BIKE: Low maintenance commuter bike

[John SomdeCerff]

After buying a new bike and reading its owner's manual I'm reminded of 
all the maintenance a bike needs.  (Lane warned me about buying a 
Wal-Mart bike, but I thought I wanted a nice, new, shiny bike.  Maybe 
latter I'll post my trials and tribulations with the thing.) 

My manual calls for:
Once a week +:  Oil the chain (plus every time you ride in dusty or wet 
conditions, or it gets rained on.)
Once a month:  Disassemble and grease the shift levers.  Check 
derailleur adj., check brake adj., check all bearings, check all bolts 
are tight.
Every six months:  Oil freewheel and disassemble and grease the brake 
cables.  Check chain for wear.
Every year:  Basically tear apart every bearing and regrease.

My Toyota car (which I hardly drive anymore)  just requires an oil 
change a few times a year and some work -timing belt, tune-up, etc. - 
every 100,000 miles.  Every Every 60,000 miles or so I need brake pads, 
one particular wheel bearing, tires, etc.  If it were a bike, I'd have 
to have the engine rebuilt every year:)

So anyway, does anyone have any experience with lower maintenance 
bikes?  I think getting rid of the derailleur system would be good 
start.  I'd think that the sturdier chains on single speed or internal 
geared hubs would be less finicky.  Anybody have a Shimano 7 or 8 speed 
Nexus hub, with our without the drum brake?  The old 3-speed hubs 
(Sturmey Archer?) would slip when you really torqued on them, are the 
new ones better?  I've heard that you give up some efficiency with the 
internal gears but I did not notice that when I test rode a Novara 
Fusion REI:  
http://rei.com/online/store/ProductDisplay?storeId=8000&catalogId=40000008000&productId=47841655  


(Even better may be a bike with no messy, maintenance prone chain at 
all:  Here are a few sites:

Drive shaft bicycles:
http://www.sussex.com.tw/se1.htm
http://www.dynamicbicycles.com/bikes/default.php
A couple of  pounds of added weight, probably some loss of efficiency 
even though they claim 1% power loss vs 2% for chain drive.

A belt drive bike would be good.  Here is a new belt drive system 
company:  http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/11/prweb181653.htm  A 
quick google turned up this folding bike with belt drive:  
http://www.strida.com/bike/index.php  Maybe not a great example, but it 
shows that belt drive can work.  I think many Chinese commuters use belt 
drive.
I did find this on a discussion list:

From: SteveSgt (Steve Sergeant)
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1992 10:54:38 PDT
Subject: Re: what about toothed belts, then?

Most of the 'ordinary' commuter bikes I see when I go to Japan are
single-speed, front-caliper and rear drum (band) brake, belt drive bikes. 
The belt drive is considered more maintanence free and reliable.  But
efficiency is not such a big issue for them; reliability is.  These bikes
have a a bit of spring-loaded shock absorbing give in the crank pulley to
protect the belt from high instantaneous forces.

I think for me something like this would be good.  I'm not so worried 
about every last percent efficiency.  When climbing hills, the steepness 
of the hill and your load determines your speed (check out the load 
calculator at:  
http://www.bikesatwork.com/hauling-cargo-by-bike/hpv-cargo-capacity.html)  
At higher speeds wind is your enemy.  In either case another few percent 
power to the wheels won't make a big difference in speed.

Thanks for any insight you may have.

John Somdecerff
Beginner bike commuter (mostly ride the bus)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20050423/928a4463/attachment.htm