The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I'd love lots of updates on how the HSD is working out for you. We're moving into an urban apartment where parking is a little farther away. I'm thinking of getting an e-bike to transport a kid on good weather days and as my general bike for when the wife and kids are on their own.
Two kids: 3 and 6 year old. But I expect I'll only haul one at a time. I'm deeply conflicted between getting a (probably Tern Quick Haul) long tail or short tail. Long tail seems like it would be a pain in the city to get through barriers, reposition at stop light crossings, etc.
Had a longer post but the forum ate it.
Still like the bike. Feels very agile compared the the 100 pounds long john urban arrow we got.
Didn't know the was a quick long haul now. That still looks pretty short for a long tail and we manage with the comparatively ungainly long john that has a turn radius like a car fine in 99% of trips. Like compared to a long tail with 26+ wheels, too, it looks short.
If you got two kids get a bike for two I'd say. Seems way more flexible. Also a front carrier for bags or so.
Also I'm a big fan of gates belts for a daily driver.
If you can manage to get a test ride definitely do that. I tried the quick haul, too and the lack of front wheel suspension made it feel a bit too wobbly for my taste when going over curbs and bumbs.
Yes, it's a Red Bull video so it bears very little resemblance to real-world cycling -- but the final sequence when it all works is just an incredible combination of concept, skill, camerawork, and somewhat unusually, train driving.
Finally got around to clearing out the drawer of "miscellaneous bike parts related to lights/that are made of black plastic":
I have eight (spare) brackets for a particular type of rear bike light -- which in itself is not so bad, except that I only have one of those lights any more, so I guess they seem to be a type of light that breaks/gets lost a lot and maybe I should have been buying a different one all those times?
The most unnecessary thing, though, is that not only do I have a bunch of spare handlebar end plugs:
but I also at some point seem to have thought "you know what I need more of? bar end plugs" and bought _another_ bunch of the things:
Youtube tends to think I want to watch bike trials videos. Which is fair enough, it's not wrong. The thing is, as with any video about people being good at things, they tend to occasionally make it look _too_ easy, and then I'll try and do something and realise "no, it's not easy, it's just that the person in the video is really good". But there's a scale of how to present skills, and just now I wound up on the other end than usual
On one end, the classic example, Danny MacAskill. Red Bull rider, high production values, location shooting, big tricks, possibly a bit gimmicky at this point, but still very impressive stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70NBZV6z_o0
In the middle, Fabio Wibmer, who really does just make everything look easy. A lot of video editing in this one, but still very impressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsDpkyNbyBM
And today, it showed me this, which is just a guy doing _insane_ tricks. I don't know I've seen someone use a bike to climb up obstacles as if he was a mountain goat like that before; this is very close to just "doing parkour while holding a bike". And it seems like they just went to the seaside, one of his mates got his phone out and that was how they filmed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLd1w0NvWHo
The descent after the cannon jump, or the rail sequence after that, are some of the most "well, I guess it must be possible because he did it" things I've ever seen. And, I mean, I can work out how the physics of it all happened, but his ability to control weight and momentum so precisely is just ridiculous.
One of my parents is looking for a bicycle with small tires for ease of use - I'm not familiar with this stuff or if they're good. Anybody have experience with these things?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
One of my parents is looking for a bicycle with small tires for ease of use - I'm not familiar with this stuff or if they're good. Anybody have experience with these things?
From my experience with an electric Tern shorttail I have to say the small wheels do not nessecarily make the bike easier to handle. it drives pretty dynamic and wiggly, compared to a bike with larger wheels.
So depending on what they mean with ease of use a regular bike with a step through frame might be the better choice.
I daily drove a Brompton for 5 years and put a few thousand miles on it. The tiny wheels definitely don't make it easier to handle. The fact that you're sitting up so far away from them actually feels a lot worse at first and like honovere said can feel a very "wiggly."
Like anything, though, you can get used to it and there were a few occasions that I ended up doing 10+ mile trips on it after missing a train, or the train getting cancelled, or the train being delayed by hours and I never hated the experience.
Going back to a proper racer bike was very weird after spending so long with the Brompton.
The one about the fucking space hairdresser and the cowboy. He's got a tinfoil pal and a pedal bin
Dahon is another one that does a lot of decent small wheel options
The thing about small wheels is that they make the bike a lot more sensitive to surface quality. On a perfectly smooth road/path there's not much in it, but a pot hole that a typical 26" or 700c wheel will just roll over will swallow a small wheel (especially very small wheels like the 16" wheel bromptons). As a rule it's a design choice that is trading off ride quality to reduce the overall size of the bike.
honovere is probably right that they might be thinking small wheels = easier to ride which is not straightforwardly true, so it's likely worth unpicking why they think they would prefer small wheels
Honestly even just bumping down to 26 or 650b should be enough of a difference in reducing standover height to appease folks while still having a usable seat height, relative to 700c
Yeah, big wheels are better for bumps and other stuff, they just steer a little slower. It's why mountain bikes have largely moved to 29 fronts - smooths out the terrain.
They want a beginner bike for shorter people that's stable and can be used for pretty even terrain, cheap but also portable in the back of a SUV, before graduating to a more standard bicycle. They're older and don't want to go fast or fall. They don't want training wheels or a trike, and they're looking at bikes for kids but want the wheels even smaller.
I wish I could have them try out different styles of bikes to actually see how these styles change the ride, but the portability factor will limit the options too. Step through sounds interesting.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The gyroscopic effect also means that bigger wheels will be slightly more stable than smaller wheeled ones - it's slightly counterintuitive, but you should be on the biggest wheel possible. I would look at foldable "Cruisers" or similar as they'll probably have the right geometry/ergos for what they want.
It kinda sounds like they don't know about larger wheels being easier to handle than smaller ones. Everything seems like a regular bike would be better for them except the transportability in the car.
I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure there's some large wheel foldable bikes, too.
Edit:
Tern and Montague have some. 26"+. But the frame shapes are not great for ease of use compared to a step through. And probably way more expensive, too.
Oh, and with step through frame I mean a wave frame. But, uh, fro a quick check those seem way less common in the US/English part of the internet? Not even sure if low entry bike is an actual translation for bikes with really low frame
This kind of city bike is the classic "easy to use" design - geometry laid out for stability, low stress riding position, high volume tyres, easy to mount/dismount, etc
It's worth considering that this doesn't work with certain kinds of car carrier rack, as it doesn't have a top tube. It needs to be the kind of rack that supports the wheels.
If it's in the cards I'd also go for an internal gear hub if it's for someone who doesn't care for doing mantenance, etc. But that's a minor thing
But that kind of bike was also what meant with wave frame.
Here there's also what's called "Tiefeinsteiger" low entry bike, mostly aimed at senior cyclists. One step further with the step through idea. Something like this:
Hmm, thanks for the recommendations! I think to convince them, I'd really have to take them on a test ride with different options to really illustrate the difference. I might spring for one of those step throughs as a surprise gift though
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If it's in the cards I'd also go for an internal gear hub if it's for someone who doesn't care for doing mantenance, etc. But that's a minor thing
But that kind of bike was also what meant with wave frame.
Here there's also what's called "Tiefeinsteiger" low entry bike, mostly aimed at senior cyclists. One step further with the step through idea. Something like this:
I love that cycling is so supported in some countries to make a design like that have a solid niche.
Posts
Had a longer post but the forum ate it.
Still like the bike. Feels very agile compared the the 100 pounds long john urban arrow we got.
Didn't know the was a quick long haul now. That still looks pretty short for a long tail and we manage with the comparatively ungainly long john that has a turn radius like a car fine in 99% of trips. Like compared to a long tail with 26+ wheels, too, it looks short.
If you got two kids get a bike for two I'd say. Seems way more flexible. Also a front carrier for bags or so.
Also I'm a big fan of gates belts for a daily driver.
If you can manage to get a test ride definitely do that. I tried the quick haul, too and the lack of front wheel suspension made it feel a bit too wobbly for my taste when going over curbs and bumbs.
I have eight (spare) brackets for a particular type of rear bike light -- which in itself is not so bad, except that I only have one of those lights any more, so I guess they seem to be a type of light that breaks/gets lost a lot and maybe I should have been buying a different one all those times?
The most unnecessary thing, though, is that not only do I have a bunch of spare handlebar end plugs:
but I also at some point seem to have thought "you know what I need more of? bar end plugs" and bought _another_ bunch of the things:
On one end, the classic example, Danny MacAskill. Red Bull rider, high production values, location shooting, big tricks, possibly a bit gimmicky at this point, but still very impressive stuff:
In the middle, Fabio Wibmer, who really does just make everything look easy. A lot of video editing in this one, but still very impressive.
And today, it showed me this, which is just a guy doing _insane_ tricks. I don't know I've seen someone use a bike to climb up obstacles as if he was a mountain goat like that before; this is very close to just "doing parkour while holding a bike". And it seems like they just went to the seaside, one of his mates got his phone out and that was how they filmed it.
The descent after the cannon jump, or the rail sequence after that, are some of the most "well, I guess it must be possible because he did it" things I've ever seen. And, I mean, I can work out how the physics of it all happened, but his ability to control weight and momentum so precisely is just ridiculous.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sounds like maybe they're talking about a fold up bike like these? https://us.brompton.com/c/bikes
There are definitely cheaper options. And electric options. That's just one nicer brand.
https://www.ternbicycles.com/en
for some small wheeled options
From my experience with an electric Tern shorttail I have to say the small wheels do not nessecarily make the bike easier to handle. it drives pretty dynamic and wiggly, compared to a bike with larger wheels.
So depending on what they mean with ease of use a regular bike with a step through frame might be the better choice.
Like anything, though, you can get used to it and there were a few occasions that I ended up doing 10+ mile trips on it after missing a train, or the train getting cancelled, or the train being delayed by hours and I never hated the experience.
Going back to a proper racer bike was very weird after spending so long with the Brompton.
The thing about small wheels is that they make the bike a lot more sensitive to surface quality. On a perfectly smooth road/path there's not much in it, but a pot hole that a typical 26" or 700c wheel will just roll over will swallow a small wheel (especially very small wheels like the 16" wheel bromptons). As a rule it's a design choice that is trading off ride quality to reduce the overall size of the bike.
honovere is probably right that they might be thinking small wheels = easier to ride which is not straightforwardly true, so it's likely worth unpicking why they think they would prefer small wheels
I wish I could have them try out different styles of bikes to actually see how these styles change the ride, but the portability factor will limit the options too. Step through sounds interesting.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure there's some large wheel foldable bikes, too.
Edit:
Tern and Montague have some. 26"+. But the frame shapes are not great for ease of use compared to a step through. And probably way more expensive, too.
Oh, and with step through frame I mean a wave frame. But, uh, fro a quick check those seem way less common in the US/English part of the internet? Not even sure if low entry bike is an actual translation for bikes with really low frame
https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/city-bike-elops-120-low-frame-blue/_/R-p-168864
This kind of city bike is the classic "easy to use" design - geometry laid out for stability, low stress riding position, high volume tyres, easy to mount/dismount, etc
It's worth considering that this doesn't work with certain kinds of car carrier rack, as it doesn't have a top tube. It needs to be the kind of rack that supports the wheels.
But that kind of bike was also what meant with wave frame.
Here there's also what's called "Tiefeinsteiger" low entry bike, mostly aimed at senior cyclists. One step further with the step through idea. Something like this:
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I love that cycling is so supported in some countries to make a design like that have a solid niche.