Jaywalk3r

No one claims that people should use a bike to travel completely across the country. A huge portion of American trips are well with easy cycling distance. Further, these trips are often faster by bike than by car, making the bike more practical.

Sure, some trips are outside reasonable cycling range, but no one is advocating that cars be completely eliminated within the country.

spare_wheel

Every day before I ride, I ask myself how many 5 lb sacks of flour I want to pack.

I rate you an 8.5 overall but this flame is at best a 4.

Jaywalk3r

Maybe they are, maybe they're not. I know nothing about the terrain there, just like you know nothing about the terrain here. The difference is that I don't claim that the Philippines are flat.

So, c'mon, put on your big girl pants and come ride here. Or won't your parents let you?

CB HI

Sounds like a fun game "Rate the Troll".

CB HI

Actually, there are only two states that I have not traveled in, Maine and Michigan. So in fact I have seen the terrain in the big MO. Any street listings yet?

Jaywalk3r

It refers to stopping by braking hard enough to bring the rear wheel off the ground without the rider going over the bar. It's the fastest most bikes can be stopped by braking. (There are exceptions, such as recumbents, tandems, heavily loaded bikes, etc., on which the front brake does not provided sufficient braking capability to lift the bike.)

RobertHurst

No... doesn't matter what kind of car you're talking about, the driver just sits there and the mechanism does almost all the work of turning the car, moving the car, stopping the car, and how the driver moves or carries his/her body weight is irrelevant. Bicycling is different, unfortunate though it may be for bicyclists who yearn to just sit on a big seat and pull levers as if they were driving.

CB HI

Yeah, just sucks the fun out of riding on two wheels.

RobertHurst

If you're pulling the brake lever while plopped unmoving like a sack of flower on a bike seat, you'll have plenty of opportunity to practice stoppies, and crashes too.

Jaywalk3r

Because it isn't true. Reality cannot be simplified to that extent.

Take, for example, a beach cruiser with a big, heavily padded saddle. For the first 1-3 miles, such a bike would be incredibly comfortable, far more than a road bike or a mountain bike. However, on a 50 mile ride, the beach cruiser would be unlikely to be more comfortable than a well fitted road bike or rigid mountain bike.

Braking performance doesn't improve because the rider rises off the saddle. If that is all that occurred, braking performance would be diminished. Braking performance increases only when the rider moves back or lower, which is what Riel says, but not what you initially wrote. Many bikes allow the rider to slide fore and aft on the saddle, without needing to first rise up.

spare_wheel

What did "big girls" do to you jaywalk3r?

Jaywalk3r

Heavier bikes are slower only in the sense that they don't accelerate as quickly, but the difference is far less than many people, like yourself, imagine. In reality, if you can't ride fast on a heavy bike, you can't ride fast on a light bike, either. It's all about the engine.

Jaywalk3r

Missouri contains a wide variety of terrain, from flat to mountains. Clearly, you haven't ridden in this part of the state, if you think it's flat. Where did you ride, the Katy Trail?

Jaywalk3r

That's exactly why stoppies should be practiced, so that when a short stop is required, one does not panic and do exactly as you describe.

squirtdad

That is completely wrong in refrence to being the fast way to stop a bike. Keeping both tires on the ground doubling the area of contact is far more effective than locking the front wheel and lifting the back tire. and moving your weight back on the bike is helps with this.

genec

Hmmm, while essentially true... cyclists are indeed fully involved in the handling of their two wheeled vehicles; the fact is that the weight, length and width of a car like a Cadillac does give it certain performance perimeters that makes the vehicle handle differently from say a 'Vette or a Ford Focus... so in fact, while the car does "almost all the work," the driver must still compensate for the size and weight in some manner, "however slight."

I am often reminded of this when I occasionally borrow my wife's Land Cruiser of some 6000 lbs GVW... indeed it handles quite differently than my old '91 Toyota Hilux. One might even say that the difference is akin to moving from my Giant Trance X2 to my Huffy beach cruiser... the handling is quite different, in spite of the fact that both bikes have "fat tires."

genec

Keep in mind that the acceleration of which you speak occurs in more than the forward direction... you can't throw a heavy bike around as easily as a light bike, and certainly climbing hills on a heavy bike takes more of an engine.

I have done fully loaded touring, and the mass difference with a loaded bike is vastly different than that of a light bike, and thus the rider responds in a vastly different way... you are somewhat right in that once up to speed it takes about the same amount of effort to maintain that speed... on a flat level surface, with issues like wind resistance (cyclists position -- tucked or upright) and rolling resistance (fat tires, skinny tires, high pressure, low pressure, etc) being the biggest contributing factors to maintaining a certain speed.

RobertHurst

Mountain biking does have a way of teaching the universal truths of bicycle handling in a quick and memorable fashion.

RobertHurst

All that practicing stoppies and you never figured out how much easier it is to stop and control the bike if you're not sitting on the seat?

genec

Ain't that the truth. Those falls become quite memorable.

cyclingdutchman

In the city if you want to go from A to B it makes a big difference, as you have to accelerate quite often. So it also very much depends on the context.

buzzman

Whew! This thread needs separated tracks to keep all the topics in line!

I'm not sure if this is back on topic but spare_wheel makes an interesting point about "gentrification" and bike lanes that is perhaps a very American dilemma.

The issues I've seen regarding bike lanes/gentrification has less to do with economically challenged areas being denied newer or fancier infrastructure but that those communities feel they have greater needs that need to be addressed and often see the imposition of bike infrastructure in their neighborhoods as a precursor or as a result of gentrification and as a failure to address the more pressing issues that have existed in their community for some time. These are legitimate complaints and it is sometimes patronizing to feel these communities need to be "educated" as to how economically beneficial it may be for members of the community to consider biking as a means of transportation.

I'm theorizing here but it may have to do with the American predeliction to see cycling as a sport or a means of conveyance of a certain professional class as a hobby as opposed to a necessity. In poorer communities car ownership is often seen as a status symbol and biking is equated with poverty, DWI's and low status.

While I find articles like this one encouraging to some extent it can be alienating and help foster cycling only as a past time of the elite-

https://www.economist.com/blogs/prosp...ess-networking

In countries where cycling is incorporated into the transportation landscape regardless of economic status and all kind of bikes and riders are accepted, whether in their work jeans and boots on a Walmart special or a custom made ride to work bike this resistance to infrastructure and bikes is less pronounced.


Organizations like Recycle a Bicycle in NYC, Bikes not Bombs in Boston and World Bicycle Relief- world wide, promote cycling as a means of combating poverty and an economically beneficial way for people to get around.


For me, personally, I've been cycling since I was riding both for pleasure and because it was the cheapest way for me to get around. It still saves me money but I could now afford to drive and own a car if I so desired as well as own a much fancier commuting bike than I currently use but I resist both and am frequently perceived as someone who rides purely out of economic necessity.

CB HI

No street names yet?

Your amazing, you cover the entire state each day on your daily commute of 2 miles, but only manage to get 4 - 5,000 yearly miles?

PS - 2,000 feet are foothills, not mountains

CB HI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taum_Sauk_Mountain

So your most impressive "mountain" is 693 feet of climbing. Equal to my climb from Pearl Harbor Middle Lock to Mililani. Do you climb Mudlick Mountain on your daily commute?

It appears that you are not even allowed to cycle to the "peak".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_A._Baker_State_Park

dynodonn 

Missouri, lowest point 230ft above sea level, highest point 1772 ft above sea level, average height above sea level, 800 ft. If you needed to know.