Cycling UK Forum

There's no rational argument for the bicycle to be more complicated. If I wanted to get there faster (performance being the cited reason for most bicycle developments\ complications) I would have chosen another form of transport.

Assuming that this is actually a statement made honestly. That would mean that you are suggesting that we should take the car instead of using a bike which can "get a move on". I take the opposite view that it is well worth me having a bike that I can use to do the job instead of my car.
Also in my chosen hobby of Audaxing, it would of course be breaking the rules to use a car.

For me one of the main pleasures, or more precisely challenges, of cycling is seeing just how far you can get under your own steam, which if you have limited time (some people do have limited time) comes down to how good an average speed you can hold.

So if I want to get there faster, I do NOT want to choose another form of transport and would much prefer to use a cycle when I can.

Now I know that I can not cycle up the local hills with a 60" gear, I would be walking a lot with a 30" gear. So yes a bike does need to be more complicated than a simple fixed gear.
The added complication of a freewheel would make me much faster downhill.
The added complication of a hub gear would make me faster again on the flats but still walking up some hills.
The added complication of a 2x5 set up would make things easier still.

meic wrote:

There's no rational argument for the bicycle to be more complicated. If I wanted to get there faster (performance being the cited reason for most bicycle developments\ complications) I would have chosen another form of transport.

Assuming that this is actually a statement made honestly. That would mean that you are suggesting that we should take the car instead of using a bike which can "get a move on". I take the opposite view that it is well worth me having a bike that I can use to do the job instead of my car.
Also in my chosen hobby of Audaxing, it would of course be breaking the rules to use a car.

For me one of the main pleasures, or more precisely challenges, of cycling is seeing just how far you can get under your own steam, which if you have limited time (some people do have limited time) comes down to how good an average speed you can hold.

So if I want to get there faster, I do NOT want to choose another form of transport and would much prefer to use a cycle when I can.
.

Ah, yes... I remember my first audax.. It was the Dunkery Dash. Over the quantocks and across to Exmoor and back. I had borrowed a rolhoff speed hub especially for the event. I finished last. Way behind the guy who rode a fix wheel and another who rode an upright tricycle. Evidence, if any were required that ultimately a bicycle's performance relies on its rider.

Should you take a car, or bus or taxi, or motorcycle or train, instead of cycling? Not something that I can answer. Things to consider would be how much time is available to make the journey. However last time I checked the statics something like 50% of car journeys were under 2 miles with 75% of car journeys are under 8 miles (although things may have changed since then). Over such distances I would be surprised if something like electronic gear systems would make a material difference to travel time if a bicycle was used.

meic wrote:

There's no rational argument for the bicycle to be more complicated. If I wanted to get there faster (performance being the cited reason for most bicycle developments\ complications) I would have chosen another form of transport.

Assuming that this is actually a statement made honestly. That would mean that you are suggesting that we should take the car instead of using a bike which can "get a move on". I take the opposite view that it is well worth me having a bike that I can use to do the job instead of my car.
Also in my chosen hobby of Audaxing, it would of course be breaking the rules to use a car.

Now I know that I can not cycle up the local hills with a 60" gear, I would be walking a lot with a 30" gear. So yes a bike does need to be more complicated than a simple fixed gear.
The added complication of a freewheel would make me much faster downhill.
The added complication of a hub gear would make me faster again on the flats but still walking up some hills.
The added complication of a 2x5 set up would make things easier still.

Apologies, I should confess that my current bicycle has a five speed freewheel and one chainring, and uses drum brakes, in rather the same style has Brucey's super commuter. It also has front and back racks for shopping & touring purposes, and uses a bottle dynamo and halogen front lamp. Having used derailleurs, hub gears and lots of types of rim brakes, this is the most simplest of technology that I can use whilst still being able to cycle some 50 miles a day. I appreciate that for a good many people it is rather too simple, and equally for a good many other people rather too complicated.

cycle tramp wrote:
Ah, yes... I remember my first audax.. It was the Dunkery Dash. Over the quantocks and across to Exmoor and back. I had borrowed a rolhoff speed hub especially for the event. I finished last.

You didn't finish last. You finished

reohn2 wrote:Stories alert:-
Story 1
I used to ride with a chap who had to eat at the same set time everyday,8am,12noon 6pm,and claimed it played havoc with his stomach if he didn't eat within 10 or 15 minutes of those times.During a discussion about his 'problem' I asked him what he did when the clocks went back or forward,he looked at me with incredulity,so I asked if his eating changed to 7/9am,11am 1pm,5/6pm,he simply said it remained the same,I pointed out the anomaly and that his 'problem' was all in the mind

Do you blokes still have tea time at what, 3 PM?

Spinners wrote:

cycle tramp wrote:
Ah, yes... I remember my first audax.. It was the Dunkery Dash. Over the quantocks and across to Exmoor and back. I had borrowed a rolhoff speed hub especially for the event. I finished last.

You didn't finish last. You finished

Thank you, you're very kind Having given up audax, I'm now playing other games on my bicycle including;
I) how long can I leave my bike locked up in a public place (4 days record, so far - Priddy Folk Festival)
II) how much junk can I take to the tip (record of 4 pannier loads of paint cans and assorted metal, heavier than expected)
III) what's the stupidest thing I can carry by bicycle (tied record so far between one extra large dog bed, and two lengths of 6 foot guttering)

Evidence, if any were required that ultimately a bicycle's performance relies on its rider.

Yes but for each one of us that is a given, not a variable.
I know my friend can finish quicker than me on his fixed than I can on my titanium bike.
He would finish even quicker still on my titanium bike and I would not even get up the first hill on his fixed.
When the rides get really long and difficult, even he digs out his bike with derailleurs.

MikeDee wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Stories alert:-
Story 1
I used to ride with a chap who had to eat at the same set time everyday,8am,12noon 6pm,and claimed it played havoc with his stomach if he didn't eat within 10 or 15 minutes of those times.During a discussion about his 'problem' I asked him what he did when the clocks went back or forward,he looked at me with incredulity,so I asked if his eating changed to 7/9am,11am 1pm,5/6pm,he simply said it remained the same,I pointed out the anomaly and that his 'problem' was all in the mind

Do you blokes still have tea time at what, 3 PM?

Do you mean cake time?

meic wrote:

Evidence, if any were required that ultimately a bicycle's performance relies on its rider.

Yes but for each one of us that is a given, not a variable.
I know my friend can finish quicker than me on his fixed than I can on my titanium bike.
He would finish even quicker still on my titanium bike and I would not even get up the first hill on his fixed.
When the rides get really long and difficult, even he digs out his bike with derailleurs.

You're still waaaaaaaaayy fitter than me! And perhaps that's the whole point, that a bicycle should only be as complicated as required to carry out the task(s) expected of it but no more complicated than it needs to be.

And perhaps that's the whole point, that a bicycle should only be as complicated as required to carry out the task(s) expected of it but no more complicated than it needs to be

But that means with a varied riding life your bicycle may swing from grossly over-complicated, to woefully over-simplified from one day to the next!

If you are to cover all eventualities then you're reduced to either having multiple bikes and swapping depending on the task (even mid-ride in some cases!) or having one bike which suits the 'worst case scenario' and risk suffering the scorn of a judgemental forum commenter lest they happen observe you at the wrong moment

perhaps we could call it "Occam's bicycle" or something....

cheers

amediasatex wrote:
But that means with a varied riding life your bicycle may swing from grossly over-complicated, to woefully over-simplified from one day to the next!

Two bikes!

I have a different bike for day to day intra-city commuting, and another one for recreational cycling.

Daily bike is a single-speed, as reliability is No. 1.

Two bikes!

About eleventy pages back that was shot down in flames as decadent opulence and over-complicating the beautiful simplicity of owning one bike for everything

Daily bike is a single-speed, as reliability is No. 1.

Mine was too, but the requirement to haul a trailer and a few panniers around from time to time put pay to that. IGH these days...I do miss commuting on a SS sometimes though.

amediasatex wrote:...I do miss commuting on a SS sometimes though.

I only have a short commute and Leicester is pretty damn flat. I do find it enjoyable to ride in terms of just being able to go with no farting around.

The thread title is framed as a question, which is good. There's a questioning of the prevalent norms and assumptions in cycling today, which is beneficial, in fact necessary, for us to sort out what is useful to us and what isn't.

But there's a disturbing lack of questioning other assumptions. Chief among these is that our norms apply to or would benefit everyone. If that were true, we would not be individuals (and we wouldn't have 30+ pages of this thread).

The thread takes a historical perspective to cycling development, so I'll illustrate this with two cyclists, one who started riding in 1977 and one in 2015. The 1977 cyclist has seen 40 years of development, in good and bad ways: changes in fashion, technology, materials, manufacturing techniques, brands that come and go, and similar fields have incrementally altered the bikes they ride while leaving them still fundamentally the same as those ridden 1937. Since we're considering cycling as a whole rather than just bikes, we need to look at associated products such as luggage and clothing, where the same processes apply. More significant are the changes to attitudes and behaviour: such as the decline in transport cycling and its recent (muted) revival, the recent boom in amateur and professional sports, inexorable growth in traffic, competing leisure interests and of course increasing disposable wealth. All mount up little by little over 40 years to make change that is noticeable compared to when they started. Whereas the cyclist who started riding in 2015 doesn't see this as change, but as the status quo, the norm; just as the 40-year cyclist saw the situation in 1977 as the norm while their forebear from 1937 saw that as change.

It's good to have people with experience point out the history and prompt the newer ones to question the present state. It's good for those older ones to listen to the new generation explain why they like the modern stuff. It's good for both to question each other's choices in an inquiring, not challenging, way; and to accept that each other's goals are different. It's good for us all to question our own choices; and to accept that our own goals might be different from what we had thought. But there's a lot of that not happening here.