>This is "you're holding it wrong" logic. Nope. I did cycle regularly, got my bike fitted, and all that. But there's no getting away from the fundamental physics of pressure = force / area.
Nope sorry it isn't the "your holding it wrong logic". If you do any physical activity that you are unused to you will have slight pains etc. I recently started Thai boxing again and loans behold my body hurt after the workout. Pretending otherwise is simply denying reality.
> Not having to slalom around the potholes comes in handy. Yes you can work around not having it.
Unless the pothole is massive then it is usually moving a foot to the left or right, hardly a slalom. if you can't avoid it then you can either just unweight the front wheel by moving your weight back slightly or just hop it.
None of these are particularly difficult to do (except for maybe the bunny hop, but potholes are rarely that large).
> This is backwards - a derailleur's parts are inherently exposed and vulnerable, an unmaintained derailleur is always going to fail faster than a good-quality hub. The Rohloff recommends an oil change every 5000km, but in fact people ride them for 10000 or 15000 without problems. Derailleurs make sense for enthusiasts who do their own maintenance or racers who want the lightest weight gearing possible, but for commuting or touring they're only used because of price, and the price of hubs will keep coming down.
No it isn't backwards. Derailleur gearing has had over 110 years of development and improvement. They are cheap, reliable and easy to fix and almost never go wrong. Typically only the cassette and chain need replacements (and that is after years of abuse) and a 8-9 speed chain is £10-15 and a 8/9 speed cassette is a few pounds. They take maybe 10-20 minutes to change.
I am sure the Rohloff is better but that is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Ford Fiesta. Sure the Rolls Royce is better and will last 20 life times but it costs 100 times and the cheap Ford will do most of what you want. If we compare Shimano hub gears (which have a terrible reputation) they are more expensive and less reliable and give you less gears.
What you don't seem to understand is that just as I said at the start just because something is technically better on paper it doesn't actually make it better in practice. Sure I am sure hubs are better for most on paper, but much like old languages like Fortran, Shimano, Campagnolo and a bunch of other companies have been working out the quirks in the design since the 1930s.
I would say the whole conversation comes down to the"Worse is better" principle.
> If you do any physical activity that you are unused to you will have slight pains etc.
It's not about being used to it - I'd been cycling for years. There will always be muscle soreness from using your legs, but an upright brings a totally unnecessary set of aches and pains in other places - wrists, taint, shoulders, neck - because of the awkward hunched position and the fact that you're supporting your body weight on a handful of tiny contact points. I made the switch to a recumbent and even with far less experience than I'd had on an upright, I was easily riding twice as far per day before things became too uncomfortable to continue - and I was able to stop needing padded shorts or gloves as well, which means less luggage when touring or less need to store special clothes in the office.
> Derailleur gearing has had over 110 years of development and improvement.
Derailleurs having so much history of development is precisely why I expect hub gears to take over as they go through their own years of development and improvement.
> They are cheap, reliable and easy to fix and almost never go wrong.
They jam or fall out of alignment pretty often, so I wouldn't say "almost never go wrong". Yes an experienced cyclist can fix them pretty easily, but it's a barrier for newcomers and for non-enthusiast commuters who just want something to get them to/from work.
> Sure the Rolls Royce is better and will last 20 life times but it costs 100 times and the cheap Ford will do most of what you want. If we compare Shimano hub gears (which have a terrible reputation) they are more expensive and less reliable and give you less gears.
The technology trickles down though. If you go back far enough then things like ABS, electric windows, or fuel injection were something you'd only find on the Rolls Royce (because carburettors were cheaper and more reliable and just required a little bit of manual adjustment occasionally); now you find those things in the cheap Ford too. It'll be the same for bicycles: right now you only find good hub gears on the Rolls-Royce tier tourers, but that will change as the technology gets cheaper.
> It's not about being used to it - I'd been cycling for years. There will always be muscle soreness from using your legs, but an upright brings a totally unnecessary set of aches and pains in other places - wrists, taint, shoulders, neck - because of the awkward hunched position and the fact that
Your bike doesn't fit! This is like saying "I wore shoes that are two sizes too small and my feet hurt". This isn't a valid argument.
> you're supporting your body weight on a handful of tiny contact points.
Your hands, feet (those thing that are at the end of your legs that you can stand on all day) and arse are a tiny contact points? Give over, this is nonsense.
> I made the switch to a recumbent and even with far less experience than I'd had on an upright, I was easily riding twice as far per day before things became too uncomfortable to continue - and I was able to stop needing padded shorts or gloves as well, which means less luggage when touring or less need to store special clothes in the office.
You are not everyone and just because you have problems the vast majority of people do not. My nan who is 4ft 11 (so a very small lady) managed with a regular bicycle until she was in her late 70s. Are you saying that you are frailer than a woman in her late 70s?
I ride almost everywhere in jeans and t-shirt unless when it is boiling hot in summer when I wear T-shirt and shorts. I don't ride like some people who seem to think it is the tour-de-france everyday.
In my bag, I have a set of lights, a pump, a puncture and repair kit (which is the size of a small wallet), some light water proofs (I am driving if it is tipping it down) and my lunch.
> They jam or fall out of alignment pretty often, so I wouldn't say "almost never go wrong". Yes an experienced cyclist can fix them pretty easily, but it's a barrier for newcomers and for non-enthusiast commuters who just want something to get them to/from work.
No they don't fall out of alignment often. Fixing the chain coming off is literally just feeding it back on. Does it take years of experience to loop something round cog ... no.
You are just making stuff up to win the argument at this point.
> The technology trickles down though. If you go back far enough then things like ABS, electric windows, or fuel injection were something you'd only find on the Rolls Royce (because carburettors were cheaper and more reliable and just required a little bit of manual adjustment occasionally); now you find those things in the cheap Ford too. It'll be the same for bicycles: right now you only find good hub gears on the Rolls-Royce tier tourers, but that will change as the technology gets cheaper.
Except it hasn't. Hub gears have never worked well, the only ones that have stood the test of time are the extremely limited 3 speed sturmey archer models (which require oiling) and very expensive Rohloff models. Every so often hub gears come up, or belt drives and they don't go anywhere.
At this point I am pretty sure you want to be right so this is my last reply to you on this thread.
> Your bike doesn't fit! This is like saying "I wore shoes that are two sizes too small and my feet hurt".
Happened with multiple bikes, after having a fit, and it's not like I got the recumbent fitted. And a post back you were saying it was normal for cycling to feel like boxing training. (It is - for upright cycling).
> You are not everyone and just because you have problems the vast majority of people do not. My nan who is 4ft 11 (so a very small lady) managed with a regular bicycle until she was in her late 70s. Are you saying that you are frailer than a woman in her late 70s?
So someone who's about half the weight of the average person didn't suffer issues from having too much weight on too small an area. That's exactly what I'd expect. The vast majority of people do find cycling uncomfortable - and don't cycle as a result.
> I ride almost everywhere in jeans and t-shirt unless when it is boiling hot in summer when I wear T-shirt and shorts. I don't ride like some people who seem to think it is the tour-de-france everyday.
Does this not suggest that it's you who's unusual? People don't wear those padded shorts for fun, they wear them because it's unpleasant not to. Maybe you're some combination of light, riding short distances, insensitive to particular kinds of pain, or just unusually suited to saddles via some random quirk of anatomy. Lucky you, but you are not representative.
> Fixing the chain coming off is literally just feeding it back on. Does it take years of experience to loop something round cog ... no.
You think that as an experienced cyclist. I've had to stop for people on the side of the road who couldn't/wouldn't put their chain back on, more than once. A normal commuter just isn't interested in learning how to do maintenance, even something that basic.
> You are just making stuff up to win the argument at this point.
> And a post back you were saying it was normal for cycling to feel like boxing training. (It is - for upright cycling).
I know I said I wouldn't reply but that is a totally disingenuous interpretation of what I said and there is no way I could leave that be.
I never said such a thing. I said if you don't do something for years you will ache. Thai boxing was an extreme example to ram the point home as you were being thick headed about the subject.
> Does this not suggest that it's you who's unusual? People don't wear those padded shorts for fun, they wear them because it's unpleasant not to. Maybe you're some combination of light, riding short distances, insensitive to particular kinds of pain, or just unusually suited to saddles via some random quirk of anatomy. Lucky you, but you are not representative.
No not at all. I see many people cycling in normal-ish clothing on fixed gears, racing bikes, mountain bikes etc.
It is really frustrating when you will deny reality. I've cycled to work in many different countries (UK, Spain, Denmark, Germany) and the vast majority of people where normal clothes.
Here are some from Denmark (not taken from me but I did live there)
Nope sorry it isn't the "your holding it wrong logic". If you do any physical activity that you are unused to you will have slight pains etc. I recently started Thai boxing again and loans behold my body hurt after the workout. Pretending otherwise is simply denying reality.
> Not having to slalom around the potholes comes in handy. Yes you can work around not having it.
Unless the pothole is massive then it is usually moving a foot to the left or right, hardly a slalom. if you can't avoid it then you can either just unweight the front wheel by moving your weight back slightly or just hop it.
None of these are particularly difficult to do (except for maybe the bunny hop, but potholes are rarely that large).
> This is backwards - a derailleur's parts are inherently exposed and vulnerable, an unmaintained derailleur is always going to fail faster than a good-quality hub. The Rohloff recommends an oil change every 5000km, but in fact people ride them for 10000 or 15000 without problems. Derailleurs make sense for enthusiasts who do their own maintenance or racers who want the lightest weight gearing possible, but for commuting or touring they're only used because of price, and the price of hubs will keep coming down.
No it isn't backwards. Derailleur gearing has had over 110 years of development and improvement. They are cheap, reliable and easy to fix and almost never go wrong. Typically only the cassette and chain need replacements (and that is after years of abuse) and a 8-9 speed chain is £10-15 and a 8/9 speed cassette is a few pounds. They take maybe 10-20 minutes to change.
I am sure the Rohloff is better but that is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Ford Fiesta. Sure the Rolls Royce is better and will last 20 life times but it costs 100 times and the cheap Ford will do most of what you want. If we compare Shimano hub gears (which have a terrible reputation) they are more expensive and less reliable and give you less gears.
What you don't seem to understand is that just as I said at the start just because something is technically better on paper it doesn't actually make it better in practice. Sure I am sure hubs are better for most on paper, but much like old languages like Fortran, Shimano, Campagnolo and a bunch of other companies have been working out the quirks in the design since the 1930s.
I would say the whole conversation comes down to the"Worse is better" principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better