BIKE: Low maintenance commuter bike

[Librik or Babich]

John SomdeCerff wrote:

> 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.)

Skip the once a week business and listen to your chain. When it
chatters, give it oil. My advice is to carry the oil with you, since you
will not realize the need until you are half a block from home, and by
the time you return at the end of the day you will have tuned out and
forgotten about the problem.

Your most common maintenance task is apparently not mentioned by the
book. This is topping off your tires. Gasketed valve caps will reduce
your need for this to once every month or two. Otherwise you will need
to do this every couple of weeks for best efficiency.

> Once a month:  Disassemble and grease the shift levers.

Who in the world wrote this manual? Nobody does that. You probably do
not have the right grease for that job anyway.

> Check derailleur adj., check brake adj., check all bearings, check all
> bolts are tight.

Or else have a professional properly assemble the thing at the start
using threadlocker and a torque wrench. Maybe this just Mall-Wart's way
of covering their butt when their improperly assembled bike craps out on
you. "Sorry, chum, but you failed to grease your ferrules every 314.1519
hours of ride time."

> Every six months:  Oil freewheel and disassemble and grease the brake
> cables.  Check chain for wear.

Chain wear is worth checking, but if you are as fanatical about oiling
the chain as they want you to be, yours ought to last. Do not bother
with the freewheel (or freehub, if the bike is not an antique) unless
you get "ghost pedaling," where the coasting wheel pushes the pedals. Do
not mess with the cables unless you feel a drop in performance. That
last point about performance is your real guidepost, not this wacky
maintenance schedule.

> Every year:  Basically tear apart every bearing and regrease.

Maybe this is how the big box stores try to stay in good with the bike
professionals, by sending hapless customers to them every year to have
their Huffy overhauled. I would not put too much stock in that owner's
manual.

> 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:)

Cars have the advantage of having everything on the inside and out of
the weather. Of course, when the time comes to service them it is more
work and cost, since the mechanic must dig down to the problem. Since
they are not quite as weight conscious as bicycles, cars can use more
robust systems that require less care.

> So anyway, does anyone have any experience with lower maintenance
> bikes?

You mean like the remaining 99.9% of bikes? I will bet someone here
does.

> 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

For heaven's sake do not throw out your useful, robust, and highly
evolved cable operated derailers and brakes on account of that
boneheaded manual. Hub gearing is nice since the ability to downshift at
a stop makes you more willing to stop at a stop sign, but they have
hassles as well. The problem with most is that they lack sufficient
range to do both the big climbs and the high speeds, particularly if you
have less-than-athletic knees and do not want to do high-torque crunch
pedaling. If you are interested in hub gearing, I encourage you to look
into SRAM's Dual Drive hybrid rear hub, which lets you cut your gear in
half at a stop and can be set up to have an overall range of 575% (top
gear 5.75 higher than bottom) without costing a fortune. (The best MTB
tranny can get you 620%, but without the ability to downshift at a
stop). Old Sturmy hubs had problems, but SRAM's 3-speed model is an
exceedingly reliable German design built by Sachs, whom SRAM acquired
around the turn of the century.

> (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.

We really do need to do away with the grimy chain, but shaft drive bikes
have always had problems in high torque riding. These bikes tend to be
good for students doing short hops on flat ground, but if you are
putting in the miles and the wattage you will likely be wearing out
parts faster than with a chain. I will admit that this opinion is just
from hearsay, and I have not personally beat up a modern shaft drive
bike. But they have that reputation.

> 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:

This doubtless holds some promise, but you would lose the wide range of
gears made available by derailer systems and would be likely stuck with
whatever came stock on the bike. Shaft drive tends to appear on
one-speed folders used only for short trips to and from the train
station.

> 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.

The reasoning about speed holds true if you are trying to win a race
(which is what most of the bike industry seems to thinks you want to
do), but for the commuter the consideration is how /little/ power you
want to expend to get where you are going. Recreational cyclists may
bike for the sake of biking, but for the commuter the biking is a means
to an end, and you want the option of doing it on as little work as
possible. The day will come when you will be climbing that hill in the
100 degree weather. Weight is not all that important after a point, but
efficiency is always valuable from this standpoint.

> Thanks for any insight you may have.
>
> John Somdecerff
> Beginner bike commuter (mostly ride the bus)

As long as you are a beginner and are not already become foolishly
convinced that you know everything, look into beginning or advanced
cyclist training. If you consider traffic to be inherently dangerous,
then you definitely need more skills. That is, if you think that all car
drivers are dangerous idiots, you are likely a dangerous idiot yourself.

I encourage you to find a usable pair of mirrors so you always know what
is behind you and what it is doing. If the position in which you sit
makes sustained turn signals or starting and stopping difficult, then
the bike is inherently limited in how well it can interact with traffic.

Good cycling is no different from good driving. Your goal is to
participate in an orderly, predictable traffic situation. The good
driver helps to create an orderly situation around them. How well you
are equipped for and informed about doing this will be imprinted on
every mile you ride and every car you deal with.

I also encourage you to contact me and to come on the Right of Way Radio
Show to discuss you efforts to reduce your automobile use.

--
Mike Librik, LCI #929
Easy Street Recumbents
512-453-0438
45th and Red River St., thereabouts
Central Austin
info
www.easystreetrecumbents.com
www.urbancycling.com

"Is it about a bicycle?"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20050424/4f4ed676/attachment.htm