-trails/the-hood-report-the-best-2-youll-ever-spend-timberline-to-town/ Yes, that's public transportation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hood_Express
PDX is unique.
>
> You have to get a little way out of town before you get a trailer. https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-trails/the-hood-report-the-best-2-youll-ever-spend-timberline-to-town/ Yes, that's public transportation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hood_Express
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jan 3, 2021, 6:34:37 PM1/3/21
to
> At the same time we were working on getting racks on TriMet, we were also getting this facility on the Hawthorne Bridge that, before the Tillicum Crossing, was the major east-west route for cyclists. Actually, over the last 30 years, we've gotten a lot of good bridge improvements for bikes, including on the bridge near my house. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY4egaecJEE&ab_channel=DerekWeber Bike lane and a giant sidewalk that is easily bikeable for the exceedingly timid.
streets. Bridges almost never have intersections, and intersections are
the problem spots for interfacing bike segregation with normal roads.
I think it was on a New Jersey to Ohio ride with my kid, we crossed some
big bridge (probably the Ben Franklin) riding a wide sidewalk, but I
stopped well before the end, looking ahead at a maze of freeway
cloverleafs. I pulled my monocular, which in those days before Google
Maps, I needed to plan our route to city streets.
--
- Frank Krygowski
sms
Jan 3, 2021, 6:42:35 PM1/3/21
to
On 1/3/2021 3:05 PM, John B. wrote:
<snip>
> But why would one want to put a bicycle on a bus? After all bicycles
> are touted as a means of transportation. Is this an indication that
> they aren't? Ride the bus to work, get off a block from the office and
> then ride in on the bike? "Oh yes, I ride a bike to work"?
At least around here there are a lot of low-wage workers that depend on
the bus/bike combination for commuting because they are traveling a long
distance to and from areas with no other transit. Electric bicycles
would be practical as well but those are costly.
This was an interesting article:
<https://newrepublic.com/article/160638/buy-everyone-electric-moped-climate-change>.
The author realizes several salient facts:
1. You're not going to get people to use mass transit
2. Personal mobility is what people want
3. You could get some percentage of people out of gasoline powered cars
if you provided an alternative
4. Even electric cars have a big impact in terms of CO2
<https://images.newrepublic.com/3a17f122a74d1fc788aded15e6d6c2e6b05cd7ab.png?w=1400>
Now personally I think that electric bicycles would be a better option
because they could legally use bicycle infrastructure.
I only half-jokingly mentioned that a mile of above-ground light rail,
which costs about $40 million dollars in my area, would pay for 40,000
electric bicycles and get far more vehicles off the road. The 1.7 mile
Central Subway in San Francisco will cost about $1.6 billion, about $941
million per mile, but most of it is underground.
<snip>
> But why would one want to put a bicycle on a bus? After all bicycles
> are touted as a means of transportation. Is this an indication that
> they aren't? Ride the bus to work, get off a block from the office and
> then ride in on the bike? "Oh yes, I ride a bike to work"?
the bus/bike combination for commuting because they are traveling a long
distance to and from areas with no other transit. Electric bicycles
would be practical as well but those are costly.
This was an interesting article:
<https://newrepublic.com/article/160638/buy-everyone-electric-moped-climate-change>.
The author realizes several salient facts:
1. You're not going to get people to use mass transit
2. Personal mobility is what people want
3. You could get some percentage of people out of gasoline powered cars
if you provided an alternative
4. Even electric cars have a big impact in terms of CO2
<https://images.newrepublic.com/3a17f122a74d1fc788aded15e6d6c2e6b05cd7ab.png?w=1400>
Now personally I think that electric bicycles would be a better option
because they could legally use bicycle infrastructure.
I only half-jokingly mentioned that a mile of above-ground light rail,
which costs about $40 million dollars in my area, would pay for 40,000
electric bicycles and get far more vehicles off the road. The 1.7 mile
Central Subway in San Francisco will cost about $1.6 billion, about $941
million per mile, but most of it is underground.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 3, 2021, 6:54:59 PM1/3/21
to
Ride a bike a mile to get to the closest bus stop; ride the bus ten
miles to the stop closest to work; ride the bike a mile from the bus
stop to work. It can make sense.
I investigated that scheme soon after we moved here, but the bus route
was so convoluted and slow that it was faster just to ride the full
distance, which for me was seven miles.
--
- Frank Krygowski
News 2021
Jan 3, 2021, 7:54:56 PM1/3/21
to
On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 06:05:59 +0700, John B. scribed:
From my vague memory, I think part of the initial push was to allow
bicyclists to cross a long bridge and the benefit of having an arse
riding a bicycle rather than a car won the expansion.
bicyclists to cross a long bridge and the benefit of having an arse
riding a bicycle rather than a car won the expansion.
John B.
Jan 3, 2021, 8:00:48 PM1/3/21
to
roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
path... if enough money was available.
Perhaps an increase in taxes to allow the building of elevated bicycle
paths. (the money has to come from somewhere)
--
Cheers,
John B.
jbeattie
Jan 3, 2021, 8:29:51 PM1/3/21
to
OT, I was going to go up to Meadows today and ski with my brother, but we chickened out because the forecast was crappy, but lo and behold, it turned into a blue bird day down here and up on the mountain, so I went for a ride out in Clackamas County (where the bus is, but much closer in to PDX), and the amazing thing were all the walkers. My little bike roads were filled with people and their dogs, which makes for some really hair-raising cycling. I ALMOST had a Belgian kid-squashing event when I was creeping down this short MUP along the river -- a family blob was coming the other way with kids, strollers, dogs etc., etc.; they're looking right at me, and I'm going <5mph when this this 1-2 year old bolts out of the blob and runs right in front of me. I slam on the brakes, do a rear wheelie and land in a track stand about an inch away from the kid, who is petrified. So is the mother, who is apologizing profusely. The kid gets cleared, and I continue -- never having put my foot down. My best track stand of the day.
Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller. Off-leash dogs should be, well, I won't say it.
-- Jay Beattie.
Radey Shouman
Jan 3, 2021, 8:35:42 PM1/3/21
to
then get off, possibly walk to another stop, and wait for a transfer
bus. Every hop introduces schedule uncertainty and waste of time.
Avoiding short transfers by using a bicycle could make a lot of sense.
On the other hand, if even 10% of bus riders used bicycles rack space
would be almost impossible to get. The solution does not scale well
at all.
Ralph Barone
Jan 3, 2021, 8:41:36 PM1/3/21
to
presence of mind to avoid a collision, but on-leash dogs will avoid you in
the exact opposite way as their owner, leaving you to get clotheslined by
the leash.
ritzann...@gmail.com
Jan 3, 2021, 9:59:15 PM1/3/21
to
John B.
Jan 3, 2021, 10:38:37 PM1/3/21
to
mile, say another 10 - 15 minutes walk... and you need a bicycle.
Sort of what I said, isn't it :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 11:04:11 AM1/4/21
to
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 11:08:19 AM1/4/21
to
On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 7:38:37 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 18:59:12 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 18:59:12 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >Several other people have given good responses to your questions. But here is my scenario where I live. I live 0.75 miles from the bus stop. I walk it in all weather at less than 10 minutes. But it would be easier and quicker to ride it. And there are lots of other suburb houses within a mile of me. So they would be up to 2 miles from the bus stops. Riding a bike would be much easier for them than walking. There are NO places to park bicycles near the bus stops. So if you rode to a bus stop, you would have to take the bike on the bus. It is 10 miles to downtown from my house/bus stop. I do and have ridden it many many times. But if I was commuting every day downtown, I would like to use the bus for most of the commute. And once the bus is downtown, many businesses are within easy walking distance. Hospital is 1 mile away and Capital is 0.75 miles away. But there are many businesses and destinations that are 1 mile or more away from the bus route. Having a bike to
> >finish the commute would be nicer than walking the final 1+ mile. So if you live 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the beginning, and your final destination is 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the end, taking a bike and riding 2-4 miles total for each bus trip makes lots of sense. With the 10 mile bus trip in between. Each day you would end up with 4-8 miles of bicycle riding and 20 miles of bus sitting. 1-2 hours of total commuting time each day. Acceptable?
> So, o.k. a ten minute walk, a 10 mile bus ride and then again 3/4
> mile, say another 10 - 15 minutes walk... and you need a bicycle.
You don't need a bicycle ever. Don't pretend to us that you ride simply because you sit in the back of a Rickshaw.
> >finish the commute would be nicer than walking the final 1+ mile. So if you live 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the beginning, and your final destination is 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the end, taking a bike and riding 2-4 miles total for each bus trip makes lots of sense. With the 10 mile bus trip in between. Each day you would end up with 4-8 miles of bicycle riding and 20 miles of bus sitting. 1-2 hours of total commuting time each day. Acceptable?
> So, o.k. a ten minute walk, a 10 mile bus ride and then again 3/4
> mile, say another 10 - 15 minutes walk... and you need a bicycle.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 11:43:40 AM1/4/21
to
On 1/3/2021 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller.
Shared facilities (bikes + peds) can be a real mess. And a new one is
>
> Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller.
going in to connect our downtown with a local metropark, despite strong
complaints by cyclists during the public presentation of the concept.
Interestingly, while I attended the meeting, I barely had to say
anything. Other cyclists were sufficiently outraged by the folly of the
design. Not that city officials listened...
This facility is to be a bike-ped sidewalk path segregated on one side
of some streets that are already perfect for cycling, except for their
potholes. Lanes are wide enough to share, speed limits are low, traffic
count is low - but they want us to share the sidewalks with peds.
One of the drawings projected onscreen in the public presentation even
showed a mom holding a little kid's hand as they walked. The kids other
hand was stretched out to the side, and a bicyclist was drawn slightly
tilted, avoiding the kid's hand. Unbelievable! Yet they're proceeding
with construction.
Ohio has a law stating that cyclists can't be forced to use such crap.
But I predict motorist harassment of riders who choose the roadway instead.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 4, 2021, 12:02:12 PM1/4/21
to
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
>listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
>of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
>and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
>sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
>are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
>listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
>of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
>and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
>sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
>are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
The 4 boxes across the top of the page should say:
[SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
The "bikes" is the key. Without it, you get anything related to
bicycles such as lights, parts, tools, accessories, etc.
For folding bicycles in the SF Bay area, I find 13 listings:
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?query=bicycles&sort=rel&bicycle_type=5>
You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
to be trustworthy.
sms
Jan 4, 2021, 12:16:49 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/4/2021 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
<snip>
> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
> to be trustworthy.
LOL, why would he want to do anything to make himself appear trustworthy?!
The fact is that there are a lot of terrible folding bikes out there.
They're sold by camping stores, and various online retailers. You can
buy a new one for under $200, i.e.
<https://www.campingworld.com/stowaway-12-speed-folding-bike-122529.html> and
used ones sell for even less. These are the folding bicycle equivalent
of Walmart or Target bicycles.
The higher quality folders, from Bike Friday, Brompton, some Dahon
models, and Tern, go for much higher prices, even used.
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/san-jose-rare-dahon-ford-folding-bike/7252761794.html>
or
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/santa-clara-like-new-black-brompton-spd/7247603285.html>
If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
even more expensive.
<snip>
> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
> to be trustworthy.
The fact is that there are a lot of terrible folding bikes out there.
They're sold by camping stores, and various online retailers. You can
buy a new one for under $200, i.e.
<https://www.campingworld.com/stowaway-12-speed-folding-bike-122529.html> and
used ones sell for even less. These are the folding bicycle equivalent
of Walmart or Target bicycles.
The higher quality folders, from Bike Friday, Brompton, some Dahon
models, and Tern, go for much higher prices, even used.
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/san-jose-rare-dahon-ford-folding-bike/7252761794.html>
or
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/santa-clara-like-new-black-brompton-spd/7247603285.html>
If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
even more expensive.
sms
Jan 4, 2021, 12:28:33 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/3/2021 5:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
<snip>
> Typically one might ride the first bus to within a few miles of work,
> then get off, possibly walk to another stop, and wait for a transfer
> bus. Every hop introduces schedule uncertainty and waste of time.
> Avoiding short transfers by using a bicycle could make a lot of sense.
>
> On the other hand, if even 10% of bus riders used bicycles rack space
> would be almost impossible to get. The solution does not scale well
> at all.
Clearly you haven't ridden in a bus in my county! Even pre-pandemic, the
number of passengers on buses was very low. It would be exceedingly rare
for there to be 20 passengers on a 50 passenger bus, and 10% with
bicycles could easily be accommodated.
But the big bicycle use on mass transit around here is on the trains.
Pre-pandemic, express trains with 72-80 bicycle spaces routinely denied
boarding to cyclists.
<snip>
> Typically one might ride the first bus to within a few miles of work,
> then get off, possibly walk to another stop, and wait for a transfer
> bus. Every hop introduces schedule uncertainty and waste of time.
> Avoiding short transfers by using a bicycle could make a lot of sense.
>
> On the other hand, if even 10% of bus riders used bicycles rack space
> would be almost impossible to get. The solution does not scale well
> at all.
number of passengers on buses was very low. It would be exceedingly rare
for there to be 20 passengers on a 50 passenger bus, and 10% with
bicycles could easily be accommodated.
But the big bicycle use on mass transit around here is on the trains.
Pre-pandemic, express trains with 72-80 bicycle spaces routinely denied
boarding to cyclists.
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 12:35:56 PM1/4/21
to
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
> >listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
> >of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
> >and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
> >sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
> >are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
> The 4 boxes across the top of the page should say:
> [SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
> The "bikes" is the key. Without it, you get anything related to
> bicycles such as lights, parts, tools, accessories, etc.
>
> For folding bicycles in the SF Bay area, I find 13 listings:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?query=bicycles&sort=rel&bicycle_type=5>
>
> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
> to be trustworthy.
So you need to have a link to Craigslist Bay area do you?- You need a reference to "for sale/bicycles"? You have to be one pretty stupid ass to need your hand held. Either than or you're queer and like it held by another man.
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
> >listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
> >of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
> >and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
> >sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
> >are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
> The 4 boxes across the top of the page should say:
> [SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
> The "bikes" is the key. Without it, you get anything related to
> bicycles such as lights, parts, tools, accessories, etc.
>
> For folding bicycles in the SF Bay area, I find 13 listings:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?query=bicycles&sort=rel&bicycle_type=5>
>
> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
> to be trustworthy.
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 12:49:01 PM1/4/21
to
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 1:00:34 PM1/4/21
to
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 1:05:07 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/4/2021 12:16 PM, sms wrote:
>
>
> If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
> even more expensive.
My impression is that Dual Drive hubs are not super reliable, and I
>
>
> If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
> even more expensive.
thought spare parts are getting scarce. But I admit I don't have first
hand experience with them.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 1:09:14 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/4/2021 12:28 PM, sms wrote:
> On 1/3/2021 5:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Typically one might ride the first bus to within a few miles of work,
>> then get off, possibly walk to another stop, and wait for a transfer
>> bus. Every hop introduces schedule uncertainty and waste of time.
>> Avoiding short transfers by using a bicycle could make a lot of sense.
>>
>> On the other hand, if even 10% of bus riders used bicycles rack space
>> would be almost impossible to get. The solution does not scale well
>> at all.
>
> Clearly you haven't ridden in a bus in my county! Even pre-pandemic, the
> number of passengers on buses was very low. It would be exceedingly rare
> for there to be 20 passengers on a 50 passenger bus, and 10% with
> bicycles could easily be accommodated.
I agree on the unused capacity of large buses around here. I've wondered
> On 1/3/2021 5:35 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Typically one might ride the first bus to within a few miles of work,
>> then get off, possibly walk to another stop, and wait for a transfer
>> bus. Every hop introduces schedule uncertainty and waste of time.
>> Avoiding short transfers by using a bicycle could make a lot of sense.
>>
>> On the other hand, if even 10% of bus riders used bicycles rack space
>> would be almost impossible to get. The solution does not scale well
>> at all.
>
> Clearly you haven't ridden in a bus in my county! Even pre-pandemic, the
> number of passengers on buses was very low. It would be exceedingly rare
> for there to be 20 passengers on a 50 passenger bus, and 10% with
> bicycles could easily be accommodated.
why the transit agency doesn't buy smaller vehicles. Is it because the
cost isn't much less? Or is it endless hope that ridership might
suddenly jump?
https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837
--
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 1:11:50 PM1/4/21
to
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 4, 2021, 1:12:45 PM1/4/21
to
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:16:42 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:
>On 1/4/2021 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
>> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
>> to be trustworthy.
>LOL, why would he want to do anything to make himself appear trustworthy?!
Trust but verify. Using my criteria for trusting numbers, none of
Tom's recently posted numbers would be considered trustworthy. I
don't read all his numerous postings, but from my sampling, I don't
recall seeing any links or references. This makes my life easier as I
don't need to read his links and verify his numbers. Also, this seems
rather odd to me because Tom has declared numerous publications,
government agencies, research establishments, and individuals guilty
of disseminating false and untrustworthy information. I suspect we're
both on that list. How can someone who doesn't seem to trust anyone
(except Trump) expect to be trusted without substantiation?
>The fact is that there are a lot of terrible folding bikes out there.
>They're sold by camping stores, and various online retailers. You can
>buy a new one for under $200, i.e.
><https://www.campingworld.com/stowaway-12-speed-folding-bike-122529.html> and
>used ones sell for even less. These are the folding bicycle equivalent
>of Walmart or Target bicycles.
Actually, a throw away bicycle or "burner bike" might be of interest.
Something under $100 that could ridden and then recycled or abandoned:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=burning+man+abandoned+bicycles&tbm=isch>
I could probably design something made from steel water pipe that
would qualify.
I'm not in the market for a folder at this time. In the past, I was
interested in buying a full size folding bicycle:
<https://www.montaguebikes.com>
<https://fubifixie.com>
<https://flatbike.com/bikes/>
or fabricating fittings for a conversion:
<http://www.sandsmachine.com>
<https://www.instructables.com/DIY-foldable-bike/>
My main purpose was to make it easier and safer to transport a full
size bicycle in my Subaru. However, I decided that a hatchback rack,
folding pedals, stem disconnect, cable disconnects, electrical
connectors, master link, and other tweaks were cheaper and easier.
Secondarily, I wanted something small that I could carry into a
building on service calls.
>The higher quality folders, from Bike Friday, Brompton, some Dahon
>models, and Tern, go for much higher prices, even used.
>
><https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/san-jose-rare-dahon-ford-folding-bike/7252761794.html>
>or
><https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/santa-clara-like-new-black-brompton-spd/7247603285.html>
>
>If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
>even more expensive.
Thanks, but I'm not a collector. Also, the last time I tried a folder
with small diameter wheels, I didn't like the ride and had
difficulties steering in a straight line and powering up hills. I
should probably try a better folder and see if there's an improvement.
wrote:
>On 1/4/2021 9:02 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
>> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
>> to be trustworthy.
>LOL, why would he want to do anything to make himself appear trustworthy?!
Tom's recently posted numbers would be considered trustworthy. I
don't read all his numerous postings, but from my sampling, I don't
recall seeing any links or references. This makes my life easier as I
don't need to read his links and verify his numbers. Also, this seems
rather odd to me because Tom has declared numerous publications,
government agencies, research establishments, and individuals guilty
of disseminating false and untrustworthy information. I suspect we're
both on that list. How can someone who doesn't seem to trust anyone
(except Trump) expect to be trusted without substantiation?
>The fact is that there are a lot of terrible folding bikes out there.
>They're sold by camping stores, and various online retailers. You can
>buy a new one for under $200, i.e.
><https://www.campingworld.com/stowaway-12-speed-folding-bike-122529.html> and
>used ones sell for even less. These are the folding bicycle equivalent
>of Walmart or Target bicycles.
Something under $100 that could ridden and then recycled or abandoned:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=burning+man+abandoned+bicycles&tbm=isch>
I could probably design something made from steel water pipe that
would qualify.
I'm not in the market for a folder at this time. In the past, I was
interested in buying a full size folding bicycle:
<https://www.montaguebikes.com>
<https://fubifixie.com>
<https://flatbike.com/bikes/>
or fabricating fittings for a conversion:
<http://www.sandsmachine.com>
<https://www.instructables.com/DIY-foldable-bike/>
My main purpose was to make it easier and safer to transport a full
size bicycle in my Subaru. However, I decided that a hatchback rack,
folding pedals, stem disconnect, cable disconnects, electrical
connectors, master link, and other tweaks were cheaper and easier.
Secondarily, I wanted something small that I could carry into a
building on service calls.
>The higher quality folders, from Bike Friday, Brompton, some Dahon
>models, and Tern, go for much higher prices, even used.
>
><https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/san-jose-rare-dahon-ford-folding-bike/7252761794.html>
>or
><https://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/bik/d/santa-clara-like-new-black-brompton-spd/7247603285.html>
>
>If you can find a Dahon or Bike Friday with the old SRAM Dual-Drive it's
>even more expensive.
with small diameter wheels, I didn't like the ride and had
difficulties steering in a straight line and powering up hills. I
should probably try a better folder and see if there's an improvement.
Tom Kunich
Jan 4, 2021, 1:17:55 PM1/4/21
to
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 4, 2021, 1:26:15 PM1/4/21
to
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 10:11:48 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
2. Change the contents of the four boxes near the top of the screen
to:
instead of passing them to the server on the URL line. On behalf of
the author, I apologize for your inconvenience in having to type a few
words instead of just mouse clicking.
3. Near the top of the page, you'll find:
[ 1 - 120 / 460 ]
The 460 is the number of bicycles (not bicycle parts or accessories)
that are for sale in the SF Bay area.
<cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
>> >listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
>> >of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
>> >and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
>> >sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
>> >are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
>> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
>> The 4 boxes across the top of the page should say:
>> [SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
>> The "bikes" is the key. Without it, you get anything related to
>> bicycles such as lights, parts, tools, accessories, etc.
>>
>> For folding bicycles in the SF Bay area, I find 13 listings:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?query=bicycles&sort=rel&bicycle_type=5>
>>
>> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
>> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
>> to be trustworthy.
>On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:04:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Going to Craogslist this morning there were some 3300 bikes
>> >listed for sale with even junk going for several hundreds
>> >of dollars. A half dozen recumbents. A dozen or so E-bikes
>> >and three folding bikes in the less than $200 range. They
>> >sure are getting popular aren't they? The folding bikes
>> >are going for about the same price as a toddler balance bike.
>> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
>> The 4 boxes across the top of the page should say:
>> [SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
>> The "bikes" is the key. Without it, you get anything related to
>> bicycles such as lights, parts, tools, accessories, etc.
>>
>> For folding bicycles in the SF Bay area, I find 13 listings:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?query=bicycles&sort=rel&bicycle_type=5>
>>
>> You really should include links, references, sources, and details for
>> the numbers that you cite. Otherwise, I don't consider your numbers
>> to be trustworthy.
>Also, your 460 bicycles for sale in the bay area sounded faulty
>so I just went back out and looked - as of now there is 3000 listed.
>I suppose 300 rolled off of the list this morning. So where did
>you get 460?
1. Start here:
>so I just went back out and looked - as of now there is 3000 listed.
>I suppose 300 rolled off of the list this morning. So where did
>you get 460?
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
2. Change the contents of the four boxes near the top of the screen
to:
[SF Bay Area] [SF Bay Area] [for sale] [bikes]
The author of the web pile decided to store filter settings as cookies
instead of passing them to the server on the URL line. On behalf of
the author, I apologize for your inconvenience in having to type a few
words instead of just mouse clicking.
3. Near the top of the page, you'll find:
[ 1 - 120 / 460 ]
The 460 is the number of bicycles (not bicycle parts or accessories)
that are for sale in the SF Bay area.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 1:55:15 PM1/4/21
to
conventional bike into a small-ish bag?
https://cycling-intelligence.com/2019/07/31/the-secrets-of-a-rinko-bike-how-to-get-a-near-perfect-steed-for-train-travel/
--
- Frank Krygowski
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 4, 2021, 4:30:44 PM1/4/21
to
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:55:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Have you heard about the Japanese "Rinko" system, for packing a (nearly)
>conventional bike into a small-ish bag?
>https://cycling-intelligence.com/2019/07/31/the-secrets-of-a-rinko-bike-how-to-get-a-near-perfect-steed-for-train-travel/
Yes. It was discussed in R.B.T. a few years ago. Note that Japan
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Have you heard about the Japanese "Rinko" system, for packing a (nearly)
>conventional bike into a small-ish bag?
>https://cycling-intelligence.com/2019/07/31/the-secrets-of-a-rinko-bike-how-to-get-a-near-perfect-steed-for-train-travel/
requires that the bicycle be totally covered when transported by
train. We don't have the problem here either on the train or in my
Subaru.
<http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko.shtml>
<http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko2.shtml>
I looked into it and decided that it was a good idea, but not for me.
What bothered me was the time it took to assemble the package and some
difficulties I had with bolt on accessories (panniers, lights, GPS
mount, water bottles, etc).
"How to pack your bike into a Rinko Bag"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1naFPAI5HY> (4:22)
The basic problem with all these schemes is me. I'm lazy and don't
want to convert every stop into an ordeal. I prefer to ride a full
size bicycle or mountain bike. I'm cheap and don't want to spend a
fortune on a custom full size folding bicycle. My various adaptations
to make the bicycle easier to store are sufficient for my needs. For
example, folding pedals was a BIG help:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Sunlite%2067302%20folding%20pedals/index.html>
The only catch is that all three folding pedal models that I purchased
are flimsy junk and did not survive for very long. The Sunlite 67302
was the least disgusting of the bunch. I'm on my 2nd set and they're
"out of stock" everywhere. If I crash another pedal, I'll be
machining or 3D printing my own.
I was also going to try some folding handlebars:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+handlebars&tbm=isch>
or maybe fabricate a rotating stem:
<https://flatbike.com/product/thinstem/>
ritzann...@gmail.com
Jan 4, 2021, 5:06:47 PM1/4/21
to
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 5:26:09 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/4/2021 4:30 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:55:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Have you heard about the Japanese "Rinko" system, for packing a (nearly)
>> conventional bike into a small-ish bag?
>> https://cycling-intelligence.com/2019/07/31/the-secrets-of-a-rinko-bike-how-to-get-a-near-perfect-steed-for-train-travel/
>
> Yes. It was discussed in R.B.T. a few years ago. Note that Japan
> requires that the bicycle be totally covered when transported by
> train. We don't have the problem here either on the train or in my
> Subaru.
>
> <http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko.shtml>
> <http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko2.shtml>
I see those don't involve removing the fork. So, less compact, but less
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 13:55:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Have you heard about the Japanese "Rinko" system, for packing a (nearly)
>> conventional bike into a small-ish bag?
>> https://cycling-intelligence.com/2019/07/31/the-secrets-of-a-rinko-bike-how-to-get-a-near-perfect-steed-for-train-travel/
>
> Yes. It was discussed in R.B.T. a few years ago. Note that Japan
> requires that the bicycle be totally covered when transported by
> train. We don't have the problem here either on the train or in my
> Subaru.
>
> <http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko.shtml>
> <http://www.japancycling.org/v2/info/rinko/rinko2.shtml>
work and fewer special details on the bike itself.
I recall a certain business trip, a long drive with two other guys to
attend a week long seminar. I managed to borrow a similar bike bag, but
the package was still large enough that I had to spend the seven hour
drive sort of hugging my bicycle in the back seat.
> My various adaptations
> to make the bicycle easier to store are sufficient for my needs. For
> example, folding pedals was a BIG help:
> <http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Sunlite%2067302%20folding%20pedals/index.html>
> The only catch is that all three folding pedal models that I purchased
> are flimsy junk and did not survive for very long. The Sunlite 67302
> was the least disgusting of the bunch. I'm on my 2nd set and they're
> "out of stock" everywhere. If I crash another pedal, I'll be
> machining or 3D printing my own.
https://www.renehersecycles.com/shop/components/pedals/mks-urban-platform-pedals-for-rinko/
> I was also going to try some folding handlebars:
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=folding+handlebars&tbm=isch>
folded, it's still pretty bulky. Most of the excess volume is due to the
drop bars. I'll have to think about whether folding bars might be a
solution.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 5:32:22 PM1/4/21
to
mile away! If we were meant to walk, God wouldn't have given us bikes! ;-)
The exception occurs in winter. As mentioned, I detest indoor training,
and many bad experiences with bronchitis have reduced my outdoor winter
riding. So just for the exercise, our half mile round trip to the
pharmacy is usually a three to four mile walk. (We're lucky to live in a
pretty walkable community.)
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Jan 4, 2021, 6:24:41 PM1/4/21
to
obviously know nothing at all. However, for your edification a
"ricksha" or "shaw" is a Japanese word meaning human powered vehicle
and is, at least in the part of the world where they common is applied
only to the old fashioned two wheel cart pulled by a human. For a
photo see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rickshaws_-_asakusa_-_japan_-_Oct_25_2015.ogv
They haven't been used in Thailand for at least 50 years to my
personal knowledge and probably longer.What was common some years ago
was a "Samlo" see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickshaw#/media/File:Bangladeshi_style_Rickshaw.jpg
and now even those are no longer seen as we are completely mechanized
here and have a motorized three wheeler called a "tuk tuk".
https://www.konradlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Tuk-Tuk-Rickshaw.jpg
You see Tommy, you really should restrict your comments to something
that you are knowledgeable about, this flying off on tangents simply
exposes your vast ignorance to the great unwashed proletariat.
Sticking to small pieces of paper and bits of string will avoid people
pointing their finger and whispering, "There goes that old fool Tommy,
again".
--
Cheers,
John B.
sms
Jan 4, 2021, 7:03:35 PM1/4/21
to
On 1/4/2021 10:12 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> I could probably design something made from steel water pipe that
> would qualify.
Highly unlikely that you could build that for under $100.
> would qualify.
> I'm not in the market for a folder at this time. In the past, I was
> interested in buying a full size folding bicycle:
I bought a Montague Urban many years ago. You can't even tell that it's
a folder. The current model is very different
<https://www.etrailer.com/Folding-Bikes/Montague/URBANDC19.html>.
It works great but it doesn't fold small at all, and you have to remove
the front wheel to fold it.
John B.
Jan 4, 2021, 7:50:59 PM1/4/21
to
But, in all seriousness, why? Bike deaths in the U.S. is in the 700 -
800 per annum range and I read that there are in the neighborhood of
100 million bike riders in the U.S. which is a rate of .0008% bicycle
riders dying on the highways. Is it really logical to built special
lanes for them?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Frank Krygowski
Jan 4, 2021, 8:15:40 PM1/4/21
to
Bike lanes don't actually create any extra room, and many effectively
remove room and lead to closer passing. They also add complexity and
confusion at intersections.
As to "why?" they build them, there are probably several factors.
One is deliberate fear mongering regarding bicycling. Americans have
been subjected to over 40 years of it. Ever since Bell Sports decided to
portray riding a bike as a major source of terrible brain damage, people
have been afraid of riding. Why, simply toppling off a stationary bike
can kill you! Think how bad it could be if a car hit you! (But of
course, some claim a styrofoam hat will fix most of it.)
Another reason is the collection of excessive privileges given to
motorists. Speeding is certainly condoned and expected. Running red
lights ("only by a little!") is too. Turning right on red when
prohibited, or without stopping, gets ignored. Penalties for those
offenses and even for causing injuries are minuscule, and seldom
restrict driving privileges. All this causes a sense of entitlement that
leads to a "Get off the road!" mentality. (Not only for bicyclists, BTW.
When walking on residential streets with no sidewalks, it's not unusual
for motorists whiz by too close and too fast.)
Yet another reason is simple ignorance. Many people don't realize that
bicyclists have a fundamental right to _any_ non-limited-access road.
I've been miles out in the country and had people yell "Get on a bike
path!" In cities, I've had people yell "Get on the sidewalk!"
Which is not to say riding conditions are actually terrible in most
places. I eschew the helmet, and I normally ride very prominently in the
lane, as a legal vehicle operator and as is my legal right. Almost all
motorists treat me with adequate respect, whether or not they like it.
But most American cyclists are too timid to try that behavior. So they
whine for bike lanes.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Jan 4, 2021, 9:46:43 PM1/4/21
to
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:15:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
Over here we don't have bike lanes although I did come across a very
wide sidewalk once with a painted picture of a bicycle and a couple of
parks and the "new airport" have painted bike outlines on their
maintenance roads, but people still ride bicycles and we have
relatively few bike crashes reported in the News.
There was one, the other day, an elderly bloke riding the wrong way on
a four lane divided highway, which if memory serves was the only one
reported in the news last year.
The guy that hit him said he didn't see him and apparently no arrest
was made although I'm sure that the driver paid some sort of
compensation and likely footed the funeral costs.
--
Cheers,
John B.
wide sidewalk once with a painted picture of a bicycle and a couple of
parks and the "new airport" have painted bike outlines on their
maintenance roads, but people still ride bicycles and we have
relatively few bike crashes reported in the News.
There was one, the other day, an elderly bloke riding the wrong way on
a four lane divided highway, which if memory serves was the only one
reported in the news last year.
The guy that hit him said he didn't see him and apparently no arrest
was made although I'm sure that the driver paid some sort of
compensation and likely footed the funeral costs.
--
Cheers,
John B.
Joy Beeson
Jan 5, 2021, 1:03:17 AM1/5/21
to
On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
> path... if enough money was available.
Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
wrote:
> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
> path... if enough money was available.
Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
Rolf Mantel
Jan 5, 2021, 10:45:40 AM1/5/21
to
Am 05.01.2021 um 07:03 schrieb Joy Beeson:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
>> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
>> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
>> path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
>> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
>> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
>> path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
despite the "great facilities".
Andre Jute
Jan 5, 2021, 11:12:31 AM1/5/21
to
On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 3:45:40 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
> they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
> All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
> despite the "great facilities".
An overpass may be exposed to the elements and steeper but an underpass is also an attraction to the criminal element. --- AJ
> The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
> they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
> All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
> despite the "great facilities".
Tom Kunich
Jan 5, 2021, 11:51:41 AM1/5/21
to
Tom Kunich
Jan 5, 2021, 11:55:05 AM1/5/21
to
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:03:17 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
> > roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
> > country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
> > path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
In the town of Redwood City here, they built a couple of bike bridges. The ramps had to be so long it was compressed into a oval shape that had to be climbed so high and be impossible to allow a pedestrian and cyclist to pass one another easily that no one uses them, even pedestrians avoid them for the cross walks and lights that were there in the first place.
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
> > roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
> > country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
> > path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
Tom Kunich
Jan 5, 2021, 11:56:50 AM1/5/21
to
Frank Krygowski
Jan 5, 2021, 12:09:22 PM1/5/21
to
maintain. At least that's what the state DOT claimed when it took out a
pedestrian-bicycle bridge over a local freeway. That bridge used to
connect a neighborhood with a school. I don't know if the school closed
or if the school system decided kids don't walk or bike anymore. In any
case, the bridge is now gone.
I'd like to see a lot more bike-ped bridges spanning freeways. One of
the bad effects of freeways is isolating neighborhoods from stores,
offices, parks etc. Freeway designers decided one bridge every mile or
two is adequate even in cities and suburbs, and those bridges are often
hostile to non-motorized travel. With that distance between bridges,
many homeowners can see the *-mart a couple hundred yards from their
house, but can't get there without several miles of driving. To me, that
just seems wrong.
--
- Frank Krygowski
John B.
Jan 5, 2021, 6:04:50 PM1/5/21
to
On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 08:51:39 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
What, "haven't ridden a bicycle for over 20 years"? I rode one
yesterday. Have you skipped taking your medicine again?
--
Cheers,
John B.
yesterday. Have you skipped taking your medicine again?
--
Cheers,
John B.
Joy Beeson
Jan 6, 2021, 12:03:15 PM1/6/21
to
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 18:54:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I investigated that scheme soon after we moved here, but the bus route
> was so convoluted and slow that it was faster just to ride the full
> distance, which for me was seven miles.
I got stuck behind a city bus once. The average speed wasn't fast
enough to balance. I was *very* unhappy until it finally stopped for
a crowd large enough that it was safe to ride to the left of it.
I don't recall whether I managed to pass the next bus stop before
being overtaken on the first try.
So I didn't mind that the routes and schedules were top secret. This
was quite a surprise, because in Indianapolis, our previous home town,
there had been racks of bus schedules in every store that was on a bus
route.
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I investigated that scheme soon after we moved here, but the bus route
> was so convoluted and slow that it was faster just to ride the full
> distance, which for me was seven miles.
I got stuck behind a city bus once. The average speed wasn't fast
enough to balance. I was *very* unhappy until it finally stopped for
a crowd large enough that it was safe to ride to the left of it.
I don't recall whether I managed to pass the next bus stop before
being overtaken on the first try.
So I didn't mind that the routes and schedules were top secret. This
was quite a surprise, because in Indianapolis, our previous home town,
there had been racks of bus schedules in every store that was on a bus
route.
News 2021
Jan 6, 2021, 6:53:02 PM1/6/21
to
On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 12:03:11 -0500, Joy Beeson scribed:
Oh, the old days.
Signs of progress, in our town, they removed all those, complete with bus
stops and half the route/stops.
We now have an app for the smart phone, where once I'd walk* 30minutes to
either train station, or wait 5-15 minutes in the rain, for a bus that
took 15-20 minutes to reach either station, the app now tells me to walk
5 blocks to another bus route, where I wait the same time for a bus that
comes less frequently and still takes similar time to reach either station
* I tried the cycle to the station, but the fiddle with locking up bike
and carrying a bag of gear (helmet, lights, etc) around all day was
annoying.
At one stage, it was 30 minutes walk to station 1 hour by train and 30
minutes walk to work. Again the hassle with the bike made it easier to
walk. Part of the problem was having to front the ticket office each trip
for a bicycle ticket plus for trip home, I could walk out the door and
pick up a bus 5 minutes later for the main train station.
Signs of progress, in our town, they removed all those, complete with bus
stops and half the route/stops.
We now have an app for the smart phone, where once I'd walk* 30minutes to
either train station, or wait 5-15 minutes in the rain, for a bus that
took 15-20 minutes to reach either station, the app now tells me to walk
5 blocks to another bus route, where I wait the same time for a bus that
comes less frequently and still takes similar time to reach either station
* I tried the cycle to the station, but the fiddle with locking up bike
and carrying a bag of gear (helmet, lights, etc) around all day was
annoying.
At one stage, it was 30 minutes walk to station 1 hour by train and 30
minutes walk to work. Again the hassle with the bike made it easier to
walk. Part of the problem was having to front the ticket office each trip
for a bicycle ticket plus for trip home, I could walk out the door and
pick up a bus 5 minutes later for the main train station.
Luns Tee
Jan 8, 2021, 6:47:52 PM1/8/21
to
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
That seems to be just listings that use the word 'bicycles' in the listing title, and is a larger portion of results than I'd have expected. These are listings of either more than one bike, or of bikes whose brand includes 'bicycles' in the name. Change your query to 'bicycle' (without the s), and the number of results grows significantly. But to really blow things up, search for 'bike' instead.
> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
Better yet just use no search term at all and just rely on the category placement, and it becomes enough results to get capped at 3000 items. There are many listings where the name is just the year and model, but without the word bike, or bicycle in the title. It seems most sellers assume that to be obvious from the category their listing is in, despite that not being obvious to craigslist's search engine.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia
Just for kicks, take a look at
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia?query=-bike%20-bicycle
-Luns
Jeff Liebermann
Jan 9, 2021, 10:28:08 PM1/9/21
to
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 15:47:50 -0800 (PST), Luns Tee <lu...@berkeley.edu>
wrote:
>On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
>
>That seems to be just listings that use the word 'bicycles' in the
>listing title, and is a larger portion of results than I'd have
>expected. These are listings of either more than one bike, or of
>bikes whose brand includes 'bicycles' in the name. Change your
>query to 'bicycle' (without the s), and the number of results grows
>significantly. But to really blow things up, search for 'bike' instead.
Yep. That's the way I started. I could probably contrive a
complicate search string to minimize the false hits, but I think it
would be futile because, as you demonstrated, 805 hits in the SF Bay
Area "bicycle" category returned hits without having "bike" or
"bicycle" in the title. I'll try to be more careful the next time I
post a search URL. Thanks.
>Better yet just use no search term at all and just rely on the
>category placement, and it becomes enough results to get capped
>at 3000 items.
I wanted a real number to demonstrate how Tom's search string could be
improved.
>There are many listings where the name is just the year and model,
>but without the word bike, or bicycle in the title. It seems most
>sellers assume that to be obvious from the category their listing
>is in, despite that not being obvious to craigslist's search engine.
>
>https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia
>
>Just for kicks, take a look at
>
>https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia?query=-bike%20-bicycle
Yep, that's also a problem when searching eBay and Amazon.
Interestingly, I happen to blunder across someone selling a bicycle
almost exactly like mine:
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/bik/d/san-francisco-1997-gary-fisher-tassajara/7259096816.html>
Mine:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Gary-Fisher-Tassajara.JPG>
My guess as to what mine was worth was very close. However, the
bicycle for sale might have the stock cranks, which were recalled by
Shimano in 1997:
<https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/customer-services/recalls-and-repairs/fc-ct90-m920-mc12-cranks.html>
Hmmm... do I really need a spare bicycle?
wrote:
>On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 9:02:12 AM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 460 bicycles for sale in the San Francisco Bay area:
>> <https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/bia?sort=rel&query=bicycles>
>
>That seems to be just listings that use the word 'bicycles' in the
>listing title, and is a larger portion of results than I'd have
>expected. These are listings of either more than one bike, or of
>bikes whose brand includes 'bicycles' in the name. Change your
>query to 'bicycle' (without the s), and the number of results grows
>significantly. But to really blow things up, search for 'bike' instead.
complicate search string to minimize the false hits, but I think it
would be futile because, as you demonstrated, 805 hits in the SF Bay
Area "bicycle" category returned hits without having "bike" or
"bicycle" in the title. I'll try to be more careful the next time I
post a search URL. Thanks.
>Better yet just use no search term at all and just rely on the
>category placement, and it becomes enough results to get capped
>at 3000 items.
improved.
>There are many listings where the name is just the year and model,
>but without the word bike, or bicycle in the title. It seems most
>sellers assume that to be obvious from the category their listing
>is in, despite that not being obvious to craigslist's search engine.
>
>https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia
>
>Just for kicks, take a look at
>
>https://sfbay.craigslist.org/d/bicycles/search/bia?query=-bike%20-bicycle
Interestingly, I happen to blunder across someone selling a bicycle
almost exactly like mine:
<https://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/bik/d/san-francisco-1997-gary-fisher-tassajara/7259096816.html>
Mine:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Gary-Fisher-Tassajara.JPG>
My guess as to what mine was worth was very close. However, the
bicycle for sale might have the stock cranks, which were recalled by
Shimano in 1997:
<https://bike.shimano.com/en-US/information/customer-services/recalls-and-repairs/fc-ct90-m920-mc12-cranks.html>
Hmmm... do I really need a spare bicycle?
Roger Merriman
Jan 11, 2021, 1:53:05 PM1/11/21
to
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
>> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
>> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
>> path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
>
London did build some of this in the 50’/60’s or at least for pedestrians
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
>> roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
>> country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
>> path... if enough money was available.
>
> Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
> streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
> young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
> one block apart, at least eight to the mile.
>
> I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.
>
called Pedways largely mothballs by the 80’s is some remaining nr my works
head office and in the area is the odd disconnected walk way or simply
tunnel though a building but no way of getting to it etc.
As in general cities are much less likely to build for cars now, can’t see
much happening from now on.
Roger Merriman
0 new messages