Why I am amazed by people being put off by helmets

[atoz]

This is going back to the "everyday clothes" chestnut. I'm not going to repeat all that here, it's been done before.

As far as step through frames go. It depends on how modern they are and how expensive.

But we have to repeat ourselves because its too important not to. And that message, is if we want a cheap, sane, environmentally inoffensive, a socially inclusive, and individually empowering transport system which also goes someway to protect the health of the nation, and helps restore 'living' towns and villages, then we deeply need to improve bicycle use... and the strongest way to do that isn't to view the bicycle as a piece of leisure equipment, but rather as a decent tool to cover short and mid range distances without little or no time loss between the transition of being in a building to being outside..
..which means thinking about the reduction in the use of specialist clothes, and designing bikes so that they can be ridden in everyday clothes...

Does it really matter if the step through frame doesn't handle as well as a bike with a cross 'bar, if all you are doing is riding ten minutes to the local shops?

Each year brings us new bicycle designs which promise use better performance. Which is good, in a way. But we've become so use to the idea of performance, we''ve kinda stopped asking whether the bike is just adequate enough for the task at hand?

Given that quite cheap non step through frames are better than older step through for shopping (speaking from experience) because they deal better with full loads and handling, the answer is yes it does matter, esp in traffic. Last night riding back from Sainsbury's was a case in point. Why accept less when you don't have to?

[cycle tramp]

This is going back to the "everyday clothes" chestnut. I'm not going to repeat all that here, it's been done before.

As far as step through frames go. It depends on how modern they are and how expensive.

But we have to repeat ourselves because its too important not to. And that message, is if we want a cheap, sane, environmentally inoffensive, a socially inclusive, and individually empowering transport system which also goes someway to protect the health of the nation, and helps restore 'living' towns and villages, then we deeply need to improve bicycle use..
..which means thinking about the reduction in the use of specialist clothes, and designing bikes so that they can be ridden in everyday clothes...

Does it really matter if the step through frame doesn't handle as well as a bike with a cross 'bar, if all you are doing is riding ten minutes to the local shops?

Given that quite cheap non step through frames are better than older step through for shopping (speaking from experience) because they deal better with full loads and handling, the answer is yes it does matter, esp in traffic. Last night riding back from Sainsbury's was a case in point.

Why what happened from riding back from Sainsburys, last night?
(And why does it sound like an opening to a modern folk song?
'Oh... t'wer on the evenin' of Thursday, az I wuz ridin' back from Sainsburys... when I was stopped by the devil at the cross roads.... just along the bit from where the pub car park stops an' the street lights do finish......
Annnnnnnnnnddd.... he said to me, I'll wager your soul, against this bicycle of gold, if you can get cycle home quicker than me......
Buuuuuuutt... I said No! NO! Will not take you up on your offer..... as I am riding an open frame bike and it may not handle as well as a bike with a cross bar ....
'Disappointed! I am' cried the devil, and he disappeared in a flash of brimstone... and then i cycled home...
With a hey nonny non nonny.. etc'

[a.twiddler]

[pjclinch]

Given that quite cheap non step through frames are better than older step through for shopping (speaking from experience) because they deal better with full loads and handling, the answer is yes it does matter, esp in traffic. Last night riding back from Sainsbury's was a case in point. Why accept less when you don't have to?

For your values of "better", not necessarily anyone else's.
When a bike is very heavily laden it's easier to get on and off with the bike fully upright to support the load with a step-through frame. If you've got a child seat on the back of a "normal" so can't swing a leg over the back you'll be more likely to drop them because getting on and off is awkward rather than some marginal handling difference in traffic. Something like a Tern GSD is step-through precisely in accordance with it's load carrying duties.

Why accept unnecessarily awkward to get on and off when you don't have to?

Pete.

[Steady rider]

Have you tried putting the leg over the cross bar, near the headset, rather than over the seat?

[pjclinch]

Have you tried putting the leg over the cross bar, near the headset, rather than over the seat?

If you're getting onto a stationary bike there really isn't much option if you've a high load at the back (e.g., a loaded child seat).
Compacts are easier at the saddle end of the top tube, but still much harder than a step-through and without a kerb as a start point it generally means leaning the bike over, not necessarily a great idea with e.g. a loaded child seat.

Rolling mounts with a high load are at least tenable with a very compact frame carrying a high rear load, but again are vastly easier with a step-through.

Pete.

[mattheus]

Folders are (I think) all step-throos. I hear the Brompton is very popular!

[pjclinch]

Folders are (I think) all step-throos.

Most, but not all, e.g. Montagues which come with larger wheel sizes too.

Pete.

[atoz]

Given that quite cheap non step through frames are better than older step through for shopping (speaking from experience) because they deal better with full loads and handling, the answer is yes it does matter, esp in traffic. Last night riding back from Sainsbury's was a case in point. Why accept less when you don't have to?

For your values of "better", not necessarily anyone else's.
When a bike is very heavily laden it's easier to get on and off with the bike fully upright to support the load with a step-through frame. If you've got a child seat on the back of a "normal" so can't swing a leg over the back you'll be more likely to drop them because getting on and off is awkward rather than some marginal handling difference in traffic. Something like a Tern GSD is step-through precisely in accordance with it's load carrying duties.

Why accept unnecessarily awkward to get on and off when you don't have to?

Pete.

I accept obviously the issue with child seats. Not everyone has children though. Other than that the other reasons for step through frames would be physical health issues (I have a lower back flexibility issue so appreciate the problem more than people on this forum think), or, you choose to wear a non divided garment that would be a problem with a standard type frame. Historically many people in this latter category are women. Yet most women wear leggings nowadays. My mum never wore a skirt or dress when cycling. I have a picture of her riding her BSA "gents sports cycle" with 3 speed derailleur somewhere. That picture is almost certainly pre 1939. I also have a post war shot of her with fully laden saddle bag on tour. No step through frame in evidence then either.

Even with a standard frame you can get a wobble under load. My old CB Majestic has this issue when standing on the pedals with full panniers. Not so my other bike but that's too good to be the shopping trolley.

As for "For your values of "better", not necessarily anyone else's". Yes they are my values. I don't force people to agree.

[pjclinch]

I accept obviously the issue with child seats. Not everyone has children though. Other than that the other reasons for step through frames would be physical health issues (I have a lower back flexibility issue so appreciate the problem more than people on this forum think), or, you choose to wear a non divided garment that would be a problem with a standard type frame.

Irrespective of what the rider is wearing or their physical mobility, if it's easier to get on and off a bike that's... well, easier. Easier is widely held to be good and a lot of folk value it.
As long as the frame is stiff enough for the job in hand (as they typically are), ease of use is more important to many riders than performance tuning beyond the use to which the bike will be put.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

Even with a standard frame you can get a wobble under load. My old CB Majestic has this issue when standing on the pedals with full panniers. Not so my other bike but that's too good to be the shopping trolley.

I'm guessing of course as it's not my bike, but IME wobble out the seat with loaded panniers may well be far more to do with the rack than the bike frame. Since racks tend to be made of fairly narrow tubes, if the bike is swung to one side (as tends to happen if one is out of the seat) then the panniers swing with that, but as the rider swings back the momentum of the loaded bags means they carry on a little further before swinging back, inducing a decidedly unpleasant wobble.

I found that out on my original traditional diamond frame tourer, which cured me of the habit of swinging the bike too much with loaded panniers. Going shopping on the MTB or off-road tourer (both diamond frame) I have cautiously experimented the differences between rack-wobble, and the off-road tourer equipped with a pretty serious Tortec Expedition rack exhibits far, far less of an issue than the MTB with a cheap Bor Yueh rack with thinner tubing and twisted pressed steel forward mounts in place of the Tortec's stouter tubes.

Meanwhile, in NL it's entirely normal for folks to give their > 25 Kg firends rides on the rack on step-through frame bikes, and because the racks are built for those sorts of loads it's not an issue. Having a super rigid frame for shopping and then taking the extra load on something significantly weaker and wobblier isn't a great way to design a heavy luggage taking system.

Pete.

[atoz]

Even with a standard frame you can get a wobble under load. My old CB Majestic has this issue when standing on the pedals with full panniers. Not so my other bike but that's too good to be the shopping trolley.

I'm guessing of course as it's not my bike, but IME wobble out the seat with loaded panniers may well be far more to do with the rack than the bike frame. Since racks tend to be made of fairly narrow tubes, if the bike is swung to one side (as tends to happen if one is out of the seat) then the panniers swing with that, but as the rider swings back the momentum of the loaded bags means they carry on a little further before swinging back, inducing a decidedly unpleasant wobble.

I found that out on my original traditional diamond frame tourer, which cured me of the habit of swinging the bike too much with loaded panniers. Going shopping on the MTB or off-road tourer (both diamond frame) I have cautiously experimented the differences between rack-wobble, and the off-road tourer equipped with a pretty serious Tortec Expedition rack exhibits far, far less of an issue than the MTB with a cheap Bor Yueh rack with thinner tubing and twisted pressed steel forward mounts in place of the Tortec's stouter tubes.

Meanwhile, in NL it's entirely normal for folks to give their > 25 Kg firends rides on the rack on step-through frame bikes, and because the racks are built for those sorts of loads it's not an issue. Having a super rigid frame for shopping and then taking the extra load on something significantly weaker and wobblier isn't a great way to design a heavy luggage taking system.

Pete.

It's the same quite robust Tortec rack with quite fat tubes on my touring bike of similar age. However that is 531 ST as opposed to the 531 CS of the Majestic. The latter uses some chrome moly tubing.