Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arech | Hacker News Reader

Could be useful for downhillers but for all others the less the bike weights while maintaining strength - the better. In my experience bike weight is the single most important thing that matters the most no matter where are you going to ride - over a nice asphalt road or in a woods. It's ok to ride in the woods with overinflated tires compared to riding overweight bike... The latter is just exhausting.

View on HN

I think optimizing in weight for non-competitive riding often takes it too far. From my experience, you grow accustomed to the weight of the bike (in fact, it makes you stronger). I frequently see people on carbon frames with xtr sets or such, who could've more easily just lost a few kilograms of body fat, rather than spend literally thousands to save a couple 100 grams of mechanical weight.

It wouldn’t be half as fun to overtake them if they had a crap bike though.

Using a mountain bike on tar seal is just brutal. Even the noise sounds inefficient.

Not just downhillers, also enduro/all mountain/trail riding. I can see it being great to have tires drop to 12psi for a steep muddy section where you need the traction, come back to 30psi for stability in a hard corner, drop to 20ish to suck up some trail chatter at speed (assuming it's tubeless) then up to 50 for the ride home on tarmac.

The thing that would mainly concern me is not weight but reliability. Everything on bikes breaks eventually and the % of rides that are ruined because the auto tire inflator failed and left me with a flat has to be very low indeed. And on the occasions it does then the % of weeks riding that are ruined because it's not quick and easy to fix back at home has to be low as well. Tech has to be very, very mature before I fit it to my bike.

I used to ride a lot in a rough woods quite far away (10+km of asphalt roads) from home, making on average about 70+km per riding episode. The most convenient generic setup was "inflate the wide and grippy tires up to the limit (4 to 5 bars depending on vendor)" and off you go. It's much easier to ride with overinflated tires over asphalt and their grippiness was mostly sufficient for the most conditions in a woods. Regarding the stiffness - anyway you never ride on rough terrain sitting in a saddle, you just have to stay on peddles to maintain stability. As an added but valuable bonus - overinflated tires are much stronger to withstand puncture attemps (in fact, I can't even remember I had one for a few years back then).

So, I'm quite sceptical about that thing perspectives... I would prefer they invent more durable but cheap main components, btw, b/c that's just not right when a normal bike costs about as much as a car.

By stability I mean the tyre not squirming off sideways under a high-g corner because the pressure is low. Nothing to do with being in or out of the saddle (though I'm assuming you'd be out at this point!)

Agree the price of even mid range bikes is pretty insane though.

Tire inserts like cushcore let you run really low pressures without worrying about squirming the bead off your tire, even on hard corners. They’re really a game changer- I still run decent PSI on the daily as I do a lot of climbing, but you can lower it down like crazy if you go to the bike park or if you’re ending a ride with all downhill. They supposedly decrease rolling resistance too; not sure about that but the increased sidewall stiffness is definitely noticeable.

At last year's UCI worlds one of the riders(I forget who) had a dropper post failure, and it was depressing watching them slowly lose rank simply because of that.

Part of me wants to see all the new advancements, but I also hate it when it ruins an otherwise good spectacle or personal ride.

We also saw it with e-shifting in road, but that seems to have largely been solved. So, perhaps any problems that should arise with this could be shaken out in a couple of seasons too? </fence>

Maybe there is a market for racing and events where you're only allowed steel-framed, canti brakes, SiS index shift monstrosities? Like one of those sub-$1k car rallies or something.

Cantilevers are a pain in the ass to adjust unless you're an octopus. All of the degrees of freedom come loose at the same time with the same bolt: all three rotational axes and the coarse distance to rim are secured by the same nut. They are unemployable to work on, to put it mildly.

I could get on board with linear pull brakes though for the spirit of what you're proposing. Although maybe what you're looking for is a spec series with a really pedestrian (and affordable) component package.

I agree with you, but removing technology arms races from mainstream sport is a lost cause. The controversy around Nike's carbon plate in running shoes, and Speedo's polyurethane mix fabric suits show that not even the simplest sport are safe from it.

However... there are still a few niches.

> Maybe there is a market for racing and events where you're only allowed steel-framed, canti brakes, SiS index shift monstrosities? Like one of those sub-$1k car rallies or something.

You've kind of just described Keirin [1], as a philosophy, if not the specifics. The Secret World of Japanese Keirin Racing is a good introduction if you're curious.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keirin

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_lJLI-O-M0

I wasn't suggesting removing all technology, as I agree that wouldn't work even if I wanted it. I just liked idea of a parallel low technology track fighting the good fight against pointy helmet disc-wheeled ten rider weeknight TT. Something odd just for fun, like the 24 Hours of LeMons¹ on beaters from the shed.

I'm kind of aware of Keirin from watching track, but wasn't aware of the depth in the local market. That Chris Hoy video was great, thanks!

¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_Hours_of_LeMons

Mmm I miss scouring the internet for NJS parts. Wish my track bike hadn’t been stolen....

My bicycles are all at least 20 years old but cantilever brakes can die. The switch to v brakes made such a huge difference without adding complexity. In fact, they removed complexity, as they are so much easier to set up and maintain.

But otherwise I'm with you. As someone who went mountain biking more days than not for more than a decade, simplicity never watered down my fun.

>Maybe there is a market for racing and events where you're only allowed steel-framed, canti brakes, SiS index shift monstrosities?

The closest fit to what you're looking for is the singlespeed category :)

Yeah. I was using a lot of hyperbole in an attempt to get my point across. However, in the time between writing my earlier comment and this I've actually been out for a lunchtime ride on my fixie. Just good fun for a Friday in February!

The response here makes me think there are others who like the idea though, so I'll try to float it in the local CC forum.

Yeah. It's little wonder most people don't take cycling seriously when their experience is limited to a £100 ridiculously heavy piece of junk with under inflated tyres and non lubricated gears. I tell some people that my bikes cost upwards of £600 and they can't believe it. But if I tell them my car cost £5k second hand they're like "is that all?"

5k for your car? you could buy a bike for that! :)

And £600 is still pretty much entry level for bike pricing!

At least for mountain bikes, that's well out of the entry-level tier. Trek's MSRPs start in the $500-$600 US range for decent hardtail mountain bikes (aluminum frame, disc brakes) that are reliable and worth repairing when something breaks, unlike department store crap. $700 US is when they start giving you fancier features like hydraulic disc brakes and suspension lockout. Full-suspension bikes that are worth the trouble are definitely more expensive than that, but I don't think it's fair to say that hardtails are necessarily entry-level.

A mediocre rim brake is much more useful than a shitty entry level disc brake. Even worse if it is a mechanical disc brake which should be forbidden.

Good mechanical disc brakes exist. I have Avid BB-7's on my mountain bike, and there's a lot to be said for the fact that every mom and pop bike shop has cable and housing on hand.

Are they as nice as hydraulics? No, but they're pretty damn good and easy for anybody to maintain. At the level I ride, that's a worthwhile trade off.

I've done brake jobs on my cars and I've done every job there is to do on a bike short of replacing a headset or rebuilding a fork; I don't have a burning need to bleed more brakes.

There are some really crappy low-end mechanical disc brakes around, but the TRP Spyke and Avid BB7 are solid and commonly found on touring bikes. If you plan to cycle 30,000 km through lots of remote terrain (e.g. Alaska–Ushuaia or Europe to Cape Town via West Africa), then they are as trivial to maintain as rim brakes, without however destroying your rim.

I have cycled down some of the world's great mountain ranges, and I have never had complaints about my Spyke's stopping power.

Agreed on Spykes and BB7. Mech discs are essential for long touring... who wants to carry a bleed kit? In all other cases though, I will prefer the modulation and stopping power of hydraulics, both on the road and on the trail.

In France you can buy a very decent MTB with hydraulic brakes for less than €400. The sky's the limit if you want to spend more, of course, but for that amount of money you can get something that isn't bad at all.

Exactly!

The single most important thing is having great brakes. After that a decent enough fit from geometry to your body while not being massively overweight (the bike).

Looking at the photos, I can imagine it is even rotating. Ok-ok, it is near the axle, but you do not see racing bikes with huge internally geared hubs neither, so...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com