Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

Because the bike industry is currently switching over from rim brakes to disc brakes, you can get some pretty good deals on older (but still brand new) road bikes if you look around. A few months ago I bought a carbon road bike for less than $1,500 including tax. Granted expect to spend at least as much on accessories, but if you live somewhere where you can use it for both commuting and exercise then it still pays for itself pretty quick.

View on HN

This is the whole problem with American bicycle culture summarized in a single post. There’s way too many carbon-fiber sports bikes and not anywhere near enough step-through town bikes with panniers, fenders and lights.

The basic issue is that in Amsterdam most trips are only a mile or two, whereas in NYC it's often a 10 or 15 mile commute between home and work. But yeah if you're only going a couple miles on mostly flat terrain then no question a commuter bike is a better choice.

I don't think that's right. Most of my bike rides are about 1-3 miles. When I commute to work it's about 6 miles and that's farther than most people bike here.

I think the statement is "most NYC commutes are longer than Amsterdam commutes, so chances are lower that each commute could be done by bicycle".

My commute would be almost six miles by bicycle. I'm not especially looking to replace the subway with a bike trip.

My commute would be almost six miles by bicycle. I'm not especially looking to replace the subway with a bike trip.

We cycled 8 miles to high school every day (so, 16 per day). Cycling 6 miles is not a lot, unless you have to stop every minute at a traffic light.

Up till 1.5 year ago (when I wasn't working remotely), I cycled 7 miles to work every single day (also through rain and snow). For good measure, I'd take an extra hilly route the way back twice a week for some extra exercise.

> Cycling 6 miles is not a lot...

If you say so. It is for me. It's not only a long distance (google maps says 35 minutes, which I suspect is an underestimate), but also would be significantly inconvenient -- do I shower at work, and when I get home? What if I want to go somewhere after work -- leave the bike and come back for it?

I love the idea of biking, but I don't see it being useful for my commute.

Fundamentally there is no transportation solution to land use problems. If your destinations are inconveniently far apart, no bicycle, tram, bus, or train can fix that. The closest you can get to the convenience of a car without all the externalized social costs is an electric bicycle.

I have an average commute, I'd say, for NYC. It's not like I'm some sort of supercommuter (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-super-comm...).

I don’t doubt it but statistically New York has a very high average commute time compared to other American cities.

> do I shower at work, and when I get home?

Observation: those who bike fast and get sweaty or live far shower at work. It is typically quick shower. No idea what they do at home.

Slow people who dont sweat dont shower at work.

And commuting even a couple miles on Philadelphia roads is basically like off roading at times - and San Francisco hills are legendary in their own right. I was rattling my brain out of my skull trying to deal with rough Philly roads in the winter and a proper carbon bike with good brakes/ability to stop on a dime if a crazy driver is cutting me off (I have heard legends of these things called "protected bike Lanes" - I hope to see one someday...) was a godsend.

On rough roads I’ve never been happier than on my longtail Xtracycle Edgerunner. With the seat post far removed from the axle, and a flexible steel frame, and Big Apple tires, it is ultra-comfortable.

That sounds like a sweet ride - glad you found one that works for you. I got a trek something (one of those cases where the fancy version from last year was on sale because the new model has cables inside instead of outside and made it obsolete or something) and it's been awesome. It also got me into cycling for fun as well - and again - Philly streets, it's been nice to have something able to stand up to it instead of what I had before haha

If you have further to go you’ll be even less happy with the sporting bike because it can’t carry your stuff. The solution to long distances is electric bikes, not sports bikes.

There’s a huge range of bikes between ones so sporty that they can’t take a rack and fenders, and step-through city bikes.

Here’s a typical example, it has an endurance geometry and has mounts for a rack: https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/road-bikes/gravel-b...

Amsterdam has humidity and weather in which parts corrode. And bikes get stolen often. It just does not make sense to buy expensive bike that gonna get damaged fast or stolen fast.

Eh, the trend now is for steel bikes that can ride anywhere with braze ons for accessories. It’ll just take a while for it to catch on.

If you can't bring your bike inside your building then no question steel is the way to go. NYC has some laws to encourage building owners to provide bike storage though, e.g.:

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicyclists/bikesinbuildin...

Or you can buy a $500 no frills quality bike or a $200 bike shaped Walmart thing.

The problem with the bike shaped Walmart thing is that it is absolutely irreparable.

Got a $200 bike shaped thing first thing when I got a job (technically Kmart but otherwise the same). Dumb mistake. The crank gear bent out of shape before too long, just from applying pedal power to climb a hill. On another bike, that’d be $20 in parts and $40 in labor maybe? On this one it was basically impossible as it was not designed to be replaceable or even serviceable and I had to throw the bike away.

Never mind that they're assembled by Walmart employees who have no idea what they're doing, and can be quite unsafe. You wouldn't buy a $10 airbag replacement for a car, and you shouldn't buy the cheapest bike possible. This is safety equipment; a failure at speed can be quite injurious to your body.

Exactly. Cheap bikes are made out of aluminum, which can fail at any time without warning and cause injury or death. Much better just to pay extra for carbon / steel / titanium. Carbon still fails, but there are more likely to be warnings first, and even if it does fail completely you're not likely to puncture a lung or whatever from it getting impaled through your chest. Steel and titanium shouldn't fail at all unless you're in a bad accident first. Bikes are great, but you need to take seriously the fact that they can cause serious injury or death.

Where are you getting this from? Carbon fiber is more failure-prone than aluminum is. There are some very nice bikes made out of aluminum (up to the several thousand dollar range). Steel vs aluminum is more of a choice in ride comfort vs weight.

Aluminium is fatigued with use over time, so will at some point fail, even if it's not subjected to major trauma. (This is opposed to steel which is only fatigued by major trauma, and carbon fibre which cracks when you look at it wrong.)

This seems like an overblown concern. How often are aluminum frames actually failing? How many miles and how many years do you have to put on one before it fails? And how do these figures contrast with steel? And don't forget that steel is more susceptible to rust than aluminum is, so depending on climate and salting conditions the steel might fail first.

My aluminum road bike cost me $600 new and I have four years of daily commuting on it so far. It's still in good condition and I expect to get many more years of riding out of it. At this rate I'm gonna have it for longer than the average car ownership period in the US (which is about 7 years).

The fears are being blown out of proportion.

It is definitely an overblown concern. I just wanted to present the steel man version of the grandparent's argument.

As someone that used to be an avid cyclist. Disc brakes are almost completely pointless for commuter bicycles. Don't get me wrong they are great when mountain biking (I have cable discs on my mountain bike). On a commuter bike they are mostly just overkill IMHO. But I wouldn't buy a carbon road bike either (All my bikes are steel framed).

Disc brakes are almost completely pointless for commuter bicycles

Ignore this comment. Year-round commuting is the prime reason to buy a bike with disc brakes. Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter? Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?

Anyone want to go back to drum brakes on their “commuter” car? Yeah, didn’t think so.

I have short-reach dual pivot brake calipers on a bike which sees >2000 miles year-round each year in NYC, and my rims are still fine after 7 years.

From my experience, stopping distance is usually dictated by road conditions more than the brakes. This is with 34mm wide tires, and properly adjusted brakes (a lot of times when people complain about rim brakes, the issue is that they are not working properly).

Side note: fenders are a must!

Sure and the point is discs will much more easily stop you, the limit of the stopping power is not the brake (friction on rim) like they are in cantilevers, but with the overall physics of the system. Discs are generally in alignment, or very very obviously out of alignment (rubbing loudly), canti's have a lot more room for error.

I'd much rather have a brake system that out performs the rest of the equation than not have enough stopping power.

In Seattle, I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

> I’m not the only one on my race team that would eat rims every year or two.

This really says it all. When I am cycling to work, I am not trying out for the tour de france or trying to beat someone else's strava record.

> Fact is, rim brakes are inferior in every way to just about every alternative, save two: they’re inexpensive and lightweight.

It doesn't matter if they are inferior. My regular disc brakes on my Ford Focus is inferior in every way compared to whatever they put on a Ferrari. However they are perfectly is sufficient and safe for driving to work and back.

The best argument you can make for discs vs traditional rim brakes would be that the modulation is slightly better.

It really annoys me that a lot of cyclists seem to push very expensive kit that for the commuter is completely unnecessary.

> Ignore this comment.

Why because you don't agree with it?

> Is it overkill not to burn through a set of rims each winter?

I dunno how you are doing this. A set of brake pads last quite a while usually. I have rims from the 1990s I am still using.

> Is it overkill to have decreased stopping distance in the rain?

Your stopping distance is more about how much grip you got on the road from the tyres. You can easily lock the wheel with a rim brake, especially if you have a good set of dual pivot or V-brakes.

For commuting you don't need anything flashy or complicated (because it will be a magnet for thieves). I literally get a basic but decent bike. If the parts are basic and ubiquitous you can go to any bike shop and get it repaired or by the parts yourself. If you have fancy equipment, then it more difficult to buy a replacement.

When I was commuting on the bike still, I used an old 90s mountain bike with V-brakes and I converted it to Single Speed (the gears were knackered) and stuck some touring tyres on there. However I was cycling in Manchester which is mostly flat. It really depends where you are.

I commute year round in Germany and never had to replace my rims because of wear. They last years until I hit a curb too hard with barely any wear. Maybe it's different in other climates?

I'm a year-round bike commuter, and I really appreciate those disc brakes when I'm biking in heavier rain. Don't underestimate how much better they work than rim brakes in adverse weather conditions.

I'd say it's just the other way around; disc brakes are most useful for commuters, and least useful for dedicated race bikes, because you just don't go out racing when it's raining a lot (and you're typically on a closed course besides so there's less braking).

I live in the UK and rim brakes are fine in even heavy rain. What they are not fine with is mud and grit on the rim.

I do use a touring bike (basically a racing bike that isn't quite as aggressive) and I've ridden that all year round.

As someone who rides 2k miles a year in seattle for multiple years your attitude is why I had to pay through the nose and do all sorts of custom crap to have a decent braking solution that didn't eat my rims and worked well on steep hills and the oily wet on the rims. I'm glad that discs are finally taking over, even if it's 10 years after they should have because "they're not tour legal".

I cycled approximately 5000 kilometers per year (cycling to work + over the weekends), also through hilly terrain. I have never had my brakes eat my rims.

Also, even if they did. Replacing a 800 Euro bike once per two years is peanuts compared to owning a car or taking public transport.

Good for you, does that somehow make my experience invalid? No it's a YMMV which is why discs are important to me.

Replacing a 2k usd bike every 2 years in addition to paying for car while I try to work into cycling is a big cost. I'm a big person, I've had pretty much every rim but velocity touring rims fail due to weight and stress, and rim brakes made this worse and fail faster, it's also real shady to have a rim crack while you're riding it. Discs completely remove that from the equation.

Yeah if you're commuting in the rain or with lots of hills then disc brakes are definitely worth it. But if neither of those apply to you, they're probably not a good use of money, especially considering it still costs quite a lot to get good quality hydraulic disc brakes.

Mechanical discs are pretty cheap now and quite effective. I've had both. They're all better than canti-s

I would get rim brakes over another set of cable disc brakes. I recently got a gravel bike as my "go anywhere" bike, and the cable disc brakes are absolute garbage, constantly going out of adjustment and rubbing, making noise, or just being ineffective. As a contrast, my hydraulics on my mountain bike are absolutely fine with minimal work, just a flush every year and changing the pads when they wear down.

I had shitty cable disc brakes before. With the same complaints. I Replaced them with TRP Spyke brakes and all of that went away. I'll never lose another perfectly good wheel to rim wear. But I can see how that is a secondary concern.

TRPs are so good and so cheap. I rode Shimano XT for years, and the TRP is the only thing I’ve experienced that is better quality and more reliable while not being outlandishly expensive. Super happy with them!

Cable discs, while better than rims, still suck. I feel unsafe riding anything but hydraulics, even on the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com