Wooden bikes
materiabikes.com
materiabikes.com
I think it is just really seductive to think you can get magically faster by a significant amount just by buying a new frame with that new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
> Before getting the bike: Intrigued by the novelty factor and an excuse to make gratuitous wood puns
> Shortly after receiving the bike: Impressed by the exquisite craftsmanship but also kind of embarrassed by it at the same time
> Shortly after riding the bike for the first time: Wow, it feels great, but what's that creaking? I bet it's broken
> Once I'd solved the creaking by tightening the bottom bracket: I really like riding this bike
> Today: All bikes should be made of wood, metal and crabon is for vulgarians
His whole shtick is being a bit jokey, but anyway he's been writing about this thing for a year now and basically loves it.
I'd also like to point out that people buy bicycles for factors other than speed. Most people, I would wager.
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/bsnyc-field-trip-20...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/would-that-i-could....
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2017/11/this-title-is-100-f...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/06/wood-bike-status-up...
https://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2018/01/sawdust-in-wind.htm...
read for yourself
However I must say, the Renovo Aerowood is a good looking piece of wood.
Man, I have a hard time believing that. Now, I've not done a blind taste test, but I truly believe I'll tell the difference between a good carbon frame and an aluminum frame of equal quality. All of the frames in my garage have noticeably different characteristics, and it can't all be placebo. But, I'm an ex-racer, blah, blah, so maybe most people can't tell the difference.
new bottom bracket that's claimed to be 30% stiffer.
OTOH, if a Cat 3 thinks he's putting out enough power to torque a modern bottom bracket, yeah, he's deluding himself.
Ex-racer here, and I'll back that statement up. Trick is, which expensive doohickey actually saves a second or an ounce? Or more realistically, since seconds and ounces can actually be measured by a layman, is the bottom bracket actually stiffer? Are you two seconds faster today because of the bottom bracket, or because you're just faster? Was it the smoother shifting of the new chain rings that saved those seconds? Maybe you need a $1000 power meter so you can get the telemetry needed to make sure.
IOW, many thousands have been spent by myself and others to gain only perceived, but not measurable, differences. And, oh how the component marketers know that.
I probably wouldn't notice the difference between some quality swimming gear vs elite (gold medal quality?) swimming gear either. Running shoes, etc.
Since when does a humans ability to determine minute differences in materials actually matter? Why would we care would opinion the biker has of the material? If it's objectively better, and better is defined by measurable, quantifiable metrics - then what do we care? We're not talking about a wine-snob scenario. Where it's purely subjective opinion based. We're talking about performance characteristics that, when used in competitive scenarios, actually matter.
Now does it objectively matter to some "bike snob" just riding to work? Eh, maybe not. Sure he may make it to work 1m faster due to an objectively better frame, but who cares. Yet, the fact that the bikers use case is subjective does not invalidate more objective use cases for better frames/etc.
when the difference we are talking about is "ride quality" then humans noticing is the only thing that matters. If we were talking about speed, then it wouldn't.
I don't think I'm alone in that.
Both of my favorite bikes are cyclocross bikes. The first one I got used and upgraded the componyts to ultegra and bb7 discs. Was around 900 all in.
I may be a bit hypocrite with my second bike which was a factory replace of the first with a top of the line racing cyclo cf frame (weld failed). But the cost and some velocity touring wheels (which caused the frame failure in the first frame by moving stress off the wheels). So to me that bike cost $1200... But is likely a $4k bike. I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or just savvy. But a lot of the bikes I test ride in the 1-2k range we're super nice. And there were plenty in the 700-1000 range as well (trick in Seattle is to buy bikes in August when the Google kids and M$ kids are going back to school)
I have several hours of work invested into my bike too, having installed proper fenders, a rear rack, and some safety equipment like lights and bells. That plus the ~$700 I have in it all told would not be enjoyable to replace.
Races sometimes are very close, but they are that close only because the pack or a breakaway finish together. When the sprint happens, there are only a few seconds for riders to pull away from each other. In these cases, minor differences in efficiency still don't matter because it is over such a short time frame.
I have a Scandium bike too with an oversized bottom bracket. Being 200lbs, on a climb, I can definitely feel the difference the bottom bracket makes. All the other bikes flex a little when I stand up and crank. Not the Scandium bike. Maybe that's unimportant to you, but I really enjoy the feeling of stomping on the pedals and having the bike immediately respond to the power.
I had the same tyres, pedals, and shoes on my new bike (switched them over). I had a 3-4 km/h improvement on average on the flats instantly. So my new carbon bike was objectively better than my old aluminium bike.
I'm not sure if the improvement was because the bike was brand new, or because it was carbon and had higher end components, but it was definitely there.
The difference in weight is not capable of causing much difference on flats, since it would just slightly increase rolling resistance. The differences in mechanical efficiency of well-tuned road bikes is also pretty negligible.
EDIT: oh, you already said it: Merida Scultura
It's a very well built frame, it doesn't look the prettiest, but it gets the job done.
If I had to guess, more gear ratios, newer bearings, and rim profile probably all contributed to that. And maybe just a little bit of placebo...
One such example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNedIJBZpgM
There have been some major innovations, but most of what has come out in the last 10 years in road bikes hasn't been great. Lots of new BB standards that all creak, thinner chains, too few spokes, etc.
Then if you disguise the wheels such that they cannot tell which is which, they are completely unable to discern them.
The same is true with frame types typically believed to be vastly different. A professional triathlete and ex cat 1 road racer I know was sure he could tell the difference between Cervelo's comfort, round tube frame (The R series) and their aerodynamic frame (the S series).
He devised a helmet with an obscuring screen so he could test the two in blind fashion, and he was unable to discern which was which, by riding them.
Its all just nonsense, really, imho. There are dozens of examples like these I've seen through the years. People with high degrees of expertise, certain of these feeling differences, blind them, and they can't tell.
As an aside, the placebo effect is real, and I attribute a lot of strong product opinions re: fitness equipment (doesn't matter if bikes or running shoes) to how they make people feel, not how they objectively perform.
Anecdotally, I can barely tell the difference between the two and the deck is stacked in favor of the carbon bike. Swap the wheels and I'm sure they would feel exactly the same aside from geometry.
Recommended pressure always varies. With wider tires, you typically must run them lower, since a too-high pressure will cause the tire to blow off the rim.
If the tire is a stiffer material, this dissipates more energy. In addition, suppler tires deform over obstacles more readily, reducing bouncing and vibration.
More or less, your contact patch is pressure/weight, since the tire can't support much weight on its own. It's going to be almost the same no matter what (slick) tire you are running. Wider tires have less rolling resistance for the same pressure (to a point), since the tire deflects less to maintain the same contact patch. Two tires of the same width, one stiff and one supple, will have to bend in the same way, and have nearly identical contact patches. However, the supple one will dissipate less heat doing this.
This is not correct. Optimum speed comes are optimum pressure, which is usually quite a bit lower than most cyclists imagine. Going too high results in worse rolling resistance, AND worse handling AND worse comfort.
As a ballpack figure for a road bike, a 25c tire will usually have optimum rolling resistance at around 90-100psi for typical male rider mass and road surfaces.
And the faster, better handling tires also have less rolling resistance, but less durability.
We're living in interesting times for this "conventional" wisdom! One school of thought argues that while there might be a theoretical relationship between high pressure and low rolling resistance, but the real-world effect has been exaggerated by poor testing methodology, which usually involves a circular drum as a substitute for a flat road. And that the benefits of achieving low rolling resistance are offset by the losses due to increased vibration.
Of course, this school of thought is largely the product of one man, Jan Heine of Compass Bicycles, but it's interesting to read and consider. Personally, I made the jump from 23mm road tires at 120psi to 48mm slick tires at ~40psi this year, and I have to say, my average speed didn't take a hit at all on the road and am much happier and more comfortable.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/testing-tires-isnt...
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take...
However,even though they feel faster, they’re actually slower. That extra vibration is coming from vertical deflection that a more supple (lower presure) tyre would allow to stay as forward momentum.
Personally I keep “25mm” (GP4Ks always seem to measure closer to 27mm for me) somewhere between 70-80 psi but then I’m the sort of madman that thinks I can feel the difference with latex inner tubes.
Steel is the best frame material for 95% of people due to its durability. Quality steel frames (not Schwinn travellers) are quite light. Cro-moly frames like Salsa are a good choice and weigh around 2-3 kg vs 1-2 kg for a carbon frame. There's plenty of framebuilders who can build custom frames out of other alloys as well. There's been steel frames built down to a kilo.
If you have a problem with harshness, wrap the bars with another layer of bar tape. Another option is to use wider lower PSI tires, preferably with wider 23mm rims. Not only is it softer, but the rolling resistance is actually less than standard road rims and tires.
As for durability, I’ve been riding a 1200g Bianchi 928 for the last 12 years with no change in its behaviour.
Unlike steel or aluminium, carbon fibre doesn’t work harden so, as long as you don’t crash it, it will be MORE durable than steel.
Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
You can even put stuff like flax seed in the resin to absorb vibration, just like this wooden frame claims to do.
Carbon is a better material for bikes than steel is.
It just lacks the romance because it’s harder for a lone bloke in his shed to weld.
(I still want one of these wooden bikes because n+1 and can you imagine rocking up to a club ride on one. :D )
Steel is almost perfectly elastic below its fatigue limit. It never fails for stress underneath this, since the elastic motion doesn't generate new dislocations or anything. It is true that aluminum has no lower fatigue limit, but outside of crashes, this occurs so slowly as to be meaningless on human timescales.
>Also because carbon frames are layed up by hand, you can can have different properties vertically vs laterally. So stiff side to side but with vertical flex at the bottom bracket ...or anything else you want.
That is 100% not true. Bike frames are all highly stiff vertically because of the diamond tube shape. There is no practical bikeframe of any material that has non-negligible vertical compliance. That is just marketing fluff.
I have a bike made with True Temper OX Platinum steel and it is my favorite bike by far. It is a very light frame, but that is not what I like about it. Steel (and titanium) frames can be made with tubing of a much smaller diameter than that of aluminum or carbon. I believe that the tube diameter (and associated stiffness) is what people are feeling when they talk about the difference between bikes.
If you make a steel bike with tubing that is indistinguishable from aluminum or carbon, I am not surprised that nobody can tell the difference!
>custom
Sure, but that's pretty pricey compared to off-the-rack carbon or aluminum.
What was the actual conclusion of the study you remember? That there's no difference? Because that seems like a questionable thing to conclude, and it makes me wonder how they controlled for other factors like frame and bike weight, differences in geometry, etc.
Most serious riders are also cultivating a relationship with a local shop, and that drives some choices, too. For example, when I bought my bike, I did slightly prefer the one I bought (a Specialized Roubaix) over the endurance-geometry offerings from Trek, Cannondale, Giant, etc. However, the other part of the decision was that I liked the shop in question MUCH MUCH more than any of the other shops, in terms of location, vibe, friendliness, overall impressions, mechanic repuation, etc. I would've bought from this shop even if the bike they were selling wasn't my first choice, as long as the margin was small (and they were).
Steel makers don't have that dealer network.
"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is: Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern."
More to the point, however, I think that human minds often handle perception in general, but the problem of objectively observing the subjective is somewhat less tractable.
Vibrations from the road is not something I've ever considered since it has not been a problem in any of the bikes that I've had.
My primary considerations when considering a bike would be: * Price * Durability * Cargo support (like basket and rear hub)
A perfect example of this is the Cannondale CAD3. It had a massive downtube and huge (straight) seat stays as well. It was extraordinarily stiff and terribly unpleasant to ride, for most. Cannondale improved that to some degree by using S-shaped seat stays on the CAAD4 making the frame a less-efficient conductor of vibrations.
Modern aluminum bikes use hydroformed tubes with optimized shapes and shouldn't really have these problems. Unless you're talking about something with an aluminum fork. That's just a cheap bike. Aluminum forks are terrible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WpGsJKVhZY
Thank you. I kinda always wondered how bike frames were made. This is really cool.
Source : I've shortened a lot of forks.
As to what's rare, hell if I know. Aluminum forks are fairly common on low to mid-tier bikes and the cheap ones tend to suck.
I biked 20km back and forth to school daily for six years, and 80km road trips are not something out of the ordinary. I don't think I've ever noticed anything about vibration. But that is in the countryside of the Netherlands, with flat terrain and good roads.
The worst thing I ever had was stiff knees for a week after, from inflammations caused by biking in too high a gear for too long.
Try to do a blind test on yourself sometime, with the same tires and tire pressures.
I don't notice "vibration" at any distance unless its nasty chip seal at which point nothing will save you short of a mountain bike.
Based on the table below by "stiffness" they mean Young-modulus. None of these quantities describe damping of vibrations in a material. Also Young-modulus and density determine the longitudinal vibration transfer speed (this is what they list in the table). So saying "coupled with low vibration transfer speed" is a bit misleading.
If you made a bell out of cast iron instead of bronze, it would still ring, but it would ring for a shorter duration. This is because cast iron has higher internal damping than bronze. It is a viscoelastic effect, in that energy lost is proportional to the speed of movement (strain rate) within the material.
I imagine that most of the discussions about bike frame damping are not focused on this viscoelastic damping effect, but are more focused on the dynamic shock absorption effects that are a consequence of the mass and stiffness differences embodied in different frames. When you change frame material, you change so many other variables (tube wall thickness, etc) of the frame that a real apples-to-apples comparison is weird.
While touring a newly-constructed home a few weeks ago, I saw what appeared to be floor joists constructed out of thin, cheap particle-board. It turns out that they're made of engineered wood, and are actually stronger than an equivalent sawed wood beam.
For any home woodworkers, I don’t recommend working with OSB or particleboard. However, OSB is moderately waterproof, which neither of the others is.
Yeah - MDF and SNOW do not a happy tree house make.
The MDF sops up water like a sponge and deteriorates into its constituent particulate... which really sucked because our fort had two levels....
We built a house on the truckee river and there was a giant glue-lam beam that was used for the main truss of the roof. It had to be custom ordered from some manufacturer, and when I asked my dad why we were using that, he talked about how the glued laminate layers were stronger than a single material beam.
The grain patterns in OSB look a lot like those in parts made of forged carbon, and provide a similar purpose.
The light weight means you can ship a huge number on the back of a truck, and they stack more efficiently than 2x8s or 2x10s.
With a 20 cm drop the velocity is 4.95 m/s, or a pretty average bicycle pace (11 mph, 18 kph), ridden directly into a wall. All things considered, a 4-5 mm deformation isn't that bad. As long as it isn't splintering or splitting, which would be dangerous, the bike isn't going to see much forces in that specific direction. Rider weight doesn't matter because the rider will immediately be thrown over the handlebars.
In more realistic scenarios like hitting a curb or dropping the bike, the force will be much more vertical, which will give a several-times-higher mechanical advantage due to the fork rake. The tires will also absorb a lot of the shock loads.
In general wood doesn't lose strength from being beat up, no. Wood construction standards (which admittedly, I know only the basics about) usually assure you that dents and surface defects are not a big deal. The strength in most woods (particularly soft woods) comes from the fact that they're very fibrous and anisotropic, so when they're dented it usually moves the fibers around without actually breaking them.
A bike with cheap 23c tyres at 150psi will rattle the fillings out of your teeth.
The same bike with decent 25c or 28c tyres at e.g. 50-70psi (depending on rider weight) can float along with a magic carpet like ride.
That "magic carpet" ride does come at a price but it is not monetary: the softer the tyre, the more resistance and with that the slower the ride.
Unless you're riding on a velodrome, pumping your tyres up to 120+psi doesn't decrease rolling resistance, infact the the opposite is true. If the tyre can deform around small bumps it rolls much more easily. This is why very expensive and fast tyres have casings with a high thread count (sometimes even made of silk) so they are more supple.
Something else to take into account is the aerodynamic trade off as tyre width grows. I think I read somewhere that 25mm is roughly the sweet spot. What you gain in lower rolling resistance by going up to 28mm you loose in drag. That's a bit anecdotal (sorry) but I have heard it mentioned in a couple of places. The best source I could come up with was from Zipp's web site.[2]
Of course that might well be worth it to be more comfortable if it means you can keep your body in a more aero position as that will dwarf any loss from the tyres (again a guess).
Hopefully there's some numbers somewhere to back that up. Maybe Bicycle Quarterly or Tour Magazine might be a good bet for anyone interested.
Also https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/ is always very interesting ...assuming you obsess over bike tyres as I'm sure everyone does. :P
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clk_LLBYFzA [2] https://zipp.com/support/faq/faq.php
My 23c handmade FMB tubulars (definitely not cheap) are a much nicer ride than cheaper tyres.
Rolling resistance is far more complicated, on anything other than a wooden velodrome, the road surface actually means that there is a sweat-spot in terms of pressure - too low and rolling resistance will be high, as you say, this decreases up to a point at which the effects of the microbumps in the road start to cause energy losses through hysteresis and eventually the tyre bouncing over tiny bumps.
For a 23c tyre and a 70kg rider the optimum tyre pressure is actually typically in the 80-90psi range (5.5-6ATM) although again this is dependant on tyre quality, an expensive tubular tyre with very supple silk sidewalls can be run at higher pressure than a touring tyre with tough reinforced sidewalls.
In other words, I use my bike as I use my motorbike: as a form of transport. Maybe that takes a different approach, maybe not, as said I don't know how you use your bike. What I do know is that I generally don't hold with the 'cultures' which form around specific areas, no matter whether it is biking (silk-walled handmade tyres adapted to your personal preference), audio (audiophile-grade left-turning 99.999999% oxygen-free oriented-strand meteoric copper power cables), food (organic free-range lettuce grown on virgin soil from heritage seeds fertilised with certified manure from Swiss highland cattle) and other such things.
And tire construction. Though price likely does not correlate well with how supple the tire construction is.
To clarify - vibration that it best dulls is 'road buzz' which you can really get on a alu bike, esp with high pressure tires. A carbon seatpost and seat can be as little as £50 for both - I got my seat post from wiggle and seat from china - happy with both - and recommend to all my friends.
Yes this will have little impact on 'bumps' - though the saddle def soaks some of them up.
I posted this to refute that 'only' tires have an impact on ride - frame, wheels, seat post, saddle, bars and bar padding, shorts etc can all have a positive impact on ride - and allow you to ride at a high tire pressure and get all the benefit of lower rolling resistance.
I’ve got tubs on my TT bike but for general summer riding I like latex tubes in clinchers. Latex seems to be more resistant to pinch flats as long you take care fitting them. Spare tubes are butyl but not had to fix a latex puncture in the last 2 years.
(Winter and commute bikes are butyl for convenience)
If a frame absorbs some of that vibration, it is naturally going to absorb some of your energy. So "harshest" ride quality isn't exactly the term I'd assign to aluminum.
Of course that would make wooden bikes a matter of taste, and not superior by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it's safe to assume each rider has a different utility function, in some cases drastically different. "Extraordinarily impractical" bikes may very well have other upsides for a particular rider that outweigh the disadvantages for them.
And some bikes are impractical in one way but extremely practical in another, like folding bikes. I have no experience with them myself, but I expect the riding experience to be mediocre. But the ability to fold them up and take them with you is fantastically useful.
I pretty much only use fixed-gear bikes for city riding, even in cities like San Francisco and Seattle with tons of hills (albeit one with handbrakes — I'm not suicidal). I like the way they look and feel, and there are other benefits (generally cheaper, easier to maintain, etc) but the main thing I like is the "impracticality". Cycling is my main form of exercise, and on any given day the bulk of my moving-around time might be biking to/from the coffee shop or my coworking space. The inefficient energy consumption and increased cardio is a feature.
Engineers have tried to measure efficiency differences between different types of typical road frames and been unable. This isn't really an important effect in terms of how fast you go, even if it feels better. Most of the energy in frame flex seems to be returned.
I don't think you could justify spending that amount of money on a bike unless it is one of your life's deepest passions. Which seems rare.
Does the quality of bikes really change that much when you go up the price range, for amateur users?
But the "amateur using pro gear" is widespread, not just in cycling. And what's acceptable is a matter of culture. I've noticed that a person riding a $4k bike will get criticized by someone who drives a $40k car, with no irony.
I'm an amateur musician, but I play a professional quality instrument. It really comes down to the sheer enjoyment of it. My instrument won't get me into the Chicago Symphony, but it sounds nice in my living room. And it still cost less than many pleasures that people afford themselves.
At first glance, the wooden bike has to be for someone who is interested in the aesthetics and novelty of it.
Disclaimer: I ride a bike that I assembled from mostly spare parts for less than $100.
If you want specific solutions things often get expensive. And yes there is a world of differens from a €1000 bike to one that costs €4000.
For most riders, going above an entry level carbon fiber bike with Shimano 105 components and alloy rims is probably overkill. That price point is between $1500 and $2500US, depending on manufacturer and other options.
If you're a larger rider, getting a better grade of carbon frame is worth it. I'm about 98kg, so I took that option. My bike was $3500US, but still with alloy rims.
Wheels matter a LOT. The next step up in the Specialized line that year was exactly the same in all respects except wheels (carbon, aero) and price ($5,000US).
The other thing you see in nicer enthusiast bikes is electronic shifting. This adds, say, $800 to $1500 to the price vs. an equivalent cable-pull bike. It sounds insane, but it's really quite nice -- and never goes out of adjustment.
Disc brakes are taking over as well, but still command a slight premium. I don't have them because I live in a flat place, but if I lived in northern California or Colorado, they'd be a no-brainer -- they work WAY better on long descents or in the wet.
Oh, and if you want titanium instead of carbon, well, the whole game STARTS much higher. The most common ti frames I see are from a company called Moots; entry level for the frame alone is about $4000US -- more than my bike was originally.
Obviously, I don't see ti bikes except under fairly well-heeled riders MOST of the time (there are exceptions) -- but I see lots of normal middle class folks on $2500-$4000 (retail) bikes. That's kind of the default in the groups I ride in. Going higher is possible, but of limited utility. Going lower means you have a bit less fun, honestly. They didn't all pay full price or buy new, but that's the grade of bike around me on most rides.
Even the Tiagra line is very good these days. Aside from the 11th cog on the 105's, I'd say that they're pretty even in terms of performance. Especially in regards to shifting.
The maxim in the cycling community where I live is that 105 is fine, but Ultegra is worth it if you can afford it, and Dura Ace is just showing off. I think that's pretty accurate.
(Of course, it probably needs updating for Di2/eTap...)
I don't think you've spent a lot of time around bikers!
“full spec” is $16k.
Carbon bike disintegrates at 107 MPH
And don't buy a bike without knowing the full history and paperwork, otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot by supporting criminals and raising your chance of having your bike stolen in the future.
This (obviously) precludes you from cycling anywhere you might want to go (home, the shops, your friends houses, a restaurant, a bar, a cafe).
If you restrict yourself to parking in locations with cameras (e.g. stations), your bike will still probably get stolen, especially if it is expensive (I know people who have had their bikes stolen from station bike parks with cameras). I myself had the front wheel stolen from my bike that was parked between 3 CCTV cameras, next to a busy metro station, next to a shop with a security guard, and across the street from the main police station in the city.
That works well as long as you only want to ride between places with secured parking locations with gated access and cameras.
In the US I have noticed a bit of a disconnect between bike hobbyists (put your bike in your car and drive to the place you want to ride) and people whose bike is their primary mode of transportation. I'm sure it's different in the Netherlands, but a lot of places here you're lucky to find a single bike rack near your destination. "Secured parking locations" don't exist outside of the occasional upscale apartment complex.
I can sadly say from experience that this does not help when you live in student housing.
Also, one lock? You've been lucky. Two locks of different brands is a better bet (junkies tend to specialize in unlocking one particular type quickly)
On the other hand I find it incomprehensible how someone would spent more than 10K for a car that for me seems to offer only very marginal advantages day-to-day. For vacations cars are nice, but then I can just rent one or go by train/plane too.
Still, I either go on a 50 mile type ride where I'll not be stopping until I return to base, a local training ride (similar), a cafe tour - where I'll be able to sit either where I can see the bike or right next to it, or I just leave it at home and take my 'rough bike' (the comedy but that the rough bike is actually also worth a whack - but I've just made it look terrible).
Moving to riding a £1500 from a £200 is like night and day - the first time I rode a full carbon it was amazing, even though the gains were marginal, and comfort and ride were outstanding.
I'd not tried them, but seeing friends with £9k or more bikes, I can imagine that yes they do offer marginal gains, and other things that make the ride better - is it 'worth it? Who knows - but if you have the money and a passion for your hobby, then why not? I'm sure to my parents they couldn't understand why someone would want a £1k phone or ipad when theirs work perfectly for their needs.
And with a good lock, I don't really worry about theft.
On a related note, I see Renovo Hardwood Bicycles shut down earlier this year.
I have had several bikes stolen from me - its such a horrible feeling when that happens.
For everything else, there's Citibike.
Perhaps you mean status signal? I don’t think having a bike is rare enough in Europe to be considered virtue signaling anymore.
You think that because you don't realize how much harder it is. Like it takes significantly more power, turns much worse, and is much less comfortable.
Solid rubber tires exist though you are welcome to try!
I used the latter almost exclusively for years on thousands of miles of urban rides in Houston, and almost NEVER got a flat. I finally switched to a softer more supple tire when I bought some new wheels this summer, and they are WAY more comfortable and a bit faster, but I've had two flats since I bought the damn things.
It's all a tradeoff.
“Without an inner tube, you can run lower tyre pressures without the fear of a pinch flat, meaning a more comfortable ride with more grip. And if anything sharp does puncture the tyre, the liquid sealant inside will quickly fill any holes”
https://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/best-road-bike-tyres-...
Over the past 5-10 years there's been a trend towards wider rims, thankfully. Before that, a lot of road bike frames couldn't even FIT a wheel over 25mm wide!
tubeless tires are commonly used along with sealant, which helps, but you can put sealant in a tire with tubes as well.
2. Stiffness. While not good for every day usage, it is good if you want to go fast. All energy absorbed is wasted as heat or vibrations (e.g. sound).
You're not riding the Tour de France when you're commuting to work or riding as a hobby.
Although, elite racers are ultra-fit people in their teens to twenties and are quite a different demographic than the typical high-end bicycle consumer-- which is males in their 40's and older with some disposable income and a bit of a mid-life crisis going on (I'm one).
The wooden bike idea comes around every once in a while, the last one I remember was bamboo. I think it makes a viable frame material but they're very much "a look" rather than some kind special material that provides any specific "ride quality".
It is totally possible to have a "quality ride" with any frame material you want: steel, carbon-fiber, titanium, aluminum or wood.
When it comes to a "quality ride" people underestimate the importance of three things: 1. Their own fitness, 2. The fit/geometry of the bike and 3. The most simple thing of all, tire selection.
To dampen vibrations as soon as possible, you want very high stiffness.
That's not to suggest a wooden frame is less durable, but just an anecdotal calibration of what my expectations are.
[citation needed]
It wouldn't go.
I can't understand why so few people cycle.
Rain, snow, hills, sweat, cargo, parking, theft, [getting hit by] cars, maintenance.
I have two bicycles, and I'm considering a bikeshare subscription, because hauling them up and down three floors and maneuvering them around a tiny apartment is annoying.
Unrelated, but I was hit by a car on bike to work day.
Not sure about North America. So many fast moving heavy vehicles and poorer weather don't make eBikes for the masses as appealing.