Willamette Week shares their bicycling beefs
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on August 20th, 2007 at 10:00 am
“cry for attention”.
(Photo: Jonathan Maus)
This week’s edition of the Willamette Week is all real wank-fest. They rant away on all sorts of stuff, including bikes.
Here are the bike-related things that made it into their “kvetchfest” issue (emphasis is mine):
-
Double-Tall Bikes
They may be channeling absurdist Parisian street performers—ahem, Alberta Street Clown House—but riding a double-tall bike is just impractical. Is dismounting an excuse to show off your tumbling skills? We’re all impressed by your creativity with a welding torch, but commuting on a 9-foot-tall Schwinn is a cry for attention.
Cyclists on Busy Streets
If cyclists want to cruise down Southeast 39th Avenue at rush hour, they have the right. Even if just two blocks east runs a nearly traffic-free designated bike route down 41st Avenue (most busy thruways do have nearby parallel bike routes). But a philosophical argument about right-to-the-road won’t be much consolation when an ER doc is stapling your face back onto your skull. Drivers ought to watch for bikers, but they often don’t. And even in Portland—America’s most bike-friendly city—plenty of drivers resent anyone without a motor. For instance, everyone’s grandpa.
Fixies without Handbrakes
We’ll probably get shot for saying this. Fixed-gear bikes have a sleek, minimalist appeal that’s made them the steed of choice for Portland’s cool kids. Unfortunately, the price for their simple elegance is impending death. They’re called “track bikes” because they are meant for the track. As in a controlled, traffic-free environment that goes on in one theoretically endless circle. Hence, no need for separate brakes. There may be a handful of street riders who can actually safely handle a fixie in your modern urban environment. But our completely unscientific survey reveals that 8.14 out of 10 fixie riders are in it for the image (think about Portland’s low helmet-to-biker ratio) and don’t really know how to ride them. A handbrake might hurt your bike’s clean lines, but can you really count on those spindly, vegan legs to do your braking in a pinch?
I realize this was partly done just to stir up emotions and get people talking. But what do you think? Are WWeek staffers just trying to get attention, or are these legitimate beefs?
[Given what happened on Friday, I found the reference to riding on low-traffic streets tragically ironic.]
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
August 20th, 2007 10:08
Willy Week is alot like most of Portland, it thinks far to much of itself, and it's own importance.
August 20th, 2007 10:10
Oh gee Jonathan, you asked for it.
This ain't going to be pretty.
Fixie brake/helmet flamefest #385.
August 20th, 2007 10:15
as for the WW, this sounds like their cry for attention.
i'm going to keep ridin' while playing my tiny violin on my no brake fancy 70's track frame that i will convert to a double one day from the skills i got from the UBI. phewwwww!
August 20th, 2007 10:18
I read the WW only when nothing else is available. It sure is not what it used to be 20 or so years ago. Did anyone else notice the cover artisle was very short? And short on any substance?
The Mercury is twice the paper the WW is.
I think a lot of what the WW does is attention whoring. Hence the inflammatory statements in the article, and not solely aimed at bicycles.
August 20th, 2007 10:20
... can you really count on those spindly, vegan legs to do your braking in a pinch?
HA! hahahahahaha! Funniest thing I've seen all day. Spindly.
August 20th, 2007 10:26
"Are WWeek staffers just trying to get attention, or are these legitimate beefs?"
Both, I think.
Riding a recumbent, I can't really chastise another for pedaling something weird, but that is a long way to fall.
The other week I saw a guy riding in a lane of the St John's Bridge. Yes, the sidewalk zigzags at the towers suck, and cyclist have a right to the road, but WW nailed this one.
Those who possess the skill to ride a fixie well, my hat's off to you. Judging from what I see though, I'm think WW has it right. Fixies also seem to be the #1 runners of redlights. Coincidence?
(PS What are those things in their spokes? They never stop, so I've never had a good look.)
August 20th, 2007 10:26
Maybe WW thinks bicyclists should all be wearing camouflage and riding on back streets.
It wouldn't have been my choice to base a whole issue on one kid writer's pet peeves.
August 20th, 2007 10:28
WW's bike article covered a couple of months ago about "building a Frankenbike" was weak! not only did they blatantly show inaccuracies and lack of bike knowledge but they used cuss words in the article, in my opinion, as an attempt to generalize the bike community and use some lame attempt to reach this group. You tell me who is crying for attention! WW isnt near the mag The Mercury is and I think they are grasping at whatever they can to regain some of their readership..
August 20th, 2007 10:43
Personally, I think I think it was just to stir up tension, for no apparent reason. Who cares why somebody rides a double-tall bike? Attention? Machismo? So what? Why worry about it? The fixies, I can see their point. Riding on busy streets? I can see their point too, but I also think, cyclists having every right to the road as anyone else, the WW and the motorists can shove it.
August 20th, 2007 10:47
I've always been a bit perplexed about tall bikes myself, though they do look like fun to ride and I guess that's reason enough.
JE those things in people's wheels are cryptically named "spoke cards". Usually they're given out at alleycats and are kept as souvenirs though sometimes I think some kids use them purely for decoration.
August 20th, 2007 11:00
#6: 39th is high traffic, but the St Johns bridge isn't. The ODOT traffic engineers say that the thing can handle the all the traffic that it sees just fine with one lane in each direction, the only reason there are two is simple so that people can pass slower traffic, (like bicyclists.)
However, some sharrows would be appropriate there.
August 20th, 2007 11:01
There are 2 big advantages (among others) to riding a tall bike.
Seeing and being seen.
At that height you can see over the cars in front of you and can better see approaching hazards.
You're also more likely to be seen by a driver contemplating turning or pulling out in front of you.
There are some that believe you will fare better in a collision since the bike will take the initial impact.
The complaint that they are trying to get attention ought to be rethought since it is very smart to try to get the attention of driver's eyes when on a bike.
August 20th, 2007 11:09
One advantage to a tallbike is you have better visibility in two ways:
1. You are up high and you can see over the tops of cars, sometimes even SUVs.
2. Cars see you. They look, they point, they laugh. So you make people happy, which isn't quite they same as seeking attention. I think those you don't have the guts to do what they want because of what other people might think are the one who will always say that people who are different from the norm are "seeking attention". It makes them feel better about not doing what they want because they are too much of a conformist. I get mostly get thumbs up, laughing, smiling, and waving on my tallbike. People who don't react or who scowl are just harumphing codgers, they probably don't have much joy in their lives anyways.
The perceived danger of fixed gear bikes without handbrakes is unfounded. The people who can ride them safely can outride the average cyclist all day,any day. The inexperienced "fixsters" would be just as incompetent on a bike with handbrakes and would not know enough about bikes to keep their handbrakes working well anyways. If these bikes really were fixed gear death machines, then where are the fatalities?
August 20th, 2007 11:15
I ride all the time...commute, recreation, excercise. I like all sorts of conditions including quite routes, shared lanes, fast rides, downtown riding in traffic.
However, for my safety and the safety of others the WW article makes two valid points:
1. Why bike down really busy streets? Sandy Blvd...come on. Have you ever seen the idiots commuting down Sandy? Bikers trying to navigate through Hollywood during rush hour = Idiot. These people challenge the laws and legitimacy of urban biking.
2. People more concerned about fashion than anything else. Simply put, fixies are for controlled conditions. Fashionistas with no brakes are goin to crash into somebody or something eventually...Now, some folks can ride their fixies and do a damn good job of doing it, and they control their bikes fine and do not need a brake. This is a minority of the biking population. I am talking about the folks (you know the ones) that look like they think riding a fixie without any brake is a good idea. Keep'em away from me while I am riding and make sure the ER room has enough stitches.
Flame on.
August 20th, 2007 11:26
all legit gripes. If you're offended by the material in the WW article, that means they are referring to you.
August 20th, 2007 11:27
The thing I find kind of ironic about this was Portlands's "progressive" paper ragging on bikes, while the conservative Oregonian goes all bike gaga the last month.
I think what we had was a young hotshot writer laughing at his own cleverness as he typed. I got a chuckle out of it too, but don't take his kvetching any more seriously than intended.
August 20th, 2007 11:31
I'm with Skidmark on the fixed gear issue. Where are all the dead fixed gear riders? Maybe we should drag the river?
There are, however many, many deaths each year due to auto collisions. If we reduced the speed limit to 20 mph everywhere we could eliminate virtually all of those fatalities.
August 20th, 2007 11:32
the WW has always tried (and always failed) to be snarky like the mercury.
i also think its kind of ridiculous that they complain about BIKERS crying for attention...
have we all forgot about the ENDLESS amount of enourmous SUV's, "pimped out" cars, people racing up and down the streets, blasting their stereos (and extra loud mufflers)...etc...?
its pretty funny how the WW forgets about the THOUSANDS of people on the road like that....
but instead is upset with a handful of tall bikes and track bikes.
"man, i reeeeeally can't stand those people....rolling around, NOT polluting the environment...who do they think they are?!?!?!"
August 20th, 2007 11:37
Sounds like classic WW sense of humor to me. Let us all laugh at ourselves once in a while.....
August 20th, 2007 11:37
I think **deleted by moderator** (SKiDmark) **deleted by moderator** is going to give bad cycling advice to a person that curious about cycling...and then end up hurting themselves. It is scary to see a Fixie out of control...can't imagine being on one. Their narrow type of thinking (I want to do ANYTHING I want) is healthy for a while. But most people mature.
...I don't know of many valid cycling statistics that would show the number of 'Fixed Gear Cycling Accidents'. That dataset would be interesting. Especially if we get a demographic profile of the type of people involved in the accidents.
August 20th, 2007 11:38
#14 I regularly ride sandy when I am going from my house to downtown. It is by far the fastest way to get from point A to point B and from 60th through hollywood I am usually traveling as fast or faster than most automobile traffic. I don't see any reason why I would ride 40% further instead of taking the diagonal thoroughfare.
Also if you look at the map that shows reported bike injuries and fatalities you will find that Sandy is one of the safest streets in portland. Perhaps partly because it has fewer riders than some of the bike boulevards but you'd be hard pressed to show that riding on Sandy is dangerous.
Bjorn
August 20th, 2007 11:41
I'd like to see WW do an issue dedicated to morons...in cars, on foot and on bikes. They'd have no shortage of examples or sources. PDX is infested with self-absorbed, arrongant morons who cause a lot of trouble for the rest of the population. Drives who cant drive, riders who cant ride. It's an endless source of fascination and frustration for my and my fellow bike and motorcycle riders and nobody considers themselves anything but a freaking expert.
Tall bikes are different (like recumbents)and have their own issues. Fixies (aka trendies) should only be ridden by people with riding skills (the few that there are). Skills dont come with money, ink and/or piercings. Only practice.
Only the brave, skilled and situationally aware (the few that there are)should ride on crowded (with cars) streets.
Freedom of expression shouldn't override self-preservation when it comes to riding.
Just my $.02- worth everything you paid for it!
August 20th, 2007 11:42
"I think **deleted by moderator** (SKiDmark) is the type of narrow minded fashionista"
Ginseng.. I do not tolerate this type of name-calling at all. If you continue to reference other commenters in this way you will no longer be able to comment.
Personal insults achieve nothing.
Thank you for understanding.
August 20th, 2007 11:51
Jonathan:
Please edit the personal attacks out of Ginseng's last comment and encourage him/her to remain on topic and constructive with his/her comments. And, perhaps, to refrain from the "you can't disprove a negative" logical games, because if one wants to disprove an assertion based on statistical evidence, one had better come through with one's own evidence.
August 20th, 2007 11:52
Whoops, too late!
August 20th, 2007 11:52
Fritz (#23), I totally agree that there is a mind-numbing level of self-absorbed arrogance in this town. Everyone could stand to learn a little humility, patience, and cooperation in this world, myself included.
August 20th, 2007 11:56
For all those complaining about bikes on busy streets, grow up. Or are you under the delusion that because someone rides a bike they are not entitled to use the muncipal servises they helped pay for, ie City streets.
Well since we are restricting peoples rights because of a personel prefrence, I really don't like people that are unattractive being allowed out in the daytime, can we keep them off the streets from say 7am - 8pm?
Thanks
August 20th, 2007 11:57
**deleted by moderator - SkiDmark, and everyone else, please refrain from personal back-and-forths that do not address the issue at hand or add value to the dialogue. Thanks for your understanding.**
Actually my advice to anyone trying a fixed gear bicyle for the first time is to have handbrakes and keep them until you are comfortable not having them. I recommend learning how to resist the forward motion of the pedals, hop stop, and skid, because you never know if that cable may snap. Even then I think it is stupid to have no handbrakes on a bike that has holes for them. The only fixed gear bikes that should have no handbrakes are track bikes, because the nice ones do not have brake holes.
Me, narrow-minded, what a laugh.
August 20th, 2007 11:58
Or a "fashionista".
August 20th, 2007 12:41
But our completely unscientific survey reveals that the WW is the realm of the non-expert talking through a pin-hole of a sphincter blocked by a gaggle of numerous heads all jammed in the same passage-way, screaming "Me too!" in alarmingly shrill counter-counter-counter-culture overtones. 2 bits a gander? Why, no sir, it's FREE!
August 20th, 2007 13:13
#29
"...because you never know if that cable may snap."
Well there's our hot new topic right there!
Stop discriminating against the bikes w/ brakes and gears. We want to be controversial too, damnit! Now that the deadly potential of a snapped brake cable has come to light, I feel that we should include all bicycles into the debate. Are bicycles actually safe? Should they be retired as a catastrophe of engineering?
Tall bikes. I use the inseam/waist ratio on this one. If you waist is bigger than you inseam, then you're fat. If your bike is taller than it is long, then...ummm, I hope that you have a small waist. Proportion is important.
August 20th, 2007 13:29
A 1.5mm cable snapping is much more likely than a bicycle chain snapping.
You must either fastidiously maintain your bikes, never ride old bikes, only ride new bikes with low miles,or hardly ever ride bikes, to have never had a brake cable snap. I bet it is the #2 repair behind flat tires at bike shops.
August 20th, 2007 13:32
I can only imagine how many folks over at the Willy commute by bike themselves. I think the story was their idea of polking fun at and getting differing reactions from the bike community. And I agree with others here, that the WW better get it together...because it's getting pretty tired these days. Go Merc.
August 20th, 2007 13:37
Remember one of the Neocons saying before the Iraq war that the build-up would begin in September because, "You don't roll-out new products in August", or something like that?
I saw the WW "article" as the result of a slow news month when most people are on vacation. It was prefaced with a comment about being able to laugh at ourselves, which I think we all need to do from time to time.
If I had one personal Kvetch, however, it would have to be the cavalier attitude toward safety of many of our bike community. I live on Belmont and frequently see people on busy streets...dressed in dark clothes...no lights...no helmet...iPod plugged in...maybe a frikin' cell phone to their ear. If I hit them accidentally with my van, how will I be perceived on this blog? What about my trauma from being the so-called perpetrator when the cyclist is so blatantly disregarding her safety?
I don't have answers, but I sure would like to see more emphasis on safety from all users of the road, not just a knee-jerk response to defend anyone on 2 wheels.
-Ian
August 20th, 2007 13:44
Boo Willamette Week. Seriously... Boo. I ride a "fixie" that is also a double-tall bike and it is AWESOME! No. I mean- I am AWESOME!
August 20th, 2007 14:11
The only issue I see with those who argue against running a hand brake on the fixed gear bike is that even if you are an elite, skilled Dabbylicious beast on your machine, does the aesthetic really mean more to you than your life? No matter your skills, there are situations where that brake might save your ass. Feet in the wrong spot when that truck cuts you off? You're hosed. Riding brakeless is great fun, but I guess I'm not so full of myself as to think that I won't ever make a mistake or get caught in a spot where that brake means everything.
Now, people who go brakeless without first acquiring the skills to unconsciously and ambidextrously skid, skip, resist, and everything in between? Well, them's just future Darwin award winners.
August 20th, 2007 14:14
I've never had a brake cable snap, and I fit none of your categories, Skidmark. Had a few derailleur cables snap, but never a brake cable. Snapped a few chains too, prolly 'cause each link wears down and is a potential failure site. A 1.5mm cable will hold the weight of a very fat man with no problem, so its diameter has absolutely nothing to do with how it fails; they always snap at the head or at a frayed end.
August 20th, 2007 14:24
Valid issues or not, in the context of that article, it's obviously meant to be humorous. Jeez, some of you need to lighten up and quit riding without a saddle.
August 20th, 2007 14:35
I won't shoot the kid. I'm amused by well written (22 year old?) critics. Of course, due to my own fear of heights and inexperience with a fixie I'm not referenced in his article... oh yeah except for those trips down 39th and any other busy street I need to ride on.
August 20th, 2007 14:52
I love you people who think that safety devices are some sort of ticket to invincibilty.
And the people who think the only way out of a collision is to stop. Evasive manoever anyone? Sometimes coming to a stop just puts you in the path of the vehicle, making you a sitting duck.
And my favorite are the ones who have never ridden the type of bike they are criticising and think they know everything about how they work, and who believe that just because they can't do it, nobody can.
Jonathon S,
You may fit into the "fastidiously maintain" category if you are looking for frayed cable ends, although maybe not because you let your chains wear out.
Maybe your chains snapped because they were not properly installed. Usually when a chain fails it is because the pin was not pressed in far enough. I had a chain with one link plate broken that still would not snap even though I was skidding on it (coasterbrake not fixed).
Or maybe you are just a troll trying to be contradictory.
Could a bike shop employee weigh in and tell us what is more common, brake cables snapping or chains snapping?
August 20th, 2007 14:59
The taller they are, the harder they fall. It has something to with the law of gravity, I think. Of course, being that high, one can avoid a direct impact to one’s body (think road rage and Johnny Eschweiler). Following a collision, one should be able to escape serious injury by deploying a parachute.
As for brakes, I've decided to remove them from my Porsche 959. It tops out at only 205 M.P.H.; I figure I can stop it by dragging my feet.
August 20th, 2007 14:59
I too can say I've never broken a cable (and I'm hardly fastidious about maintenance, but I do pay attention to my equipment). I've broken chains many times, but always on a geared bike, where the chain is rarely in perfect alignment; a single speed or fixie, properly installed is unlikely to break.
I think the point really is that both situations are extremely unlikely, so it's silly to bring either up.
August 20th, 2007 15:00
I never figured tall bikes were about anything except fun. My cousins used to build them. I always thought the bikes looked stupid. Certain other people probably do to, but so what? People ought to be able to have fun doing something different if they want to.
It seems highly doubtful that such bikes are going to take over more conventionally built bikes as transportation and recreation.
Poor, rather pathetic Willamette Week, a one article weekly with a lot of little news items thrown in, surviving on the revenue from escort ads in the back pages. It used to ridicule the Portland Tribune until some of its own writers fled the WW to work for that paper.
August 20th, 2007 15:11
#38 - Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.
"fastidiously"? Nah, basic maintenance works just fine.
I think the last brake cable I had snap was on my Team Murray BMX bike back around 1985. Man that bike was a piece of crap.
I now have three bikes with both front and rear brake cables (that's 6 potential failures), and I run them fairly tight. Never had a failure. Also have two bikes with coaster brakes. Took the 1971 Stingray on a Zoobomb and I'll be damned it that old coaster didn't get hot as hell, but no failure (they usually seize if/when they fail anyway).
I do still, however, have a dent in my kneecap from a broken chain - still tender after all these years. Then there was that 5 mile walk in cycling shoes after my chain broke while just pedaling along on the Springwater.
I guess individual experience lends itself to personal viewpoints.
P.S. How do those tall bikes keep from wheelie-ing on steep climbs?
August 20th, 2007 15:25
What is up...post #15 was a direct attack on me.
"Oh look, a harumphing codger..." as skids stated...and then later in post # 29..."So wonderful to have my own personal troll. Who's looking for attention? Is it you, Ginseng?"
I made articulate statements regarding the article in post 15. **deleted** (skidmark) feels that flat out insults are appropriate. I am far from Politically Correct, JMaus, but to isolate me and not get at SkidMark...
And anybody reading this post, you can see, skids is was overly defensive about his poor judgement in not using a brake...like today in the rain. I wish skidmark the best in trying to stop today.
August 20th, 2007 15:29
Avast! 40 cubits on Ginseng!
-Ian
August 20th, 2007 15:33
Ginseng,
I have edited parts of SkiDmark's comment now too.
Please realize that these comments are not for settling personal arguments with other commenters.
Also realize that I moderate comments solely by my own discretion and only do it as I have time for.
If you have a problem with another commenter, please email me directly and I will deal with it ASAP.
jonathan[at]bikeportland[dot]org
August 20th, 2007 15:35
I agree that we all need to lighten up a bit. They weren't writing a serious news piece, just a silly story. You might not agree with everything, but I think that was the whole point! I DO agree however (off bikes), that restaurants that don't take credit cards and don't tell you until you go to pay the bill (Nutshell on Williams) really suck! So there...
August 20th, 2007 15:44
Anybody who believes that this was a serious story-- as opposed to an attempt to stir a little controversy and boost readership-- might want to invest in my underwater ranch scheme...
August 20th, 2007 15:45
Not to create a fire-storm, I agree with WW on all three points.
August 20th, 2007 16:04
My track bike never sees the rain. The fixed gear bike I use in the rain has cantilever brakes on both wheels.
Interesting how painting someone as a careless idiot who can't control their bike is not perceived as a personal attack. Leave it up Jonathan, I can take it.
August 20th, 2007 16:09
First off, it is not about the cable snapping, it is about the cheap bolt, and not so great threads, holding the cable to the brake.
If the slightest backing out, or stripping of threads occurs, the cable pulls out of it's position.
This happens often and to everybody.
A properly applied chain is stronger than a brake bolt, period. (unless you buy the cheapest chain possible, you are just taking chances there anyway).
On another note, while the Mercury may be considered a rag that would be found in your kitchen, worthy of reading for entertainment value ONLY, or places to hang out and attempt to be hip;
The Willamette Week is a rag that has been overused to the point that it is covered in grease and laying on the basement floor, not even worth picking up again. Though it would probably burn brightly.....
The way they keep their readership is
1. Making sure it stays free, since no one would ever buy it.
And 2. Creating controversy such as this, about topics they obviously have no clue about.
I wish we had the "Stranger" here, the Mercury's northern relative.
I have enjoyed reading, and kind of actually learning, useful tidbits from it.
August 20th, 2007 16:20
And, after looking at the 5 bikes I have built up that I ride, which one is the safest to stop in, the most stable in, and the most reliable in the rain?
My 1989 Cannondale track bike! (which, by the way, does not have holes for mounting a redundant, and un-needed, front brake.)
August 20th, 2007 16:41
I find it interesting that every reason given for why a tall bike is an advantage, such as height, visibility, and crash resistance also applies to SUVs. That said, I hope to ride one someday.
August 20th, 2007 16:44
On a side note, no matter how stupid it is, this article is properly labeled as "Kvetching", which , unless I am wrong, is bitching about something for really no reason at all.
At least they got that part right....
August 20th, 2007 17:23
The high center of gravity is a disadvantage for both tallbikes and SUVs. I think the surge in the popularity of tallbikes is a direct response to the ridiculousness of SUVs.
They can be wheelie-prone, but it goes away if you stand up and lean forward.
August 20th, 2007 17:24
I enjoyed their foolish article.
August 20th, 2007 18:03
#55 Good point.
A quick thread title search in BikeForums.net resulted in the following.
Searched:
"Broken Chain" - 16 results, 9 about chains.
"Broken Cable" - 7 results, all shift cables.
"snapped cable" - 2 results, both shifters.
"snapped chain" - 6 results.
"brake cable broke" - 1 result.
"brake cable snapped" - 0.
"brake failure" - 1, disc related.
This is totally non scientific, and all these thread title results have specific circumstances, but I couldn't really find any discussion about brake cables breaking or failing that often.
Portland's weekly rags really aren't more than glorified high school newspapers, loving any attention that they can get.
August 20th, 2007 18:04
I meant 54, but 55 was good too.
August 20th, 2007 18:17
#44...thanks for the PS. The mental image made me laugh!
August 20th, 2007 19:19
I guess I wouldn't have realized what the WW was talking about till a couple weeks ago and the dude in front of me was riding a fixie with those slick tires. He was barely able to stop at the bottom of the hill we were rolling down. Sounds like "all fashion, no brians" to me. Survival of the fittest as my brother tells me..
As for the biking on major thoroughfares, I understand why the more fearless bicyclists want a more direct and fast route, and I also understand the frustration of motorists who also want the direct and faster route. I'm neither of those, so I'll leave that alone. I think the bigger beef is with those who don't have any lights on at all at night. If there's anything deserving of the popo's attention, it should be "fix-it" tickets to cyclists with no lights at night.
August 20th, 2007 19:59
I work at a local shop that sees a good number of repairs. broken chains are WAY more common than cables. Id even go so far as to say that broken cables are a much less common occurrence of repairs over all. I think this is due to cables being replaced before their breakage point. Usually shift performance goes downhill (for a good number of reasons) long before youd ever expect to see a cable break. We'd probably see more brake cables broken if many of the bikes out there werent running disc brakes.
that all being said. Its chains on multi-speed bike we generally see broken, not fixed gear bikes. I would say the side to side movements they constantly make under load and occasionally a poorly installed chain pin help with this problem.
August 20th, 2007 20:04
Merciful Jesus y'all need to lighten up.
August 20th, 2007 20:10
I also love how one person who does not know how to ride fixed becomes the only example of all fixed riders.
Maybe the reason nobody posts about cables breaking is because it is commonplace, and people post about chains breaking because it is so uncommon.
This chain vs. brake debate has come up before, I believe in the original "Judge Finds Fault With Fixies" and the conclusion was that brake cables breaking is more likely than a chain breaking.
I see more bikes with brakes in a sorry state of disrepair than I do fixed gear bikes without handbrakes, anyways.
August 20th, 2007 20:29
SKiDmark, has anybody ever made a brakeless fixie tallbike from children's bike frames, for zoobomb runs?
August 20th, 2007 20:40
Thanks Ayala. Kinda' funny to think about, huh?
How about some after market "Tall Bike Wheelie Bars"? Maybe with some flint steel to make sparks! I think the art bike crowd is usually into fire too. Sort of like the low riders that drag their frames on the asphalt. You could get up a bunch of speed and lean back, leaving a trail of sparks, really unnerving any sort of bicycle nay sayers.
I can see it now... whole herds of fixie tall bikes riding at night on 82nd with no lights or helmets doing wheelies and leaving streams of sparks behind.
The wheelie bars would probably be counter productive on those steep climbs though. But then again on the down hills... if it was a fixie, well there's your mechanical brake! "Well your honor, I just do a wheelie, and presto I'm stopped."
August 20th, 2007 21:00
64 "Maybe the reason nobody posts about cables breaking is because it is commonplace, and people post about chains breaking because it is so uncommon."
Obviously. Sorry, I must have had a momentary lapse of ignorance.
August 20th, 2007 21:00
Zoobomb and fixed without a handbrake is a recipe for disaster. You either have to go very slow so you can resist and skid, or be completely out of control.
A fixed tallbike has been done before. It may get done again, stay tuned...
August 20th, 2007 21:03
I find myself mildly entertained at my own reaction to these comments. On most of their "beefs" I had to admit I had a point, even if it was being presented in that lovely rant format that makes everything sound stupider (a close call of my own came to mind at the mention of 39th... got blown past REAL fast by an oddly silent car) I didn't twik until the "spindly vegan legs" comment. My vegan legs are plenty strong thank you VERY much.
Perhaps it's just that it's an attack (though a small one) on a part of my life that I've not dealt with directly before (as a vegan car-free cyclist I'm rarely accused of being weak or unhealthy) while all the others are rants I've heard many times over.
August 20th, 2007 21:21
Just kidding , SKiDmark. And curious. :)
August 20th, 2007 21:51
It is true that the sideways torque of a chain that is shifted weakens it over time.
Not so much on a bike with 9-10 speeds, as the distance the chain moves between shifts is less.
But the older, 5,6,7,8, speed drivetrains can really do a number on a chain, especially if you run the wrong gear ratios at the wrong time.
In contrast, a track chain rarely has much sideways torque, and to boot they are over built, and generally high quality.
One problem I will point out is if you are riding a conversion "fixed Gear" bike, many times the chainline is not lined up straight, due to either spacing on the hub, or bottom bracket size.
This will put a little sideways torque on the chain, sometimes just enough to make it pop off, but not break.
This is the main problem with the many janky conversion bikes we see on our streets. Many conversions are just not safe at all.
And many also have bottom bracket lockrings on freewheel hubs, which is a recipe for disaster.
August 20th, 2007 21:52
Ethan Smith claims he's from NE portland and went to Grant H.S. He seems a bit like an outsider. Does he bike? I wonder what he does when he's not writing for WW... I wonder if he's got friends in Beaverton that he drives out to visit once a week... Maybe he takes Big Burnside out there with his vehicle and sometimes there are bikers in his way... I'm concerned that he's been in Portland too long. I'm concerned that he's a bit burnt out because he can't find a real job and he's still living with the folks.
August 20th, 2007 21:54
And do yourself a favor.
Throw the damn master link that comes with a new chain in the garbage, and learn to use a chain tool properly.
Do I have to say it? Ok, I will.
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Which would be the more easily replaced master link.
August 20th, 2007 22:27
Looks like the WW is trying the pretentious approach because it works for the Mercury.
August 20th, 2007 23:56
Perhaps it's just that it's an attack (though a small one) on a part of my life that I've not dealt with directly before (as a vegan car-free cyclist I'm rarely accused of being weak or unhealthy) while all the others are rants I've heard many times over.
What, you've never had the BigMac-chompin' Chevy-drivin' WW-writin' fat-asses do the fist shakin' at yas?
**dodges brick**
Aw come on! Really, it's okay guys, it was a JOKE. At someone who's not me's expense, sure, but a joke non-the --Ow!
;P
August 21st, 2007 00:27
I am tired of hearing the word vegan.
August 21st, 2007 01:09
Banish the word vegan from fixiedom! I've got a feeling that if those people are really emulating their bike messenger idols, the way it looks that they are, they probably unhealthily chomp mickey d's and huff nicobutts just like some of the messengers I've seen riding around. Now...just joking...partially.
August 21st, 2007 02:29
I am tired of hearing the word vegan.
And I am tired. I can either get over it, accept that's how it goes sometimes, and go to sleep, or I can gripe about it and get even more worn out.
But, uh, you know...just thought you all might like to know!
August 21st, 2007 03:32
Actually, it sounds like each of the three quotes you posted is pretty much right on the money. Personally, I don't care about tall bike riders and whether or not they really are attention whores because it's all just harmless fun either way. But fixies without brakes ARE unsafe, and 99.44% of the people who ride them are doing it for fashion alone and don't know how to handle them. (The other 0.56% are on a track.) They are a danger to themselves and to others. And finally, people who ride down very busy streets are just very stupid. I repeat: VERY STUPID. With so many alternate routes, it's moronic to risk life and limb to ride in heavy, high-speed traffic. I pity their mothers 'cause someday they'll have to plan their child's funeral.
So what's behind the whining about Willamette Week's complaints? They weren't excessive or mean-spirited (or wrong). They were actually fairly nice about it. It seems like there's a knee-jerk reaction around here against any criticism from any quarter directed at anything bike related. But come on folks; stop being crybabies already. Some people DO deserve criticism, especially those who are irresponsible and unsafe.
August 21st, 2007 07:29
I remember a much different -- and better -- Willamette Week from 25 years ago. The WW of old focused on cutting-edge arts and entertainment, but also kept its finger on the pulse of city and county politics in a much more informed, mature and truly in-depth manner than it does now. (Interestingly, old WW's had more text and smaller ads.) Today's WW is largely an advertising vehicle and most of the articles are little more than pablum for the current generation of dumbed-down hipsters.
August 21st, 2007 09:02
And finally, people who ride down very busy streets are just very stupid. I repeat: VERY STUPID. With so many alternate routes, it's moronic to risk life and limb to ride in heavy, high-speed traffic. I pity their mothers 'cause someday they'll have to plan their child's funeral.
Nonsense. We're such stupid, textbook examples of human waste, getting where we're going and all, that our mothers clearly abandoned us a long long while ago...before we were even born, in some cases. Three cheers for the WW putting us in our place: out of a coincidental culture largely brought forth by a particular choice in mode of transportation made for a wide-variety of reasons, and back into the restroom wastecan. Really. Ever out of toilet paper, guys, just give a whistle. We'll come a runnin' and thank you for the pleasure -nay, the privilege!- more times than you'll ever care to remember.
August 21st, 2007 09:52
WW lost it's moxie years ago. Then, the Mercury came along. WW has become Portland's news lite rag suitable for reading on the bus, or with a Wednesday sack lunch. The Mercury is now Portland's watchdog with the sharp teeth. Surprisingly, the Portland Tribune is also now superior to the WW with better writers and more muck raking than WW has had in years.
August 21st, 2007 11:10
This is a funny article:
Yes, riding a 9ft tall bike is impractical.
Yes, riding 39th during rush hour (or any hour!) is dangerous
Yes, riding a track bike w/out brake is asking for a trip to the hospital.
August 21st, 2007 11:13
Yes, this is interesting.
I have been waiting till the time someone would mention the reality of riding on busy roads. I agree with the statement above. I have lived in portland for 6 years now. All 6 years have been spent riding a bike for my main transportation (a fixed bike with no cable brakes, it for sure has breaks) Anyway, I have learned this city like the back of my hand. There is just no reason to ride on any roads that are busy. It is asking for problems. Not only can you ride all over town avoiding major roads and intersections but if done right it is sometimes faster. People should make a bike map of the city for the true biker. Not a bike lane map but a map of how to avoid 2 ton cars and people. If you really check it out this city is perfect for bikes and avoiding cars.
As for the fixed bike comment I am afraid they are right on this one. I personaly ride a fixed bike with out cable brakes but I do not do it for cool points. The sad thing is many people do. I have even started noticing many females that are very small riding with no hand brakes. The plain science behind this is true, they probably cannot stop fast. Many men are in the same boat, it is just the new cool so lets jump on board.
As for the tall bikes, whocares. They look fun so let it be.
August 21st, 2007 11:15
John Wilmot,
Crawl back into your cave John.
"But fixies without brakes ARE unsafe, and 99.44% of the people who ride them are doing it for fashion alone and don't know how to handle them."
You have no idea what you are talking about, regarding the above quote.
That is all I have to say about that, as your blanket statements pretty much speak for themselves.
And, as far as the statements you and others have made regarding riding on busy streets?
You better keep your flock of sheep on the side roads, 'cause I will probably just scare them when I am flying by, and you will have to herd them all up again.
There is NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM with riding on busy streets.
Unless:
You do not feel you can deal with it. But just cause you can't handle the heat John, doesn't mean you have to put the fire out. Some of us still need to cook.
Bikes are not allowed on freeways. That is about the extent of their limitations.
I find it refreshing and fun to fly down Sandy, across 39th ave, hell, even down MLK, taking a lane.
I enjoy riding in traffic, especially heavy traffic. It is fun, it is a faster commute, and if you do it right, it can be a better workout.
It also increases your awareness, could feasibly be used for training for pack racing (if you get my drift)(slight joke there).
You basically called 3/4 of the readers here crybabies, and or idiots in your comments.
Definitely not the way to get a point across.
August 21st, 2007 14:21
not important beefs.
the guys and gals biking up 39th are analogous to the folks who biked at all 20 years ago. they're brave and they're paving the way for changes that will benefit all of us. as always, people from the suburbs like ww writers want to make it harder for bikes. but why should the people who have to put physical work into their transport have to go *any* blocks out of their way, while the folks getting fatter by the second in suvs get to use any street they choose? uh uh.
i don't plan to join the madwomen on 39th any time soon, but i respect them.
August 21st, 2007 14:24
Dabby states "There is NOT A SINGLE PROBLEM with riding on busy streets".
Ginseng replys "You are right, there are MANY PROBLEMS with riding on busy streets."
If you are a STRONG RIDER that IS AWARE and experienced, than sure, ride in traffic. But, there are many (emphasis on MANY) Giant/Magna (cheezy brands) riding, crooked helmet wearing, rusty chain type folks going for a spin on their bike... And they go on the roads they drive on. They should not be on 39 or Sandy or MLK...It gives people who hate bikes something to point and say "Look, another idiot" and then we are all grouped into that.
Additionally, as a voice to promote biking, seasoned commuters and urban riders need to set a safe example as encouragement to the curoius. Whipping through heavy traffic does not help the cause.
August 21st, 2007 15:28
i think it would be really cool to put a few signs up on 39th, or division or any other busy street where there are no separate bike lanes, that let bikers know that a fabulous low-traffic bike boulevard exists just a few blocks over.
i say this because even though i am familiar with bike paths in my area, when i am out in unfamiliar neighborhoods i have no idea where good bike routes are and *gasp* end up biking on busy roads. Yes i can handle them as an experienced rider, and yes, believe i have a right to be on them, but overall, I would much rather not be on one if there is a parallel bike boulevard.
from my observations people who are riding on busy streets are either the people who also blow through red lights, or unaware bikers who would probably rather not be on that street in the first place.
i think its an education issue. we need better info out to bike newbies that make them aware of bike paths/boulevards.
August 21st, 2007 15:34
But, there are many (emphasis on MANY) Giant/Magna (cheezy brands) riding, crooked helmet wearing, rusty chain type folks going for a spin on their bike... And they go on the roads they drive on. They should not be on 39 or Sandy or MLK...
Oh wise, sagely Ginseng, how do you propose these people get started on biking in traffic and build up that confidence and learn why rusted chains suck? There's only so much "best practices" preaching that can make a difference. The rest has to be learnt, and a good way to go about that is actually getting out there in traffic. 39th ain't exactly the place to start, but you can't pull this "live in fear!" bullshit forever. Eventually, somebody's going to have to reach a destination which requires riding in dense traffic for two or three blocks. Are you going to tell them that the only way to go is to either ride on the sidewalk or to get off and hoof it because their mode of transit isn't 100% valid? Or are you going to tell them its okay but if and only if they're super-cool in your book and have some fancy boutique frameset worthy of your demanding palate?
August 21st, 2007 17:27
I remember the years before The Mercury existed and WWeak could barely provoke a yawn for youth culture...
Now WWeak plays in the satirical arena that The Mercury invented! Except WWeak just isn't funny.
August 21st, 2007 19:08
Dear Dabby,
I posted earlier and tend to agree with those who think biking on busy streets is an unnecessary risk. Politics aside, I feel we should all do what's safe. Working in a local ER, I x-ray and stitch-up many bikers who insist on risky behaviors. I never see the really messed-up ones - the trauma surgeons do.
As I fly around Portland on my bike, trying to keep safety, not bike politics, at the forefront of my mind, I think about my wife and 2 children I need to get home to and who are depending on me. I'm curious - do you have people to come home to? Do they want you to come home safe or "Pave the Way for Future Bikers"?
Respectfully,
Ian Clemons
August 21st, 2007 20:35
Ian, how many auto collisions do you mop up after?
August 21st, 2007 20:36
How many of those cyclists were hit by cars making moving violations? Any hit and runs?
August 21st, 2007 21:27
Dear Skidmark,
WAY more autos, but the injuries are MUCH less severe than bike crashes. Usually, the bikers are hurt from rider error, ie. hitting MAX/streetcar tracks, or collisions with opening car doors or pedestrians.
-Ian
August 21st, 2007 21:39
Ian, if a cyclist is hit by an opening car door, there is only one person legally at fault-- the person opening the car door.
On the other hand, a cyclist riding in the door zone is taking an enormous risk in trusting that some dimbulb won't be breaking the law and opening a car door as the cyclist rides by. While that might be a safety mistake on the part of the cyclist, it is still legally the fault of the person opening the car door.
August 21st, 2007 21:42
As I fly around Portland on my bike, trying to keep safety, not bike politics, at the forefront of my mind, I think about my wife and 2 children I need to get home to and who are depending on me. I'm curious - do you have people to come home to? Do they want you to come home safe or "Pave the Way for Future Bikers"?
So if he (or anyone else) says "No, I don't have anyone I come home to," that explains away his crazy-person death obsession and leaves the rest of you off in the land of sponge baths and nightmares about carnival rides? :P
To paraphrase a popular adage about bike crashes/collisions: "There's two types: the ones that've happened, and the ones that haven't happened yet." Riding a bike *is* a bit risky, especially in traffic. OTOH, the local bikeways can provide a false sense of security - all those intersection without stop signs in any direction, for instance, are damned dangerous when nobody's paying attention just because the lack of a stop sign. If anybody gets in a wreck not due to mechanical failure, it's usually because somebody's either failed to pay attention to their surroundings or because somebody saw fit to place their own convenience or impulses above somebody else's physical well-being.
If you want to cloister yourself away in terror, fine. Hell, advocating "Look, in *this* particular instance, there's a safer route just a block over!" is fine if you're looking to inform people. But leave the choice up to them, and don't go spreading these myths about it all being so horribly and terrifyingly dangerous (unless of course you're also willing to speak out about the nefarious risks of kitchen knives and nigh-invisible chips around the rims of drinking glasses).
August 21st, 2007 22:40
Tall bikes: they look fun, go nuts. Looks like a lot of work for anything more than a short commute, but part of why I bike is because I enjoy it. If you enjoy riding a tall bike, great. Maybe I'll try yours and like it and build my own.
Fixies: There are safe and unsafe riders on all types of bikes. If you feel you can handle it and enjoy it, go nuts. Newbie, meet 'i've been riding a fixie since birth.' 'i've been riding a fixie since birth,' teach newbie some things you've learned through the years so they don't hurt themselves.
Busy street riders: Have to admit, I live right off of Sandy and could never figure out why anyone would want to commute on that road. I ride in large part, to actually enjoy my commute. If it was all about the 'getting there fast', I'd take the 12, or a car. I'm sorry, love my Sandy Blvd. and all, but it's not a pretty road. People haul ass, don't pay attention, and I'm not always up for the 'challenge' of dodging the #12 or some half-awake person in a 3000 lb car on an IMO, somewhat ugly and boring road. I'd rather get my ass out of bed 5 minutes earlier and take a bike route (or most often, make my own) through a bunch of neighborhoods on my way downtown. You get to see all kinds of things you might otherwise miss hauling ass with the cars. I'm not calling anyone an idiot, a crybaby or any other name for riding/not riding on a busy street. That's certainly their option. Although I don't appreciate being lumped in with some 'flock of sheep' or the suggestion that 'I can't handle the heat' or whatever other metaphor because I choose to ride on the side streets instead. Sometimes I do want to 'cook' or find it more convenient depending on where I'm coming from, and I'll take the roundabout at 39th, but after 6 years of commuting in this town, I generally find it more enjoyable to ride on the side streets and try new routes, again, one of the main reasons I ride. I used to ride up 47th until I got tired of breathing in bus diesel fumes and other exhaust when I'm working up a hill. Sandy is the same way. Hack. No thanks, but if you like it, by all means. Just don't find that a nice way to commute.
All in all there is just too much elitist BS going on here. If I'm coming across as such, not intended at all. People talk about loving the 'diversity' in this town, and then as soon as someone rides a different bike, fixie/tall/geared/takes a different route/crooked helmet/uncool brand of bike(really?), they become an idiot, a sheep, whatever.
Enough with the name calling. Direct your frustration to the crappy journalism fluff piece, your energy (from regular cycling, no doubt) to change the laws and raise awareness in the community. Being jerk to car drivers just makes someone who might already be grumpy to do something stupid with something really big at their disposal. Your act just reinforced their opinion or mood. Not saying they are in the right, I've been clipped and it's scary and sucks. I try to respect what I'm physically up against, not necessarily the driver. Cars AND riders break the laws. Cars just cause a lot more damage when they do. Doesn't justify the behavior of either cars or cyclists.
In the meantime, enjoy whatever ride you have and let other people do the same. Increase the number of cyclists by making it appealing to ALL types of riders, not just ones that do it exactly like you. THAT would be boring. An open-door policy is one possible way to get Johnny SUV from being a weekend tool-around-the-neighborhood to a regular commuter. Might not happen, that's ok too. The more drivers become riders, the less Johnny SUVs we'll have to muscle around down the road (so to speak).There's a lot of work to be done to change the laws and increase cyclist awareness and ripping your fellow cyclist a new one for their personal choice takes away from what is great about riding instead of driving. Cheers.
August 22nd, 2007 12:59
So, snapchop and others who ride in that area a lot, can you list a few good low traffic alternatives to riding on Sandy? thanks
August 22nd, 2007 22:29
You bet. I'm coming from the upper 60s, so Hancock/Tillamook are good ones. You run parallel to Broadway so there's plenty of stuff nearby if you need to get to it, but you miss all the joys of the surprise car door opening on B'way. Sometimes I'll work my way south on 53rd or 42nd, 47th is pretty busy and has busses, so does 9th to Lloyd closer in, but it's a good spot to cut south if you need to. This a good route if you need the Steel or Broadway Bridge.
Also try Everett/Davis until you hook up with 32nd. You can either cut across Burnside and over to Ankeny there and cruise all the way down (which is convenient if you need to catch 28th or 7th ave and head further south), or my recent favorite, take Couch all the way down. There's a little coffee shop called Ruby's on 28th, and other stuff around if you want to stop on your way into town. While you're waiting for the 12th Ave traffic to go by, take a deep breath: the Franz bakery always smells amazing. There are lights to cross the MLK/Grand mayhem to take the Burnside bridge.
However, it is a little easier to cross Sandy using Ankeny, because Sandy turns into 7th there and is 2 lanes instead of 4, and there is a bike/ped crossing there. Plus, people are usually surprisingly cool about actually leaving room for the cyclists to cross 11th/12th while they are waiting for the light.
I tend to do some combination of these, taking different neighborhood streets and change it up every couple of days. Hope this helps. Happy commuting.
August 23rd, 2007 11:38
fixed gear hipsters: if you take offense at the article and can't laugh at yourself once in a while.... good god damn you need to lighten up. come on, admit it, some of you people do it for fashion and you know it. it's ok. i lost count as to how many times i've read posts on craigslist that basically say "I'm new to Portland and looking for a fixie".
chain vs cable: personally i haven't broken a cable since i was a wee little kid on an multiple-times-handed-me-down old shitty bike. i went through a phase of breaking chains when i first got into mtn biking but since then i haven't really had it happen. i don't think it is worth arguing this point, but, feel free to nitpick.
tall bikes: i think you tall bikers are kind of weird in general, but that's cool, i think they make a lot more sense than a fixed gears.
August 23rd, 2007 13:50
Thanks for the route recs, snapchop. I've only been in town a year so I'm always on the lookout for low-traffic routes beyond what's listed on the city's handy bike maps. I made the mistake of trying to ride down Broadway on the east side one time during my first week in town. Yikes!
August 23rd, 2007 15:18
Not everyone who rides fixed is a hipster. The majority of fixed riders in Portland have been riding fixed way before it became trendy. It is because of that, that the comments are offensive. That and the fact that almost anyone who disparages fixed has never ridden one and does not know how to stop one without a handbrake, but somehow they become an expert on the subject when they get in front of a keyboard. I honestly cannot wait until it goes off hipster (or Fixster) radar and I can ride fixed again without public scrutiny.
August 23rd, 2007 15:53
used to be that i used to get lots of compliments on my fixed bikes. now i just get lots of sneers. from the geared folks AND the hipsters.
and to add insult to injury, i get lumped in with the hipsters. Noooo!!!!!!
oh well, nothing i can do but keep riding.
August 23rd, 2007 20:17
And then there will be a flood of nice, cheap track stuff on CL. Everyone wins!
August 23rd, 2007 20:34
The next big thing is brakeless fixed tallbikes anyways.
August 23rd, 2007 20:48
I realize I am opening a can of worms here, but could SKIDmark, wyatt, or anyone who has ridden a fixed bike extensively kindly educate me on the benefits/advantages of riding a fixed bike over a geared? Or how they have become trendy? I mean this as a completely honest and sincere question.
I personally have 21 gears on my craptastic mountain bike that I've been riding for over 13 years, and probably use 7 or 8 gears during my commute. There are a number of hills where I end up changing gears and I have the gears, so I use them.
In SKIDmark's defense, not everyone who rides fixed is necessarily a hipster—just as not everyone who drives a car is a jerk. Hipsters and jerks come in all forms and walks of life and one aspect of an individual choice or personality doesn't necessarily define them or allow them to be fit into some convenient ill-defined category. Unless you're a serial killer or something—that pretty much defines you as such. At that point, no one really gives a shit what you ride.
So, If you've been riding a fixie for a long time, that's great, I would like to know what you find enjoyable/beneficial about it. Not so I can go out and join the hipster crowd, (my bike is functional, albeit sort of ugly) just honestly curious since there are a lot of folks out there riding them for one reason or another.
August 23rd, 2007 20:53
Actually, I think the next big thing is brakeless, fixed tall TRIKES, without handle bars. Talk about sneers!
August 23rd, 2007 21:15
Oh, snapchops thinks I'm making a joke.
August 24th, 2007 00:11
The other day, I saw this gal on her fixed gear pulling the hill on that street one block south of Jefferson (can't remember what it is..), over by Leaky Roof. Off the seat and sl-o-o-oly cranking. Might I say, "nice", ?. Tell you what though, diversions from level grade are one of the beautiful things about multi-gearing. Easier to keep your spin consistent if that's your interest. Modern bikes with multi-gearing can have a really tall high speed too, which is great for allowing mere mortals to attain very fast speeds on downgrades.
August 24th, 2007 00:41
wsbob, you talk like those who ride fixed have no experience with riding multispeed. Some prefer the simplicity of one speed. So much less to go wrong. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone clunk,clunk away behind me, trying to downshift but it's too late, and I am getting ready to get out of the saddle and blast up a hill. Fixed kinda suck down hills but uphill it seems easier to pedal, as the rotation of the wheel seems to get rid of that dead spot in everyones cadence. Many road racers used to use fixed for training.
I recently built a fixed/singlespeed mountain bike and while it is great for singletrack it sucks for fire roads and if I built it again I would have at least kept a rear derailleur and foregone the fixed option. It will make a good polo bike, if I ever wanted to do that.
I regularly coast in excess of 35 mph and that is plenty fast for me, thank you. On the flat most of my fixed/singlespeeds are in between 68 -72 gear inches and 20 mph is reasonable on flats and you can still get up most hills and if your cadence drops you can stand up and get your cadence back up, no biggie. I'm not racing anyways.
August 24th, 2007 01:41
SKIDmark, not intentionally implying that fixed gear riders haven't got multi-gear experience. I'm not even really intending to ridicule the ride, just noting interesting, maybe humorous, enjoyable(?) aspects of the ride from the standpoint of observers, just as the fumbly clunk-clunk can be familiarly funny with the multi-gear ride.
I have 0 personal experience with fixed gear as in a track bike. You said 'coasting', so I'm thinking you must have a single speed freewheel. I suppose track riders are coasting in situations where they're spinning but not pushing it.
My only single gear freewheel bike was my old Scwinn Spitfire cruiser, and that thing...well...lots of nostalgic charm there, but out of respect for it, I'll hold most criticism except to say that riding it sure never had any much to do with inspiring me to be interested in cycling. I don't know what could get to me ride one today. Maybe a sweet, beautiful, gal, game to ride.
I'm not trying to fuel the fires of animosity around here. You guys have fun. Fixed gears can't be beat for cardio development, muscle flexibility, twitch, to name a few. Actuallly, cruising downtown, as messengers are obliged to, I can see where fixies would make totally good sense, because the little I have done that with my geared bike is basically really annoying, with all the intersections and lights and so forth...always downshifting, upshifting, rarely going very fast. I get very tired of it, fast, and basically don't like riding there at all.
A fixie rider could make all that rise and fall in momentum comparatively far smoother as long as they keep their distance from morons ahead in motor vehicles, in prep for those sudden stops.
Derailuers can be a pain, but I generally like multi-gearing, like for example when I recently decided to revisit 175th(formerly Reusser Rd) out in Beaverton.
Climbing the West Hills, or Cornell to Skyline doesn't sound like a lot of fun on a fixed gear, and I have to say, I love hills.
August 24th, 2007 03:40
# wsbob
August 24th, 2007 00:11
109
The other day, I saw this gal on her fixed gear pulling the hill on that street one block south of Jefferson (can't remember what it is..), over by Leaky Roof. Off the seat and sl-o-o-oly cranking. Might I say, "nice", ?. Tell you what though, diversions from level grade are one of the beautiful things about multi-gearing. Easier to keep your spin consistent if that's your interest. Modern bikes with multi-gearing can have a really tall high speed too, which is great for allowing mere mortals to attain very fast speeds on downgrades.
_______________________________________
It goes both ways. I've been riding my track bike up Taylor and rode fine in the saddle past a roadie in full get up off his seat and spinning away. that's just one example of hundreds.
I think the last time I got off my saddle going up hill was either sprinting up NE 15th going toward prescott or during a race going to 13th and college.
August 24th, 2007 09:16
wsbob, all my bikes are singlespeed, two are fixed. I have climbed and descended Terwilliger on my track bike, it is not big deal, I used to ride a Schwinn Super Sport conversion up Skyline and down Fairview (it had handbrakes). I have ridden my low geared singlespeed/fixed MTB over that same hill. For the most part I am lazy and I take the MAX from BTC to Goose Hollow or the Zoo if I am riding a coasterbraked bike.
Old Schwinns rock, all they ever need to be really usable is aluminum rims.
You know you can keep a geared bike in one gear, you don't have to shift.
You CAN coast on a fixed gear, you take your feet off the pedals. Early turn of last century bikes had pegs on the forks to rest your feet on.
The difference between fixed riders and non-fixed riders is the fixed riders don't care if you are not riding fixed :)
I am not trying to create animosity either. This is a positive discussion as far as I am concerned.
August 24th, 2007 10:16
Hey you two...that's impressive, riding the single speeds up those hills. Coasting downhill on fixed gear, especially if people are doing that without a sidepull or some such brake...is that what you're doing?...sounds challenging. At speed, once you take your feet off the pedals, must be kind of interesting getting them back on. Footpegs on forks...guess it could be done. That would definitely be a different riding experience on fast downhill curves.
I don't think it's such a big deal one way or another what people ride. Interesting to watch, study and learn about though. Safety is always important. A lot of people that no longer ride, or never did, are so far removed from the experience that they can't begin to fathom how it all works, from either a practical or a pleasurable perspective.
I think that was one big reason for the big fixie/no brake blow-up in Salem. If the automobile revolution hadn't been so pervasive, and so many people now rotting away in their cars were still riding regularly, a lot of these issues wouldn't be the kinds of issues they seem to be today.
August 24th, 2007 13:15
Actually read through all the comments...
#36
"Feet in the wrong spot when that truck cuts you off?"
Once you've built up the muscle, you can lock up your wheels in just about any pedal position. Also, if you ride a track bike with out hand brakes, you tend to be much more aware. I've avoided many accidents that I would have likely been in had I been on a road bike. Also, once you've ridden fixed without hand brakes for such a long time, you don't even think to use your hand brakes. I often panic when I first get on a freewheel because I forget that I can't back pedal to slow myself.
#37
The only chains I've broken were on free wheel bikes. I've broken a few brake cables on my road bikes.
#103
Wyatt, The best comment I've gotten was from a Roadie when I was coming down the west side of Broadway bridge, as I passed him he remarked, "psh, another fixie". I was so dumbfounded by the comment and caught off guard, I couldn't think of a response. Had I been on my toes, I would have responded, "PSH, OH ANOTHER ROAD BIKE!".
#106
Why I ride a fixed gear bike over a road bike around the city.
Next to no maintenance. More efficient.
August 24th, 2007 15:54
I hope anyone who is riding a fixed down a hill without a handbrake knows enough to control their speed by resisting the forward motion of the pedals to keep yourself to a speed you can stop at. If not you are as good as dead. The conversion still had both it's handbrakes, I hate empty holes where parts are supposed to be.