kuroba

+1 to @cyccomute
In my personal experience weight does matter, specially when you're doing a long commute. You get bored easily having to push a tank for too long.

I went through a couple bikes before my current road bike that still feels perfect for my 15kms commute. I had a dutch style bike like one that was suggested earlier in the thread and it was a tank, heavy and an agony to push up hills, I wouldn't recommend that to the OP unless she was riding only a few miles in flat roads.

I currently commute on a gravel bike with 27mm tires. MUCH BETTER. Even though it's steel (chromoly) it feels lighter than my previous bikes. I have no problems with panniers or toe overlap with my tiny feet.

The other bike was a 26" aluminum hardtail MTB which was OK for commuting after I fitted 1.5" tires on it, but still felt a tad too heavy for longer rides.

I'm 5' tall, 29" inseam and size 5 feet. I have a couple inches more than OP, but I know the struggle is real specially because I didn't have much options available locally to start with, which is why I ended up going custom for my gravel bike.

DiabloScott

Agreed. Light weight is even more important for small riders, not only for the riding but also hefting it up onto roof racks or into pickup beds or up stairs.

I had an old friend who used to build wheels for Georgina Terry - I think of him whenever I see her bikes referenced.

CrankyOne

That's a very narrow Amerocentric view. Pretty much the entirety of people in The Netherlands ride 40 lb bikes and do so every day. From youngest to oldest, from those in the flatter areas to those in the hillier, from fully able-bodied to those with disabilities. None complain about how heavy their bikes are. They're not rushing out to buy any of the lighter bikes that are available. This whole weight-is-important bit is, outside of racing, largely limited to North America.

The Workcycles Gr8 that I recommended above is 46 lbs. The key demographic who buy Gr8's are women and in particular smaller women. I know three women, all less than 100 lbs, who ride a Gr8 daily. They love them. Two have other much lighter road and hybrid bikes but ride their Gr8 much more. The weight makes little or no difference to them.

noglider 

I've learned from this thread. Paradoxically, weight doesn't matter, and it does. I'm glad to see the arguments in favor of the weight-does-matter side for a change. It's a good point about calculating a bike's weight as a fraction of body weight. I just looked over the records of my commuting rides which I track with a GPS app. My fastest times are on my lightest bike. Does speed matter on a commute? No, because there's no significant difference in arrival time. But yes, because it indicates amount of effort. There definitely is a point where riding is more trouble than it's worth. Exactly where that point is depends on the person and the circumstances. If your route is flat and two miles long, then these things probably don't matter. My route is 13.5 miles each way, and it has a few smallish hills and one very steep hill, and it typically has heavy winds.

Someone asked me why bikes get flat tires so much more frequently than cars do. My answer is that if we had bike tires that were as puncture-invulnerable as car tires, they would be far too heavy to be ridden. Weight does matter.

noglider 

@CrankyOne, I don't disagree with you. I see small women pedaling English 3-speeds in my neighborhood. Some have those dual Wald baskets straddling their rear wheels. Those baskets must bring their bikes up to at least 55 lbs. Also, the NYC bike share program called Citi Bike has bikes that weigh about 50 lbs, and small people ride them. Citi Bike publishes statistics, and the number of trips made per year is surprisingly high.

My neighborhood is flat. These trips are short. The Amerocentric view that you see has the idea that we will go more than two miles per trip, and some of us have hills to climb. From what I hear, there aren't many hills in the Netherlands.

CrankyOne

Yes, some of it is fairly flat. But not all. Any of these familiar (from Amstel Gold race)?

Gulpenerberg - Partij
Kruisberg - Wahlwiller
Eyserbosweg - Eys
Fromberg - Elkenrade
Keutenberg - Schin op Geul
Geulhemmerberg - Vilt
Bemelerberg - Bemelen
Cauberg - Valkenburg

BTW, I'm not certain all of those are within Netherlands borders. All do have a gob of people of all ages riding 45lb upright bikes up and down them every day though.

My favorite Dutch hillclimb video:


I am certainly a bit slower riding uphill on a 45lb Dutch bike than a 16lb Scott Addict. But the difference, outside of a race, isn't an issue and I don't work any harder on my upright. In thinking about it I sweat a lot less riding my upright on hills than my road or hybrids.

CrankyOne

Great point about bikeshare bikes. My 80lb DIL rides Citibikes all over. They live in DUMBO so she'll ride up the hill to get on either the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridge. Actually, just climbing the Brooklyn itself from the Manhattan side is a pretty good hill. She has mentioned a few times that she wouldn't mind a Citibike station at the top of the Washington St steps on the Brooklyn side so she could just walk to there and then ride.

As you pointed out though, gobs of people of all sizes ride bikeshare bikes. And they do so in cities all over and do so up and down some pretty good hills. And these bikes are kind of wonky compared to a good Dutch upright.

noglider 

I really must visit the Netherlands one day. I don't know enough about the country, but everything I know, I like, especially the politics. I had a layover in Schipol Airport in 1986, and that's all.

I've seen that video, and it's hilarious. Those racers are working hard, and that commuter is just humming along. That reminds me of the thread about the health benefits of regular bike commuting.

There are many different kinds of cyclists! I own nine bikes, because I'm a nutcase, and I'm also a member of Citi Bike. I think those bikeshare bikes are the right bikes for the job, but as an "athletic" cyclist, I find the weight, and more importantly, the riding position, to be annoying. Riding upright is fine if you want to tool along. I try to ride hard, and I get punished for trying.

DiabloScott

The Dutch ALPS!

Darth Lefty 

Well, except for the volcanoes

Barabaika

I can get a better looking bike like the Nishiki Olympic mixte that I posted earlier. The frame of the mixte is made of the double-butted Tange Champion #2 tubes. If would be a $500-900 frame today. The Nishiki Olympic is a 25lb bike. It'll be a 35lb bike with all commuting equipment.

The Terry Coto Doñana looks like any contemporary bike with a sloping top tube.
It's probably just a variant of the Gunnar CrossHairs or another Gunnar. The smallest stock size is 46cm, but you can custom order a smaller one. The frame is $950 plus Terry's surcharge.
Though, the tubes are super thin and they can be dented easily. You have to pay for the lightness of Gunnar's frames.

Gunnar Cycles USA, CrossHairs for Gravel or ?Cross Riding

thetiniestbike

I would go yes and no on the weight arguments. For most of my time riding, 14 miles daily on Walmart aluminum in high school until now, I've been one of those people on a heavy bike, even by "large people" standards. I rode what I had, and part of the charm of discussing weight now is that it's not only no longer convenient for me to ride just any old heavy bike, it's also not necessary. I'm used to riding a 35 lb, straight gauge steel, single speed bike. Before groceries. It can be done. Builds character, even. But I know that I would ride more and further on a lighter bike, and I can afford to look into them now. So I am.

Now, to break up cyccommute and Barabaika: Weight's a consideration, as stated above. But I also know that, between everyday use, rough winters, ride feel preferences, and the fact that I'm just hard on my stuff, I'd never go aluminum for everyday commuting. And yes, I've done the test riding to back that statement. For something sexy that I didn't have to depend on daily, I could see myself eventually buying an aluminum bike, but for now I'm looking at steel. When cyccommute calls the Peugeot a "French battleship," to me that comes with some payoffs. It comes with riding a bike I wouldn't be scared of taking over potholes and bad roads, through snow and slush, over packed trails--wherever I want to go. It means a bike that doesn't sit in a corner because it's too pretty and light and dainty-feeling, to me at least, to actually ride. And yes, steel almost always means a more expensive, slightly heavier bike than aluminum, but longevity and actual use mean that those are prices I'm willing to pay.

As for the mixte debate in general: weight's a consideration, sure. And new would be nice, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, and I'm really quite okay with that. But I also currently have two vintage step-throughs, at least one of which is not going anywhere anytime soon. They're basically mixtes. I've got that base covered. So even though the Peugeot is darling, and you're definitely not wrong about that blue bar tape, for me, at the moment, mixtes are my N, not my +1.

The +1's probably a vintage steel Terry, based on how much time I spend crushing on them on eBay lately.

So everybody wins.

CrankyOne

Yep, I think you'd enjoy it. If you want to have some fun and understand bicycling and their infrastructure then join one of David Hembrow's tours: Cycling Study Tour in Assen and Groningen, Netherlands (Holland)

I go back and forth between training and transportation so they are two very separate things for me. I ride hard on my road or mtn bikes and enjoy it (except the dangerous drivers). On an upright I ride faster than average but not by much, maybe 13 mph when others are 11-12. I ride hard enough to get where I'm going but not so hard that I sweat, unless it's extremely hot and humid. I still get some good exercise, enjoy the ride, and get where I'm going, but easier and more comfortable than a non-Dutch bike.

PaulH

Disproved by example. My annual car and bike mileage are the same. The puncture rate for my Marathon Plus with Mr Tuffy and my car with Michelin radials are exactly the same. There is no tire weight that could possibly be too heavy to be ridden, not counting solid tires, which have other drawbacks. The problem is that motorists have insisted upon convenience and reliability. If motorists had the same consumer behavior as cyclists, I imagine that they would be lapping their valves every few hundred miles and blogging about how much they enjoyed manual spark advance.

noglider 

OK, you're right. Many people are willing to ride on heavy tires.

cyccommute 

Would you willingly ride a 46 lb bike for much more than a couple of miles to the store and back? Most people wouldn't no matter where they live. People in The Netherlands have lighterweight bikes and they use them quite a bit outside of the cities...I've been there. Inside the cities, they tend to stick with the old, heavy and, most importantly, cheap "Dutch" bikes because they will likely have the bikes stolen at some point. That's not much of a problem because they just steal someone else's.

However, I've never heard anyone claim that they want a heavier bike. Most...even those in The Netherlands...will opt for something lighter if given the choice. Would you really want to ride around on a 100+ lb bike on a regular basis?

cyccommute 

So what is your budget?

I think you are living with some misconceptions about aluminum that rise from the silly "steel is real" fallacy. I'm a 220 lb male who is far harder on his stuff than you could ever be and I have no qualms about riding aluminum on the road, as a touring bike and as a off-road mountain bike. My road commuter is a Salsa Las Cruces aluminum bike with nearly 20,000 hard, year around miles on it (for 12 years now). My off-road commuter bike used to be an aluminum mountain bike that did happen to break after 7000 miles but that was a manufacturing problem. The bike frame that replaced that one had 5000 miles on it before I swapped out the frame and repurposed it for other uses. These are all bikes that get ridden all year long and the mountain bikes get pounded off-road. And, let's not forget, that they are being pounded by someone who probably weighs twice as much as you do. Bottom line: Aluminum will stand up to the abuse you can dish out.

The Terry that I've suggested above isn't just a pretty bike. My wife has one and it's every bit as capable as my Las Cruces. I probably wouldn't have her ride it on trails but she has a mountain bike for that anyway...aluminum, of course. Mostly what I am saying is that you don't have to be stuck with a heavy bike just because of durability.

On the other hand, if you are riding in winter salt and the summer wet, aluminum is more durable than steel. Aluminum doesn't rust...at least not a easily...a steel does. Salt is hard on aluminum but salt is harder on steel.

Finally, don't mistake "lightness" with daintiness nor heaviness with strength. Modern bikes have worked out most of the kinks when it comes to the material of construction. As Barabaika pointed out, a very lightweight steel frame is easy to dent. An equivalent lightweight aluminum frame is a bit less dent prone. It can be dented but the walls are thicker even if the frame is lighter.

The classic Terry Symmetry is a good bike, however it has a wart. The small front wheel can be a little squirrelly. My wife had one and she did get used to the feeling but, honestly, she likes the way her aluminum Terry handles better. You should be very aware of that problem if you don't have the ability to ride one prior to buying.

There's also the problem of dealing with two different tire sizes. Most people carry a tube for fixing flats. You'll need to carry two tubes. It's not a huge deal but it is a bit of a hassle.

The classic Symmetry, especially if you can find the smallest one made, is a good choice but be open to other choices as well. Just don't get hung up on the "steel is better than aluminum because it is steel" thing.

CrankyOne

I live in The Netherlands part of each year and part of my job is transportation and land use research there. So, in answer to your questions;

Yes, I, like pretty much the entire population of The Netherlands (and Denmark, Sweden, Finland, ...), willingly ride a 45lb bike and do so every day. For the 10 - 15 mph I ride a lighter bike wouldn't benefit me much. The heavier Opafiets and Omafiets are much more comfortable to ride than lighter bikes. So yes, people, even very wealthy people, CHOOSE to purchase and ride 45lb bikes. People have more options for bikes than in the U.S. and traditional uprights are still the overwhelming choice. Hybrids, road bikes and fixies were somewhat popular for a brief bit, particularly in Copenhagen, but their popularity, for transportation, has declined.

Distance. I've ridden the 40 miles round trip between Assen and Groningen numerous times on my Opafiets (though I admit to occasionally taking the train home if it's late). 5 to 10 mile trips are common and longer trips not at all uncommon. I think my longest in a single day was about 70 miles.

Yes, some have lighter bikes but most will still ride their 45lb uprights for their transportation and leisurely recreation. The lighter bikes are mostly for racing. Families going out for an all day tour will mostly be on traditional 45lb uprights though you will occasionally see lighter weight hybrids or road bikes. It's not uncommon for someone to buy a hybrid, ride it for a brief bit, and then go back to their more comfortable upright.

Yes, many of the bikes you see in Amsterdam and other larger cities are quite old. I wouldn't say cheap though as they were often quite good bikes when new and are often still in very good (or not) condition. Some people will also make a brand new bike look old to lessen the probability of theft.

When I was in Utrecht and rode only a few miles each day I rode a quite old single speed Gazelle omafiets. At some point it developed a squeak that I put up with for a few weeks before fixing. I think that kind of delayed maintenance is quite common. It was still a quite good and serviceable bike for me though. I once rode it to Leiden and then on to the beach with friends (who as I remember were all on similar bikes).

For all of the riding I've done on 45lb Dutch uprights a lighter bike or hybrid or road bike would not have benefited me. Those bikes would have been much less comfortable, caused me to sweat more, wouldn't have been able to carry heavy loads as well, would have required a lot more maintenance, and I wouldn't have been able to ride in whatever clothes I wanted.

Perhaps @Stadjer can jump in and correct where I've missed.

Barabaika

To be fair, the Dutch are tall and strong as they start to ride bicycles since early childhood.

The average Japanese female's height is 5'2". She also rides a 20kg bike.

Stadjer

It seems to me you haven't missed much, but I don't know everything about Dutch cycling either, especially about cycling in the country side. A lot of bikes are aluminium ones these days, but they are not much lighter. It's used to for wider tubing (aluminium has a different tube/tube wall ratio for optimum strength) that gives the bike heavy duty appeal and looks good with fat tyres. Often they have an extra top tube and an extra big rack.

It is a problem and bike theft has been getting out of it's moral vacuum since the 80s. For some reason the indifference about bikes was so great it was almost not seen as subject to ownership, they were just to be used. These days theft is mostly done by addicts and they are sold to people with flexible morals like drunk students, but the one who gets caught has very much of a problem. But an honest used bike is only about 50-70 euro and if you buy a stolen bike you will still have to buy a lock too, so there's really no excuse.

But there's still a risk of theft or the bike getting damaged at night in the city. So it's a good idea not to have a very fancy expensive bike, one would only worry about it while drinking beer or watching a movie or whatever. New bikes are usually sold with insurance, but then you're still without a bike for a few days and that's a bit of an issue for a Dutchman.

I happened to buy a used 50lb bike in Assen last summer to become my new commuter. It was about 40 years old and 100 euros and I rode it home to Groningen in 1.5 hour, that's 30 km so I averaged 13mp/h with a 4 Beaufort headwind, without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't want a lighter bike because one reason for it's weight is that it's overbuild, and that's the reason I could cycle it back to Groningen without worrying about it's age. I didn't have a plan B and would have had a very bad friday night if it had failed. The guy, a hobby mechanic, had a 60 year old bike for sale too, I liked it better, it was 5lb heavier and had done a full overhaul on it (mine he hadn't worked on), but it already had vintage value increasing the risk of theft, and it was 200 euros. I was tempted, but I was looking for a bike to use and park at night and a 40 year old bike is just a used bike, hardly worth stealing.

There are three reasons to want a light bike. My mother for example wasn't strong physically and she didn't like to get heavy bikes in and out of the shed. And city people who carry their bikes upstairs like them lighter too, allthough a top tube is more important. The other reason is when you're competing in a hilly environment. In competition it's about the details and any tiny advantage. The third reason is that you commute in an extremely hilly environment. Steep uphill every kilo counts and isn't compensated for by the extra downhill speed. In most of the Netherlands the sloaps are manmade and therefore short, or a city is build on one and it's not a steep one anyway. But in the south-east where it is quite hilly people use more geared bikes rather than lighter bikes.

People do buy 30lb bikes, for short touring or day tripping as well as commutes. But light weight is just one of many advantages a bike can have. The Dutch know weight is not important for speed, it will hardly ever be the main selling point. I think this weight obsession has to do with the tendency to make the one thing we can influence or judge much more important than it is. In the 50s Dutch manufacters advertised with types of ball bearings, because back then that was supposed to make a difference in speed. Not because it would have made a lot of difference, but because it was the only thing that could make a any difference in speed, allthough probably not noticeable.

Saralinda

I’m just like you. Plus I fell a bunch, seem to have lost good balance. 4’10” tall, 112 pounds 27 inseam. What did you find? What would you suggest?

Darth Lefty 

It's been years since that original poster has been here.

I've been shopping for 24" kid bikes lately and there are now a lot of good quality options out there with 24" and 26" tires. For commuting probably starting with Woom and Cleary.
https://woom.com/en_US/products/woom...m-red_original
https://www.clearybikes.com/products...at-26-5-speed/

Those neither have triple cranks or very low or very high gearing. If you want an all-purpose bike with an amazing gear range the usual procedure is to choose one of the Surly models that has smaller tires (now Straggler or Disc Trucker) and build to suit, but they have had trouble keeping stock the last few years.

If you want a mountain bike there are a ton

Saralinda

Thank you for writing. Unfortunately I need a step through bicycle, more like a comfort bicycle or commuter bicycle, not a mountain bike. I was looking on Amazon at a cruiser with 24 inch tires that advertises itself is for people 4 foot 10 to 5 foot two. But at roughly $300 it’s probably a piece of junk. I’ve had some bad falls on bicycles when I couldn’t put both feet on the ground with comfort. Somebody suggested a tricycle but my vanity is just a little too high yet.
i’ve heard that vintage Peugeots came with extra self small frames, like 44 cm. If somebody out there has one of these for sale please let me know.

Darth Lefty 

Regular bikes are not designed for flat foot from the saddle at any size. If you set it up that way your legs will be bunched up at the top of stroke.

Electra Townie IS designed for flat-foot from the saddle and there's a 24" step thru version that would fit. Electra is a Trek brand and these are popular bikes, you might find a good one used.
https://electra.trekbikes.com/us/en_...?colorCode=red

Mountain bikes now have telescoping seat posts, that can be used to flat foot from the saddle. It takes some getting used to. I've seen some cargo bikes set up this way.

bikemig 

I don't know your budget, but take a look at Bike Fridays.