My main resources for pretty much anything include: Sheldon Brown

In particular: sheldonbrown: how-to-fixed-conversion sheldonbrown: fixed-conversion Loads of general wrenching info at Park Tool

And of course a friendly local bike shop.

Look out for a bike co-op or skills-sharing non-profit/community organization.

They may run classes and provide parts and tools.

Although it's mostly geared towards chopping up existing (steel) frames and converting the resultant bits into either recumbents, trikes, quads, electric bikes or choppers, there's a fair bit of generally useful info at the Atomic Zombie site and in their forums .

The same couple who run the Atomic Zombie site also have a couple of bike building books out: Bike, Scooter, and Chopper Projects for the Evil Genius Atomic Zombie's Bicycle Builder's Bonanza Some other books include: Bicycling Science Bicycle Design:

The Search for the Perfect Machine (Richard's Cycle Books) Art of Wheelbuilding

Is there a bike co-op near where you live?

Many offer classes.

It's a great way to learn hands-on how to build bikes and breathe new life into old steeds.

Also: So far, no one at any local bike shop has turned me down when I've expressed interest in learning and asked if I could watch them build bikes and ask a few questions.

Seeing the process demystifies it and makes it seem doable.

First, get yourself a decent torque wrench with allen head bits in all the sizes you use for bike parts.

Second, print out a sheet of common torque values and keep it handy.

There's one at the link above.

You can destroy parts by over-tightening and you can build a bike that'll fall apart underneath you by under-tightening.

Get yourself a maintenance manual .

The web is a great resource, but professionally edited manuals organize information far better than any mailing list.

If you can afford a used copy of Barnett's Manual , you should have them available.

They're the best reference when trying to build out a bike.

Some co-workers that I used to ride with and I pitched in for a set that we kept at the office and we'd come in on the weekend to work on bikes.

"Zinn and the Art of {Road,Mountain} Bike Maintenance" are much shorter (and cheaper) alternatives and are fine if you're using fairly standard components.

I know I just recommended paper manuals, but I found it helpful to download installation instructions for components and use my PDF viewer to zoom in on the diagrams .

The printed ones are too small for my eyes to really see small details which might help you tell whether parts that come in pairs have any chirality to them.

Finally, take your time .

Don't plan to start building out your first bike 2 weeks before a tour.

Start getting parts and working on it early and try to do anything that might require specialized tools or skills like reaming or press-fitting first.

Some things like prepping a head tube will probably require a trip to your LBS.

Check out the classes at bikeschool.com.

Excellent frame building classes, and great mechanics classes as well.

If you're after a book on bicycle building you may want to have a look at this one http://www.timpaterek.com/

It is meant to be quite a comprehensive resource.

Am considering buying for myself.

Question: Now that I've been riding a while, I'm interested in building my own bike.  In this case, it will be a bike for commuting and getting around town.  It will probably be a flipflop fixie/single gear, but the kind of bike isn't important to this question.  What resources (books, web sites, magazines, shops) do you recommend for information about building a bicycle from scratch?

How can I get started building a bicycle?

Numerous resources are available to teach you how to build a bike. These include Sheldon Brown, Atomic Zombie, professional manuals and Zinn and the Art of Bike Maintenance. Moreover, many local bike shops run skills sharing workshops and classes. More classes can be found on bikeschool.org. With regard to tools, a decent torque wrench with allen head bits is required.

It is possible to find information on relevant websites and forums online. You might also want to select from a number of available maintenance manuals, which tend to be better organised. Another option would be to take classes at a bike shop, co-op, organization or even online. In this context, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the necessary equipment. Finally, it would be recommended not to rush and prioritize more demanding tasks.

You might want to select from a number of available maintenance manuals, which tend to be better organised.

An option would be to take classes at a bike shop, co-op, organization or even online.

You should familiarize yourself with the necessary equipment.

It would be recommended not to rush and prioritize more demanding tasks.


Step 1 Clean the derailleur pulleys by holding the blade of your screwdriver against the sides of the pulleys and turning the crank.

You can do this with the wheel in the dropouts, or with the wheel removed.

Step 2 Brush the dirt off of your derailleur using a combination of brushes with bristles of varying length and stiffness, like the ones in the Finish Line Easy-Pro Brush Set. Step 3 Degrease the derailleur using Finish Line Speed Clean, a powerful degreaser that dries almost instantly.

You won’t have to wait before applying lube, or worry that the lube will be broken down by excess degreaser that didn’t dry.

This is also a good time to go over the pulleys again.

First spray down the jockey pulley with Speed Clean while turning the crank, then take your rag, hold it between your thumb and forefinger, and pinch the pulley while continuing to turn the crank.

Any dirt that didn’t come off on the screwdriver blade will come off on the rag.

Repeat with the bottom pulley.

This is most effective if the pulley is still moist with degreaser when you run it through the rag.

Because Speed Clean dries so quickly, ensure this by spraying down only one pulley at a time, so that the bottom pulley doesn’t dry before you’re done with the jockey.

Step 4 Lubricate the derailleur by first spraying it down with Finish Line Dry Teflon Lube, then injecting Extreme Fluoro, a fully fluorinated grease, into all points of friction.

What are you trying to clean off it?

If you're thinking solvents

I assume it's chain grease rather than mud.

I prefer to use a water-based degreaser like simple green and an old toothbrush.

If it's particularly bad I'll take it off the bike and dismantle it.

This thread on BicycleTutor has much more detail on how you go about it.

A quicker and less effective approach is to squirt some penetrating oil like WD40 on to loosen the grease then wipe it off.

That will get you running again in a hurry but it's not good for the bike.

Traditionally people have used organic solvents like kerosene but they're toxic and degreaser is just as effective.

Petrol is the worst, it contains contact poisons as well as having poisonous vapour.

The best thing I've used is called "De-Solv-it", you can pick it up at most hardware stores.

It's almost magical how well it works, just spray it on and let it sit for a minute or two.

You may have to brush the heavy stuff but the grease just melts away.

It also claims to be biodegradable.

Here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Desolv-Citrus-Solution-12-oz/dp/B000BQWVTQ .

My approach is to first scrape the worst of the gunk off.

Then lean the bike up against something outdoors, where the floor won't be damaged by oil stains, slide some newspaper (one or two "sections" of a full-sized newspaper will work) up behind the derailer and let it lay against the wheel, to protect the wheel (both brake surface and tire) from solvent.

Spray

the derailer thoroughly with WD-40

(this is about the only use I have for the stuff), simultaneously scrubbing with an old toothbrush.

Wipe dry, allow the WD-40 to evaporate a bit, then lubricate.

I generally use whatever chain oil

I'm putting on the chain, though there are probably better choices.

Over-lubricate a bit, then wipe off the excess after giving it a chance to soak in a few minutes.

One could remove the idler wheels, clean them separately, and then force grease into their bearings, but that's a lot of work, and I'm not convinced it's worth it.

I refurbish a lot of older bikes to re-sell, and if the DR is really nasty I remove it first.

Then, I soak it down with WD-40 to loosen anything that's stuck and start working it by hand; making sure all the joints move freely.

Then... It's the Dremel (wire wheel) and the toothbrush till I get all the crud off and the stains, surface rust, and other crud off.

Finally, squirt down with regular old detergent and give it a thorough wash.

Use very hot water to rinse so it'll dry rapidly.

Finally, lube all the pivots.

If the idlers are sticky or unduly nasty, I'll disassemble the cage and idlers and clean them up separately, greasing the axles before assembling.

Lot of work, messy.

But the result is a like-new DR.

Adding to all the above: don't mind the 'solvent'.

concentrate on the brush.

The solvent will not do magic.

Trust me, simple green is the SAME as regular soap bar.

Get an old tooth brush, scrub a bar of soap, scrub what you want to clean.

rinse.

repeat.

If you can't get the old toothbrush there, you will have to disassemble.

or use a rag.

there's no way something not-extremely-toxic will do the work.

An old shallow cooking tray full of petrol.

Disassemble the derailleur, put all the parts in the petrol as you go.

Pick them up one by one and scrub with an old toothbrush until clean, put each clean part on a paper towel to drain/evaporate.

Then pick up each part and rub it with a dry paper towel before putting it down on a clean surface.

Finally reassemble with correct lubrication - which is different for different areas of different parts.

You probably want two or three basic lubricants like chain oil, light machine oil and a lightweight grease.

Don't smoke while you do this, or use litres of petrol at once.

Do it outdoors and don't be leaning right over the tray breathing fumes.

I find ordinary petrol a lot easier on the hands than any of the citrus-smelling solvents which do tend to strip all the oils out of your hands.

A super-aggressive solvent isn't necessary.

The key is disassembly!

You cannot get these small complicated units really clean without it.

Squirting stuff into friction points, soaking or whatever else does not always flush grit, old grease or grime out it can just drive it further in.

Not to mention your increased understanding of how the thing works when it comes time to adjust, assess wear or evaluate a new one.

Question: I'm not sure what type of solvent to use to clean a derailleur.

What to use to clean a derailleur?

WD-40, Speed Clean or other solvents are one option for cleaning the derailleur. Ordinary petro can also be used and is, allegedly, kinder on the hands. An even simpler product is simple green degreaser used with an old totthbrush.

You might want to use a specific penetrating oil or cleaning solution. There are a number of solvents available, such as WD-40, SpeedClean or De-Solv-it. Alternatively, you could use ordinary petrol, as some people find it sufficient and easier to use. Finally, it is possible to use water-based degreasers as solvents.

You could use ordinary petrol, as some people find it sufficient and easier to use.

It is possible to use water-based degreasers as solvents.


The seat tube is split because it has rear suspension - the rear of the bike rotates around a pivot located just in front of the bottom bracket.

Several early full-suspension bikes used a similar design for the rear pivot; this design was then knocked off by the lower-end manufacturers looking to cash in on the popularity of mountain bikes.

It's extremely simple and gives the bike the expensive "full-suspension" look.

Unfortunately it mostly just adds weight, pedal bob, and complexity to an already heavy turd of a bike.

Most modern full-suspension bikes use more expensive rear linkages and advanced suspension designs, so this older design has almost entirely been relegated to department store bikes.

That's the cheapest, easiest way to make a rear suspended bike.

It's a combination of a simple, almost two dimensional frame which is easy to design and manufacture, and the open layout making it easy to assemble.

On a cheap bike those two factors outweigh anything else.

The main problem with the design is torsional rigidity along the frame.

Because there are no seat stays the rear wheel twists easily and so does the seat.

To compensate for that the "ẗop tube" (that holds the seat) and "chain stays" (that hold the rear wheel) are made heavier than they are on an unsuspended bike.

The design pictured attempts to minimise this by using triangulated stays for the wheel, but all the torsion still goes onto the pivot resulting in poor performance.

Most noticeable when standing up to pedal hard, especially if you tilt the bike (think BMX racing).

Notice that in the picture above all the main frame tubes are oversize, and most have non-circular profiles.

This is an attempt to maximise strength in the directions it's most needed without compromising the budget by using harder steel (which is more expensive, but more importantly requires much more expensive tooling).

Worse, some manufacturers use the same design for a rigid rear end, giving you all the disadvantages of both.

There have been a few "serious" bikes made with this design; Trek produced a few years ago.

However, it proved to be a poor design as it puts the pivots in the wrong places.

I took one of those cheesy Y-frames and used it as the basis for my home-built recumbent...

It actually worked pretty well for that.

Here is an example of high-end carbon fiber frame with similar geometry =

Trek Y Foil.

It proved to be unsuccesful design, but low-end bicycle manufacturers copied it anyway (also using cheaper materials and simplified design).

It is clear that this design is heavy, weakens the structural integrity of what was once a simple diamond frame, introduces bushes that wear, does the 'pedal bob' and complicates the maintenance.

However, what is in it for the manufacturer? '

Horst Link' and other properly thought out suspension designs are patented, these patents cost money to licence, whereas the design discussed here is royalty free.

It costs nothing apart from a few lumps of ugly metal.

Not wishing to defend the design, however, it does have some benefits with 24 and 20 inch wheel children's bikes, providing a lower standover height and providing some protection for the back wheel from kerbs and other objects 'in the playground'.

From a retailers perspective the differential between the non suspended and cheap suspended variant can be all of £10, which is £10 more in the till.

The customer gets 'full suspension' for all of £10, which can be sold as a 'bargain'...

Question: These days cheap bikes often seem to come with the frame sawn in half below the saddle.   What does the manufacturer gain from this design, and why is it associated mostly with cheap, low quality bikes?   What disadvantages are there to the bike rider? I assume that it's not a great feature since quality bike makers don't seem to opt for this design.

Why is it common for cheap bikes to have the frame sawn in half below the saddle?

Cheap bikes with the frame sawn in half have poor design. They are heavy, their structure is weak and they suffer from bush wear, pedal bob and more complicated maintenance.

This is an easy and cheap way to design and manufacture a rear suspended bike, which nevertheless resembles expensive full-suspension models. However, this design is complicated and causes a number of problems, including added weight, rigidity in the torso and pedal bob. These all result in poor performance and difficult maintenance.

This design is complicated and causes a number of problems, including added weight, rigidity in the torso and pedal bob. These all result in poor performance and difficult maintenance.


Vegetable oils tend to "polymerize", that is become sticky and solid.

Castor oil, for instance, is an excellent lubricant that was favored for racing autos and motorcycles for a long time.

The reason it never became popular for regular cars was that it also built up a lot of sticky, cruddy goo.

Racing engines are regularly torn down and rebuilt; no matter.

Not so your sedan.

The oils used in oil-based paints are usually vegetable-based as well; they tend to become quite solid after a while.

As I've noted before, lubes, especially chain lubes, seem to be a "thing" for serious cyclists.

Chain lube threads on dedicated bike forums tend to go on and on and on...

It's the engineering mentality at work.

"Maybe I can get 100 more miles out of my chain if I concoct my own special blend!"

Maybe...

Chain lubes are cheap.

They cost at most what, 10 bucks for a bottle sufficient for a year?As well, chains are cheap.

Oh, you can spend a lot for super-deluxe items, but a good, well-made standard chain is under 20 bucks and will last most riders as long as they keep the bike if lubed and cleaned properly.

Related "Best chain lubricant for road bikes?" Asks about the best lubricant out of conventional oils and lubricants "Substitutes for chain lubricants" Asks about non-traditional substitutes for chain lubricant

On the chain, not so much.

As M. Werner says, it polymerises and turns into stick goo fairly quickly, and there's nothing you can do to stop that.

So you can really only put it somewhere that it's easy to remove.

Like a chain.

Then you just need to use a chain cleaner on it every couple of weeks and reapply the oil.

Using vege oil other places could be awful.

Inside a hub gear especially, for one example.

I have one friend who tried vegetable oil on his chain, and experimented with a variety of oils.

He doesn't use vege oil any more, from memory because it turned to black goo too fast.

I believe that even cheap motor oil is better.

I have emailed him a link, hopefully he will chime in.

Edit: he says he doesn't have anything useful to add.

Mineral oil consists of "alkanes" which have a simple chemical formula (C n H 2n+2 ).

Fats go rancid because their molecules include relatively complicated/weak bonds.

(I'm less sure about waxes; but oil is more common, in chain lube, than wax).

I've just Googled the oil which my LBS sold me and note that it says , "Finish Line’s WET Lubricant features an Inherently Biodegradable formulation which that between 20% and 60% of the product’s base oils will degrade within 28 days."

Contrast

that with another type of oil , which lasts a long time by being mineral oil.

No.

It's about $5 for a bottle of chain lube and $10 for a tube of grease .

Those are top-of-the-line lubricants and will last you for months of frequent application.

There is absolutely zero reason why you should jeopardize the lifespan of your bicycle by coating it with food.

I'm not really sure what the intent behind the question is here, but I have tried vegetable oil, and it's not great.

It doesn't smell enough to concern you, but it gets gummy pretty quickly, and picks up dirt.

It might be alright if you cleaned and re-applied really regularly (like every 3-4 days?), but I was too lazy to bother.

The reasons I wanted to try vege oil were basically environmental, and because I don't want to use products produced by the petroleum industry.

Ok, and perhaps a little symbolism.

Anyway, a quick web search for "environmental bike lubricant" reveals http://www.green-oil.net/environment.html , which looks promising (long-chain polymers extracted from plant oil), and seems to have decent reviews.

I haven't tried it yet, but will see if I can get some and try it out.

If your bike was a garage sale or dumpster find, sure, put vegetable oil on it.

I do it to old kids' bikes.

It works ok, and doesn't get them as greasy as motor oil or axle grease.

I've seen a lawn mower that someone filled with canola oil instead of motor oil, and it ran just fine for a long time, though the oil did thicken up and stink.

FWIW

there is a vegetable oil based chainsaw bar oil on the market, and I've used cheap corn oil with a little used motor oil as a bar oil for months.

It works great, but smokes a little, and has to be drained from the reservoir or it will congeal some.

Some chains aren't cheap.

The new "9 speed" chains are $20+, the "10 speed" chains are around $30-80, and the sure to be next 11, 12, 13 speed chains are italian top shelf stuff and $$$$$.

Since the question never actually specified which part of the bike was to be oiled, I'll point out that linseed oil (specifically boiled linseed oil) is often used as spoke prep.

In this case, it's used to lubricate the spoke threads during wheel assembly, and the fact that it dries afterwards is desirable as it acts like a threadlock to resist the nipple unscrewing.

Tri-flow now makes a soy-based chain lube:

A big ol' jug of soybean oil from the grocery store has the problems noted elsewhere.

Question: Is vegetable oil as good as motor oil to oil a bike?

Vegetable oil to oil a bike?

Most people seem to believe that vegetable oil is not suitable for lubricating a bike and that motor oil is superior. The main complaint is that it gets sticky and picks up dirt.

It is better to use motor oil on a bike, even economic options, as vegetable oil becomes sticky and solid, and picks up dirt. However, depending on the bike vegetable oil might be sufficient.

Depending on the bike, vegetable oil might be sufficient.


The difference in weight is there, but hasn't really been significant for the last few years.

Scott, for instance, is building a complete, disc brake hardtail with a 4" travel fork.

Bike weight: 7.45 Kg, or roughly 16 lbs.

That's 2 lbs less than my road bike.

The weight comparison only becomes truly significant when you look at more basic bicycles, i.e. the $600-1500 market, because the cost penalties for premium parts, like truly light weight disc brakes and hubs, don't allow use in that market.

If you are looking at an aftermarket upgrade, expect to spend $1500 on new wheels and brakes, and often more, for quality, lightweight kit.

The weight penalty has gotten down to only 50-100 grams in most cases, between a bike built with a high quality disc setup and a high quality V-brake setup.

In my opinion, the advantage in brake modulation and power, not to mention consistency in all weather conditions far outweighs the the addition of a few grams.

No pun intended.

All of those examples you cite add to the weight.

However, I think the biggest complaint is the brakes themselves.

Not only do you need a caliper which needs to be much stronger (and therefore heavier) because it's dealing with huge amounts of compression, you've got to have the extra disk hanging on your wheels, along with the associated mounting hardware for both parts.

I did a recent build with a surly cross check but was also checking the soma double cross with discs and the manufacturer specs said Avid Shorty Ulitimate cantis were 260g/pair vs the Avid BB7 mechanical disk rotors & pads/mounts at 1060g/pair.

This is just those components and not the frame tabs or disc hubs which might also contribute small amounts to the disc set up.

Those are among of the lightest cantis available and mechanical discs are heavier than top of the line hydraulic discs (eg Avid XX at 560g/pair)

so the difference is not always that much.

I don't know any hydraulics that run on drops

so I went with the cantis and never had any no regrets.

Even deep mud is not a problem, I just learned how to brake differently.

Disc brakes do add weight due to the caliber, pads, steel mounting hardware, and if they are fluid operated, then they are generally even heavier than the cable counterparts.

You can reduce significant amounts of weight just by swapping the generic steel hardware for titanium bolts.

Dollars per gram saved is quite unreal.

Lost in this thread is the weight savings on the circumference of the rim.

With no need to have a brake surface, the rotational weight impact may be better with a disk even though the overall weight increases.

I'll trade rim weight for hub weight.

Besides, how many gram counters (keep in mind that there are 28 grams in an ounce) can afford to take a dump before the ride and save lbs????

Question: People say ( for example here ) that disc brakes are relatively heavy, giving this as a reason for not using them.  How much heavier than rim brakes are disc brakes? Is the extra heaviness in the brakes, or in the stronger rims, tires, and/or forks?

Weight of disc brakes

There is a great deal of controversy about whether disc brakes are noticeably heavier than rim brakes and whether they are, nevertheless, beneficial. The weight of disc brakes can be reduced by using titanium harware rather than steel. Moreover, there is no clear consensus on which type of brake is better.

The difference in weight is very minor, especially with higher-end products. The added weight probably has an insignificant effect on performance due to the advantages of disc brakes and the positioning of the weight. Some added weight is inevitable, but this can be reduced by swapping out steel with titanium.

There is a slight difference in weight, but this has decreased in recent years and is more noticeable in cheaper bikes. The different design does require some heavier components, but some can be switched with lighter materials.

The weight difference is very minor and outweighed by the advantages of disc brakes and the positioning of the weight.


At 6'6" you're probably going to be looking at the top end of most manufacturers size ranges, road frames of 62cm and above are the range you'll be looking at.

I said "probably" though, you would do best getting yourself to a local shop that knows something about fitting people to frames.

Being so far from the average height I'd not risk buying something offline without having tried sitting on anything, particularly as it's your first road bike.

You really should go to a couple of good LBS's and get fit.

They'll be able to recommend some different companies that make bikes that will fit your build.

There are so many different variables besides just height that it's impossible to recommend a brand based on what you've given.

You need to know your stack and reach in order to find the best geometry for you.

At 6'6", be wary of your local bike shop, unless you really trust them or they have a great reputation.

Sounds like blasphemy to say that, but one of the problems you may have is that many manufacturers may not make a large enough frame for you and you will get sold the biggest thing they have from the brands they carry.

Off the top of my head, in non-custom models, Trek and cannondale both make bikes large enough

(I have a 6'5" friend on both of those), and I know for sure Specialized and giant do not.

63+cm would probably be your likely range, but a good shop with a fit that you will probably pay 100$ or so for should be able to help you dial that in.

Things other than frame size are important as well.

I don't know your dimensions

but you're probably wider in the shoulders than most, so you'll want handlebars that fit you well.

Stem length is also partially driven by flexibility, so that's a consideration too.

Also crank arm length can be tough for bigger guys, the expert in tall bikes is probably Lennard Zinn.

He's a big guy himself and a custom frame builder, you may want to have a read through his site and consider some aftermarket options for those components.

Nothing "off the shelf" is going to fit perfectly for you.

To mitigate, you'll want to experiment with long seatposts that have set-backs and long stems.

Since you're a marathoner, you're probably quite fit and are limber enough to deal with handle bars that are far lower than the seat.

This lower stack height will also help you not be so cramped.

Eventually, you may want to get custom geometry ($$$), but tall folks can get by with frames that don't quite fit.

The pros do it all the time.

SOMA makes good quality affordable frames and their ES comes in 66cm.

I'm only 6'4 but long in the limbs

and I rode that on an extended tour just fine.

The frame will probably set you back $400 or so which should leave room to kit it out.

Just about to ask a similar question, and figured I'd give you what I know so far.

I'm 6'8", more torso than legs.

36" inseam, 37" sleeve in dress shirts.

Trek 1.5 is the low-end Trek road bike, aluminum frame, and comes in a 64 or 65cm setup.

I have one.

It works pretty darn well, out of the box.

Both Trek and Specialized make bikes in this size, but not all of their bikes; that said, you're getting started around $1k.

Only change I made was upgrading the shifters on mine; they were terrible.

I had a similar budget getting started and at 6'5" and change found it impossible to find a local bike shop that could find a good fitting bike.

I started out with the KHS Flite 747:

You can get that for around $1600 and there are older models available for cheaper.

I measured myself and went with the XXL frame and then got fitted to the bike and

the guy said I fit the bike great.

I'm now looking into possibly upgrading with a http://bikeclydesdale.com/ which has bikes made for taller riders with more customizations.

Question: I'm a marathoner that is interested in mixing in some duathlons and triathlons, but I am having trouble finding a starter bike (< $1500) made for a tall man. I am 6'6". Any brands and models that you can recommend that offer a frame that fits someone around my height?

Starter Road Bike for Tall Man

Finding a suitable bike for a very tall person can be quite difficult. It is probably a good idea to go to a local bike shop that knows something about fitting people to frames. Most people think that a frame size of 63+ cm would be right but it would be risky to buy something without sitting on it first. Lennard, Trek and Soma are manufacturers that specialize in bikes in larger sizes.  For bikes for taller riders that are more customizable, there is http://bikeclydesdale.com/ .

There are many factors besides height that can affect the choice of frame, including shoulder width and reach. Good local bike shops will be able to measure you and fit you to a frame, but be wary of those that will try to give you the biggest frame they have, which may still be too small. Several brands make bikes that are suitable for taller riders, although models may be expensive. These include Trek, Cannondale, Leonard Zinn, SOMA, Specialized and Clydesdale.

Local bike shops may be able to fit you to a suitable frame, but since most manufacturers do not make such large frames and local shops do not stock them, be wary of shops that will just give you the biggest model they have.

You need to consider variables in addition to height, such as shoulder width and reach. Longer seat posts with set-backs can help to increase the range of smaller frames.

Several brands make bikes that are suitable for taller riders. These include Trek, Cannondale, Leonard Zinn, SOMA, Specialized and Clydesdale. In many cases, these can be quite expensive though.


Paint it with fluorescent paint and then illuminate with ultraviolet lights (and white LEDs serve this purpose fairly well).

There are also glow strips/panels sold mostly to (oddly) computer hackers who like to light up the inside of their computers.

And probably a few other specialty markets.

Of course, you'd have to rig up some sort of power supply.

Batteries can be concealed under the seat or in the seat tube, or on the person of the cyclist.

[Odds are, to achieve this special effect for the commercial, the bike was painted with fluorescent paint and then illuminated for several minutes with separate UV lights.

The paint will continue to glow brightly for several minutes after being so "charged", long enough to shoot the commercial, I'd guess.]

Buy a flax fiber bike that isn't painted, insert a florescent light into the tubing.

Then paint your bike with phosphorescent paint.

While this wont be as consistent as the image above, wrapping your bike with electroluminescent wire will be 10x cheaper and faster, plus last longer.

Amazone sells it pretty cheap here

I have used it on bikes, Halloween costumes, kid toys, etc.

Its super flexible, durable and safe.

9ft runs on 2 AA batteries.

Tape or zip tie it on as needed.

They make the brightest paint.

Bikeglow is a way of lighting your bike at night.

It doesn’t make the frame itself glow

but no doubt makes your bike much more visible.

It runs on two AA batteries.

No idea if it is any good

: I about it for the first time today.

Check this out, Im gonna paint my bike soon... http://www.instructables.com/id/Night-Bike/

BikeGlow EL wire as well as Monkeylectric wheel lights would get you about as bright, but my guess is that bike was made to glow using video effects in post processing, not real life.

Question: How I can make my bicycle glow? As seen in  this  Blackberry commercial (with screen capture image below).

How can I make a glow bike?

Fluorescent paint teamed with UV lights will create a glowing bike. A similar effect can be achieved with BikeGlow EL wire and Monkeylectric wheel lights.  Glow strip-panels are another option.

Users suggest that the advert used fluorescent paint illuminated with ultraviolet lights, or possibly video editing. Similar effects can be achieved with electroluminescent wire, wheel lights or BikeGlow stickers.

Users suggest that this effect could be achieved using fluorescent paint illuminated with ultraviolet lights, or possibly with video effects.


There are basically four solutions that do not involve extensive work on your bike: Roll up the pant-leg on the gear-side high enough to stay away from the gears.

Wear tight fitting cycling pants that don't flap.

Use braces as you have, or clips such as these to keep your flappy pants close enough to your legs.

Stuff

the pant-leg on the gear side in your socks.

Since option 3 doesn't work for you that leaves you with options 1, 2 or 4.

However, when applying the braces or clips, (or stuffing your pant-leg in your socks) are you taking care to make sure all the excess pant-leg material is collected on the outside of your leg, away from the gears?

On the bicycle side: Chainring guards might help a bit, even better is a full chainguard but these may be hard to find for your bike.

I have found that the top of and old sock over a neatly folded trouser leg works well.

Cut the top of the sock long enough to cover your pants with leg fully extended to the top of the sprocket.

The plus side is you don't ruin good socks stretching them over your pants.

Simple: Just take two rubber bands and stretch them around the bottom of your pants.

Done! :)

When I was a teenager, the "tight roll" was in style.

Nowadays I use it nearly every day to keep my pants out of the chain.

It works better than anything else I've ever tried, is totally free, and you don't have to carry anything around with you.

And here's a video about how to do it:

Get a 8 - 12" piece of velcro, loop side, then adhere a 3" self sticking hook side on the end of the inside.

Tuck and wrap.

$1.50 cost.

I have had mine for 5 years, using it almost daily with no issues.

In addition to velcro and clips, you can use "slap bracelets."

Badge holder lanyards from conventions work well, too (but only the ones with alligator clips).

Wrap it once around, put the clip end through the closed end and pull it tight.

The clip will hold it tight.

(pics later)

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/2302/Ward - Reinstate Monica

This product should work, Leg Shield.

Covers your pant leg from your ankle to right below your knee.

Just the act of rolling up your pant leg one or two times usually covers the problem of it getting caught in the gears.

I've also resorted to tucking it into my socks.

It seems silly to buy clamps and devices when these two "free" options are available.

Nice that it's enough of an issue that it's being brought up online.

When I started mountain biking, some of the magazines and online sites basically accused a person of being a "dork" if they didn't dress in the appropriate gear.

I don't want to wear tight padded pants just to ride my bike.

I've been wearing a t-shirt and jeans for riding for about 4 years now.

I wear them in the summer too.

I figure my legs will be more protected should I fall, wearing canvas than they'd ever be in a goofy, padded pair of semi-shorts.

I found it easiest by taking some light weight sheet metal cut it to shape to my gear cover/guard and had a friend wield it over the cover

it helps a lot.

If u want it to match your bike paint it first.

Make sure u use heat resistant paint.

Question: I have the unfortunate habit of always getting my jeans stuck in my gears and end up with a nice rip on the seams.   I've used those velcro braces to keep the bottom of my pants leg close to my body but I guess I pedal too close to the gears as those get caught in the gears too.

How do I keep my pants/trousers from getting caught in the gears?

There are basically four solutions that do not involve extensive work on your bike:   Roll up the pant-leg on the gear-side high enough to stay away from the gears. Wear tight fitting cycling pants that don't flap.  Use braces or  clips to keep your flappy pants close enough to your legs. I have found that the top of and old sock over a neatly folded trouser leg works well. Alternatively, just take two rubber bands and stretch them around the bottom of your pants or apply alligator clips. With regard to the bike, a chain guard may help.

Solutions include tightly rolling up the pant leg or using close-fitting pants, tucking your pants into your sock or wrapping velcro, cycle clips, pant protectors,  slap bands, elastic bands or other items around the bottom of the pants, while gathering excess material away from the gears. Chainguards and covers can also be used on the bicycle itself to prevent contact.

Chainguards and covers can be used on the bicycle itself to prevent contact.


The obvious answer is a linkage up to the head set, and down to the wheels.

Hydraulics would be viable as well.

However any power transfer system will lose power, which cyclists do not have in excess, which is probably why it has not been done.

It has been done,is being done and is wildly accepted by the few who feel the need for and have the wallet for, a two wheel drive bicycle.

A google search for two wheel drive bicycle will yield enough hits to keep you busy for a few hours.

Every one I have seen is flexible shaft drive.

The shaft is driven by a gear mounted where the rear disc would be and a similar arrangement on the front.

A flexible drive shaft connects the two gears.

Maybe someday it will be the norm but for now it is more of a curiosity, hey people thought 29ers were a fad.

My friend Chad Harrington out of Chula Vista made one back in 1993.

It didn't really catch on, but it will give you an idea of how to make one.

I doubt that phone number is still active, but I wonder if "Turner Drive Systems" is still in existence for some input.

You can also read a little about it at BMXMuseum.com

Offhand, I can't think of a way this could work; the reason you can have all-wheel drive on a car is because of the differential gear .

With one wheel in front of the other and the drive mechanism placed between them along the axis of travel there's no simple way to do it and still have a turnable front wheel.

The penny farthing was able to apply the drive force to the front wheel by having the user sit almost completely on top of it, but the rear wheel still remained fixed.

The large front wheel is a function of not being able to use gearing to increase the torque / rotation speed; in other words, every time the center of the wheel (with the pedals) spun once, the outside of the wheel spun once .

This wasn't very efficient, however.

The only other method I could think of would be to have some kind of flexible shaft driving the turnable wheel, but the loss in torque / speed would be huge.

Technically the trike below has two-wheel drive, but it's also technically not a "bicycle" in that it's got more than two wheels.

It's an interesting thought exercise.

If you don't mind me asking, what would be the benefit of a two-wheel (front and back) drive bike?

the power output would remain the same - one dude, pushing as hard as he can, will still only output one "dude-power" ("dude-power" is the amount of energy you get by burning Jeff Bridges.

It's equivalent to about one-third of a "Walter-hour").

The small footprint of a bike won't gain anything appreciable from being able to apply torque to a different wheel (just lean back to get more traction).

Somehow power needs to be transmitted to the front wheel without creating torque on the steering axis.

There are various differential (coaxial shaft) schemes that would sorta work (hard to believe, though, that they'd not have so much friction as to generate unacceptable steering torque), or one could use a belt drive with a belt that could twist on itself.

A flat belt running through the steering tube (perhaps with guides inside the tube where it would tend to twist on itself when turning) and attached to a drive pulley at the top would probably work, though it would be exceedingly awkward.

Also exceedingly awkward but worth a mention is "windmill" drive. Have a reciprocating shaft running down the steering tube, operating a crank on the front wheel, and driven by a crank axle above.

This is the inverse of your standard windmill water pump where the reciprocating shaft from the windmill drives a water pump below.

The other option is electric drive.

In fact, most electric-assist bikes already have, in effect,

2-wheel drive.

One could add a generator to the back wheel to supply power to the front (in place of a battery), similar to the electric drive of submarines, diesel locomotives, and large military trucks.

We did this in 1996 with a differential mechanism and by nullifying the torque at the steering.

It was quite successful with various advantages like easy drive the sandy road /

muddy / loose gravel without skidding, and no skidding of bike by turning the steering at max of 90 degree even at high speed.

The bike was designed to take different speed automatically at both rear and front while turning and the speed can be doubled without at having gears at rear wheel.

But it was heavy because of metal gears.

It was tested by TI cycles of India, a commercial Bicycle manufacturer in India.

Question: A two wheel drive bike is a bike without a motor that can still turn. The front and back wheel both get power. How does a bike with this type of drivetrain work?

How does a two wheel drive bike work?

It has been done,is being done and is wildly accepted by the few who feel the need for and have the wallet for, a two wheel drive bicycle.  However, for most people now, it is still a fad. There are various ways of building a two wheel drive bike, all of which are rather awkward and most cyclists consider they bring little in terms of performance, as the power is still supplied by one person pedalling. Short of adding a power supply to the back wheel, there is no way there would be a real increase in performance.

There are several possible implementations of this idea, as can be seen from a Google search. This would generally require a flexible shaft connecting the drive to the front wheel, and would add complexity and weight while sacrificing efficiency and without necessarily improving performance. Other options include a belt drive, but all fail to increase the power output and the benefit of added traction is less appreciable on a bike and more easily achieved by shifting your weight.

There are several possible implementations of this idea, as can be seen from a Google search. This would generally require a flexible shaft connecting the drive to the front wheel, and would add complexity while sacrificing efficiency and without necessarily improving performance.


Basically, the intended effect is to increase the number of red blood cells in your system, which in turn gives you increased oxygen carrying capacity to the working muscles.

This extra oxygen allows your muscles to work longer and harder.

In the early days of "blood packing", circa the 70's and 80's, it was basically taking a couple of pints of blood out of the body, storing it and letting the body naturally replace it, then transfusing it back into the athlete before their events.

Erythropoietin has actually been around since the early 1900's, and in the 60's, they found that it stimulated blood marrow to produce extra red blood cells.

In the late 80's, a synthetic EPO agent was created, and this is what led to the EPO use as an athletic enhancing agent, other than its legitimate medical uses (Anemia, and other diseases).

The biggest effect from extra blood cells (Other than the risk factors of homologous blood {Blood from an outside donor}) is that the blood becomes thicker and more viscous.

This can lead to blood clots, strokes, heart attacks and pulmonary embolism.

This becomes more likely at rest/sleep, as the heart rate slows quite a bit.

Here is an excellent article from Outside Magazine written by a journalist who rode brevets and decided to explore performance enhancing drugs (EPO & HGH) and write about it.

The really sad thing about these drugs is that they appeal to really talented and dedicated athletes who've reached the pinnacle of their abilities and who have only a very limited amount of time before age or injury degrades their physical performance.

I am sure that you'll be able to find plenty of references on the physical side effects of these substances (yes, they're dangerous and potentially fatal).

But the psychological "side-effect" is significant as well.

People who take these drugs become acutely aware that they are not themselves and that their performance is not entirely their own.

That, by itself, let-alone health consequences is a huge burden that must be carried in secret by athletes who've spend a decade or more developing their abilities using only their own talent and hard-work.

Blood doping isn't only pumping more blood into your body.

Your body increases hemoglobin (red blood cells) when you are in great altitude.

This is caused by lower air presure which doesn't allow the lungs to transport enough oxygen into the bloodstream.

Therefore the body can increase the ratio of red blood cells in your blood to compensate for the lower oxygen intake.

If you train hard in big height this compensation mechanism really kicks in, raising your hemoglobin level.

After doing the traing the high hemoglobin rate only lasts a few days(?)/weeks, therefore you can remove this blood from your body and freeze it for competition.

Before the competition starts you reinject the froozen blood (maybe remove some current blood?).

This gives you an higher oxygen binding rate and gives you more power on the bike.

You don't need EPO or anything.

EPO also increases hemoglobin but without the need of high altitude.

I wouldn't really concider that blood doping, but the link from the previous answer differs.

I think your question referens to "doping with your own blood" (not a native speaker, don't know the technical term) If it harms you?

People in high altitude maybe live shorter, but that might be caused by missing health care system, poverty and missing education in countries with high mountains.

I think other factors such as increased radiation in heights might account for more deaths than some cardio-vascular stuff.

Therefore saying more hemogobin equals higher mortality might be a long shot and empirically wrong.

Are there any studies?

(not that I know of, but might be worth a search).

Injecting large amounts of blood may well be a hazzard if the blood starts to clot, or was contaminated during storage, but I guess that's a small risk.

Taking other peoples blood may well mess you up, if some unexspected immune reaction kicks in.

I don't think enough cyclists died from injecting their own blood to make some profound statement.

From the World Anti-Doping Agency: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/Blood-Doping/

While proper use of EPO has an enormous therapeutic benefit in the treatment of anaemia related to kidney disease, its misuse can lead to serious health risks for athletes who use this substance simply to gain a competitive edge.

It is well known that EPO, by thickening the blood, leads to an increased risk of several deadly diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and cerebral or pulmonary embolism.

The misuse of recombinant human EPO may also lead to autoimmune diseases with serious health consequences.

If the blood is from other individuals then there are a number of hazards, from AIDS and hepatitis to malaria and Lyme disease.

Plus there's always a chance of a sort of allergic reaction to the blood due to mismatched antigens.

If the blood is "autologous" -- from your own body -- then the above risks are avoided (so long as someone doesn't mix up the blood).

But there are non-trivial risks of infection, blood clots, and iron overload.

On the "donating" side, since you're probably stressing your body in several ways, there are additional risks.

Question: It has been in the news that endurance athletes such as cyclists sometimes increase their red blood cell count by blood doping. I don't understand how you can just pump more blood into yourself, there must be some bad side effects to doing this, right?

What are the side effects of blood doping?

Blooding doping has been around for quite a long time. It is basically intended to force the bosy to create new red blood cells and thus increase oxygen transport to the muscles. Mainly athletes remove and inject their own blood, in which case the health risks seems relatively small. However, gretaer health risks exist where blood of other donors is used, i.e. risk of infection, reaction, etc.

The aim is to increase the red blood cell count, boosting your oxygen carrying capacity to working muscles. Early methods took blood and stored it for later use, but later EPO was used after it was found to stimulate production of red blood cells. Taking other people's blood carries the risk of disease, but the risks of a higher red blood cell count are not fully clear. The blood becomes thicker, but not enough cyclists have died from this to make conclusive statements. People living at higher altitudes often have a lower life expectancy, but this could be due more to social factors. Athletes may feel pressure to use blood doping due to the heavy competition and their limited time at the peak of their sport, but they are always aware that this is not purely their own achievement.

Taking other people's blood carries the risk of disease, but it is not clear how dangerous a higher red blood cell count could be. The blood becomes thicker, but not enough cyclists have died from this to make conclusive statements. People living at higher altitudes often have a lower life expectancy, but this could be due more to social factors.


I have seen people trailer them, but for a local race here, many people go car free and strap them to the top tube extending back behind the seat, usually onto the rack.

Found many images using google image search for "carry skis on bike" http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5471607772_40dc377ed0_o.jpg

Here's a DIY solution, adding a vertical ski tube to your rack

When ski touring we often carry skis on our backpacks - tied together at top and one each in loops each side.

Very stable except in high winds.

No reason this would not work riding a bike.

Here is a pic

I myself just put my x-country skis and poles in a lightweight ski bag with a shoulder strap and rode short distances without issues.

Was even able to carry a mid-sized backpack alongside the ski bag.

The trick is to put the shoulder strap over your head so that the skis won't fall off or hit your bike.

However, I recently came across an interesting commercial product called the Gunslinger that also seems to solve this problem: https://defiantpack.com/products/gunslinger-ski-carry

There is a model made for cross-country skis, alongside ones for different types of downhill skis.

Though to be honest, the solution seems to be similar to other answers here about strapping the skis to the bike frame, except that the part of the skis strapped to the bike is protected.

Depending on the length of the skis a "Sandwich" of skis with the frame in the middle can work, using bungees to strap them together.

also if you have a rack over the rear wheel this will further support them...

Wouldn't try this for my old Downhill boards.

by my newer and shorter Slalom boards would do the trick.

The Burley Travoy trailer is an interesting design and is a good deal more compact than a traditional trailer.

The trailer folds down to keep it convenient while still being able to carry a good deal of stuff.

The benefit of a trailer mounted at an angle rather than parallel with the ground is that you wouldn't need to drag along the length of your skis

- it'd only trail by a few feet.

In mounting skis you would have to angle them upwards so as to avoid whacking yourself in the head, but with the right arrangement of luggage I don't see that as being a problem.

This might be the ideal option if you were to carry more than one pair of skis in addition to your standard gear.

Disclaimer: I am quite fond of my Burley Flatbed trailer and can attest to Burley's design, but have never used the Travoy (it generally gets pretty good reviews, though.)

Surfers here in San Diego carry their boards to the beach with this little side or rear-mounted rack on their beach cruisers.

Question: I don't have a car and think about biking to ski resorts. So the question is how to carry my XC skis on a bike. Have anyone tried doing this and what was the solution?  Thanks.

How to carry skis on a bike?

Many people trailer their skis when carrying them by bike, but for a local race here, many people go car free and strap them to the top tube extending back behind the seat, usually onto the rack. There are various othe DIY methods of carrying skis on a bike. However, there is an interesting commercial product called the Gunslinger that also seems to solve this problem:  https://defiantpack.com/products/gunslinger-ski-carry . The  Burley Travoy  trailer is an interesting design and is a good deal more compact than a traditional trailer.

Skis can be strapped to the top tube, extending behind the bike, or carried over the shoulder in a ski bag. A trailer can also be used, which has the advantage that the skis can be carried at an angle to take up less length.


I only know this system from older times, perhaps current (2013) systems have different qualities.

It uses a wider head tube, because the shock is placed in the steering tube of the fork.

Usually, you can install adapters to the frame, so that you can use a normal suspension fork.

The main difference is that, instead of using telescopic stanchions, it has a squared tube with needle bearings.

When new, this system has virtually no static friction, so it will be VERY responsive to minor and/or high-frequency road irregularities, such as cobblestones, rough gravel, and rooty trail sections.

If something goes wrong it's usually the needle bearings themselves, which develop progressive "play", thus needing service/replacement, which in turn can become "complicated" since only Cannondale can service them or provide replacement parts, as far as I know.

I have seen some problematic Fatty forks in the past, but I have also seen A LOT of people happily using Fatty and Lefty (which uses the same principle) without issue.

Hope this helps!

I have experience of them, yes.

They are great, when they work.

Other than the Lefty, they are probably one of the better short travel cross country mountain bike forks if by best, you mean stiffest & lightest.

But you are considering a 'BadBoy' which is usually used on-road.

In this case, a fork, headshok or not, is at best a bit of a waste of time, and at worst, a costly mistake.

The dirty secret of suspension forks, Headshok, or otherwise, is that they need regular and quite specialised maintenance, and if you don't treat them right, they suffer, and eventually die, and it's expensive to repair / replace them.

Are they any less reliable than 'normal' forks?

No.

Do they suffer from the same problems if left unmaintained?

Yes.

If you ride on road mostly, and want comfort, go for bigger tyres and a rigid fork for simplicity & reliability.

No, they are not reliable in the long term.

I have the same problems with a Ultra fatty dlr Headshok on my cannonade Caffein 2006.

Bought in 2008, it worked one year, then leaking oil, air and finally corroded , to function as a "stiff" fork...

I had it repaired at a german hedshok repair specialist, called"team88", they replaced the whole air suspension cartridge and overhauled the needle bearing .

costs ca 300 Euro plus delivery...

Then functioned pretty well for 2 years, now again leaking more and more air, and the last weeks it can't be fixed by filling air anymore because it is flat after some hours...

Im not sure if i want to repair it once more or just change to a stiff fork.

Has been really expensive already.

I think the headset on the headshock system is propriatary and can't be used with existing 1 1/2in forks, but uses the same oversized headtube, so you can swap the headset with a standard 1 1/2in or use a reducer for 1 1/2in to 1 1/8in.

So, If you can't service the fork, You should be able to swap out the fork if you get a reducer headset (1 1/2in to 1 1/8in), a new stem, and a new 1 1/8in fork.

Headshock is pretty low travel, so you'll probably want a fork with low travel, an adjustable travel fork, or a suspension corrected rigid fork.

Sheldon has a page with some info on the system and links to manuals:

http://sheldonbrown.com/cannondale-headshok.html You could possibly rebuild it, parts are out there.

Honestly, unless you were getting a smoking hot deal, I'd avoid proprietary crap like this.

Headshok is super-stiff, light and solid.

There is virtually zero stiction and the damping is butter-smooth.

I have a vintage, 2001 Bad Boy Ultra with Headshok and only recently re-built it (2013) – that's 13 years of reliable operation!

The guy who serviced it said I'll easily get another 15-18 years' use, as the updated bearings and seals are even better then original

OEM.

I love the true, solid lockout knob.

One quarter turn and the fork is shut off.

I only get 2.75" of travel, but it's plenty for an urban application.

I have Cannondale Quick CX 2010 with a headshok on a Fatty fork .

The lock never really worked, it locked but there was always a very small move causing noise when riding over a bump.

The bike mechanic suggested to avoid locking the shok.

It lasted about two years before I needed to start adding air every month or so.

One day it leaked oil everywhere, made nasty clunking metal-against-metal noises, the lock became non functional.

I took it to the shop, they fixed it somehow without replacing it, and it worked again for a few months before it started needing air added to it every week or every month, depending on still unknown variables.

It now failed again with the same symptoms, and it's completely collapsed: the shok doesn't have enough strength to support the bike's weight.

I have to take it to the shop again and it's not exactly cheap to get it fixed.

I had known about this, I wouldn't have bought this bike.

Question: Does anyone have any experience of the Cannondale Headshok suspension system, where the shock is in the head tube / above the fork?  Are they reliable? I'm looking at a Cannondale Bad Boy 2 (2013) and am concerned that if something goes wrong it could be hard to rectify..

Experiences of the Cannondale Headshok system?

It seems that cyclists either love or hate the Cannondale Headshok and other suspension systems. Many claim to have used them with relatively few issues while others feel the problems far outweigh any advantages. For people who ride on road mostly, and want comfort, bigger tyres and a rigid fork are recommended for simplicity & reliability.

This system is proprietary and often develops problems over time that require specialised maintenance, making it expensive and unreliable. There is less travel than on regular shocks, so while it is responsive and smooth, rigid forks with bigger tyres would improve comfort on roads without the complexity.


I commute on two bicycles: — a road bike, with 25mm tire up front and a 28mm back.

— a custom commuter bike, with 32mm up front, 35mm back.

I'd recommend you go with the 32mm tires.

The 28mm tires I've used are good for commuting (I think the 25mm I have is too small — I have to give it too much attention when crossing curb lines and such).

That said, 32mm tires offer a lot more protection in urban environments.

I ride suburban roads (25mm is fine for those) into an urban environment, and then I go into a college campus.

It is on campus where the 25mm tires get dicey.

There are many different surfaces on campus, and each change creates an edge — It is those edges that will get you, either trip you up or cause a pinch flat.

A 28mm tire does OK, but a 32mm tire handles these conditions much better.

Some 32mm tires are heavy, some are lighter weight.

For what you hope to do — go fast — search around for lighter weight tires (Panaracer might be a good place to start).

Enjoy the fatties!

Have had a Trek FX 7.2 for 6 years.

Came with 35's.

Replaced with 32's.

Work very well for pavement.

If you are doing any curb jumping or cobblestone, I would not suggest the 28's.

If you are looking at a Trek hybrid (love mine), consider a carbon fork model.

Mine is all metal and I feel the vibrations in my forearms.

That is the ONLY bad thing I have to say about the bike

and it is not enough to replace it at this point.

Tom

Based on the title alone 32mm tires are not ideal for fast commuter bike.

But that picture is some harsh conditions and you state safety is important.

For that picture and the pictures you had on the fork question I would go 32mm or even 35mm.

A 35mm is not not going to be as fast

but it should be softer and have more grip.

And also which type of tire.

A hard tire maximized for durability and puncture resistance is not the way to go as it is harsh and heavy.

Look for a softer tire that will take a broader ranges of pressure.

Not a race tire but a lighter touring or city tire.

Unless you are over like 170 lbs then run it at less than maximum pressure.

Mattnz bring up a good point on total commute time.

A flat brings down the average and so does rain.

A larger tire is more resistant to pinch flats.

I happen to think a larger tire is less susceptible to puncture flats but

not everyone agrees so let's leave that out.

That route does not look it has a lot of thorns or glass

so don't go with THE most puncture resistant like a Marathon Plus HS as a 622x32 weighs 810 grams and has poor rolling resistance.

You can get tire with some puncture protection and good rolling resistance at 500 grams.

An under inflated tire has poor rolling resistance - check pressure regularly regardless of size.

Keep you bike maintained in general -

a broken chain kills an average.

In dry conditions and low traffic a 28mm is going to be fastest.

A 32mm is going to be more durable and nearly as fast.

On the ruff stuff a 32mm probably faster.

A 35mm is going to be slower on the smooth stuff

but I think faster on those bricks.

Now mix in some rain.

Those bricks looks slick in rain.

That is where I go 35mm and bring the pressure down a bit.

You also have an indirect factor on safely with a smaller tire in if your head is down to pick a line you are not looking up at the bigger picture.

The other part is how long a commute.

If it is short and you can hump it out is different then long enough that you need to conserve energy.

And something else to consider is putting some 35mm touring tires on your XC.

Don't pick the bike just for the tires.

You can changes the tires.

Pick a bike that will take up to 35mm.

Since you already have a mtn bike with flat bars then consider more of a cross style with drop bars for a more of a range of bicycles.

I commute with SS and 25c in front and 23c on the back.

I live in Zagreb

so there is really a lot of variations of terrain, but I like to be fast

so I don't mind.

I had more problems with wider tires than with thinner tires.

So, IMHO thin tires are just fine and I enjoy them, but I also think that you yourself need to try different setups and see what suits you best.

I was just in the same boat that is how I came across this forum.

I was happy to switch out my front tire to a Randonneur ii.

My Giant Escape came with 32mm tires.

I now have 28mm on the front

and I would highly recommend it.

The tires feel lighter and more responsive.

Along with that comes the feeling of increased speed.

I have not timed myself yet to see if I am actually increasing in speed or if it just feels that way.

Either way, I'd highly recommend.

Like others have said, the 32's are going to give you a little more comfort

so I'm planning on keeping those in the back.

I did not notice much vibration difference in the front though.

I'm sure you'd be safe to have both tires on a hybrid/commuter at 28.

Question: I am considering a faster bike to replace my XC for commuting. I am thinking hybrid/cross/road bike with wider tires. My question is whether 28mm tires are enough or if I should go with 32mm like Trek touts for their CrossRip. I won't be riding gravel roads or other heavier terrain too much, but I will need to jump to/from curbs from time to time.  Where I live I often need to ride over cobblestones and tram tracks, like this, so safety is very important:

Are 32mm tires ideal for a fast commuter bike?

Most people recommend at least a size 32 mm tire for urban environments and most consider 28 mm too small. Some even suggest going bigger than 32 mm as a larger tire is more resistant to pinch flats. If speed is what you are looking for, search around for lighter tires like Panaracer.

28mm is good for commuting, but 32 would be better for curb jumping and cobblestones, as well as avoiding pinch flats. Choose a bike that can take wider tyres if necessary, but don't choose just based on that criterion. Try to find lighter tyres with some puncture protection and a broad range of pressure to allow speed and puncture resistance.


From Southern California, when approaching slower traffic from behind on bike lanes and paths: "On your left" meaning that you are passing them on their left-hand side.

Only left.

People hear the "On" portion of the call and they start moving to their right.

I can't ever recall hearing "On your right".

Good thing, too.

Would be a mess.

I send a single "ping" with my bell.

More pings only if I don't see the other person recognizing me

(e.g. look at me, wave a hand, change direction etc).

I've noticed over the years that if I call out it startles people walking.

Most walkers don't expect someone on a bicycle let along someone calling out something they don't understand.

So my strategy now is when I get reasonably close I cough.

Yup cough, it is a familiar sound and if it's on a quite street the walker will usually turn around to see who's behind them.

As a pass I give a friendly wave and sometimes a polite hello.

In Dayton, OH, the protocol seems to be sneak up on them and shout as your tire starts to overlap.

Majority of riders tend to not use bells (and only shout when it is too late) and a smaller slice have the miracle bell (miracle if the other person hears it).

However, I have installed dual action bells on all our bikes (or a bugle on my sons) and it allows us to notify at a farther distance with a greater chance of hearing us.

This works for both Bikes and Peds.

People responding to it tend to be less jumpy than when I used to shout.

It also saves my voice on the busier days.

Bristol, UK: "Passing on your left/right" usually works, but every once in a while peds (or even cyclists) will move the wrong way.

To be on the safe side, I just bell from a good few yards back.

If that doesn't provoke a shoulder check, I just roll up slowly and issue a polite "'

Scuse me, mind if I pass?

"... I think that's probably the best all-round approach

anyway - why should pedestrians on a shared path be expected to know "bike lingo" like "on your left"?

If it's a numpty with headphones, I find a very quick "pip" with the AirZound works wonders ;)

If it's a runner, or a slower cyclist, who's obviously sticking to the left, I just pass on the right with ample space.

Germany: (I should explain that I'm mostly biking to get to/from work, so this is about urban streets.

But when I ride for fun on weekends, on the relevant paths there's seldomly so much traffic

it requires significant regulation.)

If there's a street present, usually pedestrians are on the sidewalk and bikes on the street, so there's no conflict.

If there's a dedicated bikeway, I ring the bell from as far away as possible considering hearing conditions if pedestrians are on the bikeway, or to overtake another bike.

On the bikeway, the usual rules apply (drive right, overtake left), so no need to announce the passing direction.

Combined bike/pedestrian ways are an abomination which I don't use (biking on the street), fortunately they're largely illegal by current regulations.

On a path in the woods or fields, there's usually traffic in both ways, so pedestrians as well as bikes tend to keep on the(ir)

right side, allowing normal overtaking (giving a soft ping with the bell to notify).

If there's a larger group blocking the whole path, the same as for bikeways applies.

I post an answer but looking for other answers and will not give the check to my answer.

I live in Houston and the common protocol is bike left or bike right.

Bike left is bike passing on the left.

If the pedestrian does not know the protocol they will turn look to the left

so things can go bad.

If it looks like an experienced runner they probably know the protocol.

Pedestrians don't do a good job of staying right.

And if you have traffic both ways you may drop off the path and pass on the right.

We get some bells but they are mainly Europeans.

When I hear a bell I look for an ice cream truck.

For a couple hours a day a 1 mile loop is shut down and get some racers training.

It can be a problem there.

You will get kids learning to skate and all over the road.

Racers can get irritated and it is not always a polite exchange.

I have a pretty loud cassette

so on the sidewalk I just coast and let them hear me.

When I lived in Seattle there was more use of bells.

Also many more blind turns.

And pedestrians did a better job of staying to the right.

On the trails the protocol is rider up or rider back.

Going into a blind turn rider up.

Then when you pass you call out how many riders are behind you - e.g. 2 back or if none then clear back.

A runner will call out runner up.

I guess if they passed you they would call runner back

but I have never been passed by a runner.

Western Australia: It is a legal requirement here to have a bell or warning device fitted.

I have bells on my bikes and generally only use them when approaching pedestrians or cyclists who are either making it difficult to pass (e.g., walking wide or in the centre of the path) or who I feel may make a sudden move that could prove not so good for either of us.

This is a bit topical here at the moment following the death of a 95 year pedestrian who was hit by a cyclist.

There where on a shared use path.

No details beyond the ABC news report .

Andrew

Question: A question on a bell had a lot of comments on how to notify pedestrians.  How do you notify a pedestrian you need to pass?    How do you notify a bicycle you need to pass?  I imagine this will be region dependent so please state your region.  This is getting a bit of response and it clearly varies by region.  I will give it a couple more hours and just award the answer to the most votes.

Polite/Proper Way To Notify Pedestrians and Bicycles

A single ping on the bell a few meters away is considered a polite way to let other cyclist and pedestrians know of your presence. Unfortunately most riders do not use bells, or at least not often enough and not until it is too late. Shouting out is considered a bad idea as it tends to startle people.

A bell is a good way to warn someone that a bike is coming, although a dual action bell notifies people at a greater distance. Cyclists are usually better than pedestrians at keeping to the correct side and following protocol, and sometimes people will move to the wrong side if you call out where you will pass. Sometimes passing where there is plenty of space is the easiest option.


It depends a lot on you.

I live in Illinois and I'll go out in a T-shirt and shorts in the 40's for bike rides.

But if you want some additional warmth in the around 40F and 3 miles, I'd say maybe some thin gloves (I have a set of Underarmour coldgear running gloves which are useful for longer rides in the 30s) and a hoodie - you might be cold for the first 2-3 minutes

but then you'll feel fine.

If you find that a hoodie leaves you cold for the whole ride, maybe add a wind breaker with some ventilating holes.

In general, you shouldn't dress enough to feel warm when you're getting on the bike.

You'll generate some extra heat, so in most cases, the right amount of clothing will make you feel a bit cold for the first few minutes.

A ski jacket is way too much bundling for riding in 40 degree weather (given that its probably overkill for even just standing outside).

I find that at warmish cold temperatures like the 30s-40sF, the most important thing is to keep my hands and ears warm; the rest of my body takes care of itself after a few minutes of riding.

(I am assuming your normal garb does not leave exposed skin other than hands and head/neck.

If it does, well, fix that first.)

Have a good pair of wind-stopping gloves; experiment with glove liners if the gloves aren't enough.

A fleece earband keeps my ears and forehead warm and doesn't get in the way of my helmet, but if that's not enough or your nose complains, try a hoodie, stocking cap, or balaclava.

You may find that keeping the wind from stripping heat away is plenty enough for the rest of your body, in which case a standard rain jacket or nylon windstopper will do the job.

If it doesn't, try a hoodie or put on a fleece vest or jacket under the rain jacket.

(A water-resistant jacket with fleece lining is essentially this; Land's End carries such, among others.)

Other minor considerations:

Sleeves that are snug at the wrist (e.g. stretchy knit cuffs or buttoned cuffs) keep the wind from sneaking up your forearm.

Crew or longer socks do the same for your ankles and calves, or failing that, a cycling cuff-band.

I've found that "soft shell" garments work really well in that temperature range as long as it's not raining.

Soft shell fabrics are jack of all trades.

They are much more breathable than your typical nylon shell, they are more windproof than a microfleece and with a good DWR

they are reasonably good at repelling light rain and snow.

My favorite fabric of this type is Schoeller Dryskin, but it's kind of pricy.

Polartec Powershell also works pretty well.

IMHO, you want to avoid anything that claims to be waterproof/breathable.

Even the best versions of these kinds of fabrics are not breathable enough for moderate exercise.

WB fabrics (i.e. goretex) have their use, but they are vastly oversold.

bicycles.stackexchange.com/users/8445/Fred the Magic Wonder Dog

My commute has always been about that distance, and when temperatures reach around freezing point, I simply wear a ski jacket which has ventilation shafts under the armpits.

Opening these helps me a lot from sweating, and you can easily adjust them.

Also thin (e.g. running) gloves can help: they break the cold wind, but allow you to transpire.

And finally, like in warm weather: don't rush too much.

5 degrees celsiusis is chilly and the main enemy is wind.

Those are the areas of the body, that generate a excessive heat: torso head thigh

Those are the areas, mostly affected by wind:

knees palms front part of the body: breasts, neck, face

I would wear:

no backpack knee pads, thin gloves wool shirt with long sleeves helmet

In colder weather (below freezing) I would add: wind breaker winter gloves ski mask

long trousers At below

I would add: ski jacket ;p

I bought a few wool blend base layer tops and bottoms and a pair of neoprene gloves, all from Costco, which keep me very comfortable down to 40 degrees.

As the temperature dips lower, I am experimenting with adding layers.

At 34 degrees, I wore two pairs of the base layer bottoms, one on top, plus a very thin windbreaker from REI, which worked very well.

I commute about 10 miles each way.

Question: I bike to work. It's about 3 miles. I live in Minnesota. It is getting cold. When it is like 40 and below I bundle up but I sweat  and then I am hot so I lose a layer and then freeze. Should I wear like a windbreaker or that under armor stuff? I get to work and my body can not tell if its freezing or sweating.

How to dress for biking 3 miles to work in 40°F (3°C) and below so not to sweat to much but still keep warm

Biking will make you feel warmer so the right amount of clothing is what you feel slightly cold in at the beginning of the ride. A windproof jacket with ventilation is a good idea. Gloves are probably required and maybe something to cover the ears. Wool base layer tops and bottoms are also recommended.

This depends on your tolerance to cold weather, but generally you should dress so you don't feel warm for the first few minutes of your ride, to avoid overheating later. If you are too cold at the end of the ride, wear another layer next time. A ski jacket may be too warm, but a light windbreaker or tight sleeves can stop the wind from reaching your skin. Keep your hands, ears and forehead warm with thin gloves and a hoodie, balaclava, ski mask or stocking cap. A windbreaker with ventilation can protect against the wind. Softshell can be better than 'breathable' waterproof jackets, which are often not as breathable as advertised.


A good folding bike should ride just as well and last just long as a traditional bike.

BikeFriday has a reputation for bikes that feel "normal."

As far as maintenance goes there is very little difference.

From my experience the only thing that needs more frequent maintenance are the cable housings.

This is because cables usually have to make more complex cable bends on a compact folding frame.

This causes the housing wear out a bit faster.

From my experience about 33% faster than my traditional bikes.

There is not really difference in maintenance.

You have the same brakes, gears (rear), shocks, wheels, bearings.

The only addition is the bolts where you fold the bike.

About the commute - folding bikes have smaller wheels, which ends up in: Decreased speed (for people like me who loves high speed

it's significant).

At some point you can see yourself pedaling like a crazy to get a just a little bit faster.

Significant sensitivity to road roughness.

Any bump in the road becomes much more serious.

A folding bike just does ride as well and is not as efficient.

Small frame and small wheels.

You are going to pay more for a folding bike.

Brand does matter - some of the high end ride nicely and some low end ride badly.

After trying to live with a folding bike, here are my observations.

Most, (all) foldy bikes have a feel different from a regular road or MTB.

so the feeling is never going to be the same.

There might be some flex from the handlebars, they could be slow or feel as though they are going to fall over....

So I think to a large extent it would be best to put their handling characteristics out of the way.

I think a true measure of a folding bike is: how it folds,how easy it is to walk up the stairs with it,how easy it is to put it in the boot of the car,how easy to walk 10 meters with the bike in its completely folded state.

(or how easy it is to fulfil your portability needs)

Similarly a downhill mtb with 7" of suspension is not going to work so well as a regular street commuter, but in the right environment its horses for courses

Folding bikes are great.

Many higher-end folding bikes have derailleurs or geared hubs, which means that they can be just as fast as a regular bicycle.

The only things that you lose are: Stability because of the smaller wheels.

This can be a positive as a city bicycle as they are more nimble (i.e., less stable) at slower speeds.

Harder ride.

Because the wheels are smaller and the spokes smaller, the ride will be rougher.

The frames are not as rigid and are arguably less strong.

So you won't be able to jump off curbs and do as many bunny hops.

I own a cheap "metro" folder, and it is quite different riding to a normal sized bike.

The steering is a lot more reactive than a bike with a larger wheel, so it wants to wander a bit more.

This is due to the smaller front wheel, shorter forks and reduced trail.

I can't ride this one hands-free for long, regardless of gear.

Rider Position is much more upright, so you're more visible but more of a sail too to catch the wind.

Overall gearing is narrower because most folders are single front chainring.

This is mostly okay on the flat, but grades over 10% are no fun.

You'll also spin out sooner on the downhill or with a tailwind.

Cranks and seatposts tend to be short too - if you're over 6 foot a normal folder will likely be too small.

Mine is.

Question: I am planning to buy a folding bicycle (brand doesn't matter). Intent is commuting to work inside the city (5-6 kms one side run). Reason for folding bicycle is space constraint in my apartment. I never rode a folding bicycle before I am curious to know how different it is from normal bikes riding wise and any additional maintenance is involved and durability compared to normal bikes   Please advise.

Advice on Folding Bicycle

A good folding bike should ride just as well and last just long as a traditional bike. However, they have smaller wheels so require more pedal power to move ahead. The frame is also smaller and less rigid. Brand is important as some high ends ride well and some low ends badly. The steering is a lot more reactive so it tends to wander a bit. As regards maintenance, there is little to no difference. As it is a folding bike, the key question is how easy it folds.

The riding feel should be similar with a good quality folding bike, but the small wheels and less rigid frame will make it less stable and more reactive to bumps. The cost is higher than for an equivalent normal bike, but the advantages of size and portability can balance this out. Higher end bikes often have more gears, but the upright position is less aerodynamic. Maintenance is similar, since the main components are equivalent to normal bikes.

The riding feel should be similar with a good quality folding bike, but the small wheels and less rigid frame will make it less stable and more reactive to bumps. Higher end bikes often have more gears, but the upright position is less aerodynamic.

The cost is higher than for an equivalent normal bike, but the advantages of size and portability can balance this.


Based on the people I've seen riding, knees-apart is a symptom.

New rider - it takes time to develop a good pedal stroke, and some people haven't got there.

Saddle too low - If your position is really bad, then the knees instinctively separate.

I have no idea why - try riding a way-small bike.

Relates to.... Posture - riders who might remember the Moon Landings might be expecting to sit up quite straight (ie Dutch-style bikes) where the back is almost vertical.

To do that on a modern hybrid bike needs a low saddle, which encourages the knees apart.

Fear of falling - Saddles can be set down by riders who want to put their whole foot flat on the road while stopped.

Yes this is a saddle-too-low, but the root cause is poor balance, or a perception of the same.

Beer gut - I was over 100 kilos when started riding seriously on a road bike, and to use the drops I had to be standing out of the saddle, else the belly and the upper thighs tried to occupy the same space.

Even a minor tum will affect the upper thigh and where the skin folds to the lower tummy (technical term anyone?)

Thunder Thighs - related to the stomach one above, but simply lower.

If the rider's thighs are a bit thick, then repeated rubbing on the sides of the saddle's nose may be an irritant and drive their thighs apart.

Chaffing is no fun.

An unfortunate choice of clothing?

I've done rides where something wasn't sitting quite right, and to alleviate irritation

have sat up or rearranged things like seams.

This would be a more temporary situation.

Moisture - poor clothing choices can build up sweat in all sorts of places.

Dampness could also come from rain or from road water and poor mudguards/fenders leading to damp clothes.

History - riders who have come from a MTB or BMX background may be subconsciously prepared to stick a foot out and dab.

That's where they do a light touch on the ground to help with balance on a corner.

Speed - Sitting up and spreading yourself out catches more air to slow you down.

If you're going too fast then this is one way to reduce speed.

Again, more subconscious than planned.

Have I missed any?

Balance

- I know I've used my knees like a motorcyclist on a turn, to vary my "lean" quicker.

Probably not pedalling at this moment though.

it might be for therapeutical reasons.

once I hit a pole with my knee and it hurt.

I asked a physiotherapist how to ride until it gets better (I had to because I was working as a messenger)

and I was told to stick my knees out.

it did help.

the other explanations given by @Criggie may be more frequent, but this is a valid reason too.

I have seen this happening to new riders because they use too high gears (too low cadence).

Forcing each pedal stroke down hard makes the knees buckle.

This can cause both the knees always sticking out, but also inwards.

Overwhelmingly most common cause is seat too low which can be complicated by leg length discrepancies..

Also often due to knee or ankle joints damaged or affected by chronic injuries.

Most riders don't give any thought to this and are not even aware of how their knees track.

My right knee sticks out because my right hip is so tight that I cannot bend my right leg into my chest straight - it has to go out of line to do it - so this is the same on the bike.

I have always had this problem

and I believe it's probably from years of sitting with my right leg underneath me.

It causes great issues in cycling because I lose a lot of power in that leg

and I can't ride in the aero position at all.

Question: Why do some people cycle with their knees sticking out to the side instead of parallel to the frame?

Is it poor technique or physiology that causes people to cycle with their knees sticking out to the side?

The two main reasons for riding with knees sticking out are considered to be having the seat too low and being afraid of falling and new riders who haven't developed a good pedal stroke. Moreover, people with larger thighs may do this to prevent irritation when the thighs rub against the saddle.

This often happens with new riders because of poor technique, a badly-adjusted or uncomfortable saddle, poor choice of gears or too low cadence. This can also be from fear of falling, or preparation to put their foot on the ground if they stop.


If you are asking one of each type on the bike, yes.

As disc brakes were becoming popular, many companies produces bikes with a disc in the front and a rim brake in the rear.

If you are asking about one of each type on a single wheel (three or four brakes total for the bike)

yes that would also be possible, but there wouldn't really be a point.

Also common during the industry's transition from rim to disc brakes where frames that were designed for either.

Bikes on a manufacturer's less expensive spectrum would have rim brakes and for a few hundred more, the same frame could be had with disc brakes and perhaps nicer components.

If one was to actually install a disc and rim brake on the same wheel, there would be some obstacles to overcome (assuming you wanted to actuate both brakes with the same lever).

To make the brakes grip roughly the same (ie not one just one doing the work and the other making no contact)

you'd have to make sure the actuation ratios or cable pull was the same for both brakes.

After that you'd need to use some sort of BMX style adapter to make sure both were being pulled by the same lever.

You'd also have to carefully adjust them to make sure they making contact at roughly the same time in the pull.

Finally you can expect that since disc pads and rim pads probably don't wear at the same rate, all the work would have to be redone often to keep the two working in unison.

All in all you'd be paying for twice as brake for a setup that would probably work less consistently than either brake alone and require much more maintenance than either alone.

If you were just wanting more stopping power, you could simply install a larger disc brake (AM or DH sized) and deal with much less setup.

EDIT:

I hadn't considered the possibility of a coaster + rim or disc.

Since a coaster brake would be actuated separately (by pressing back on the pedals)

it could be potentially more useful and much less tinkery to maintain.

That being said ANY brake should be able to lock up a wheel so it still won't gain you anything except a safety backup in the case of your primary brake (whichever you chose to use) failed.

TL;DR Possible, but not worth the effort.

It's not unusual for tandems to have three brakes, with a rim brake and disc or hub brake on the same wheel.

Traditionally they had a drum drag brake on the rear wheel for long descents, operated by the stoker, to avoid overheating the rims.

Some modern disc brakes are up to the same job, but many aren't, though this is a subject where opinions are varied.

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/tandem-braking http://santanatandems.com/Techno/UnderstandingBraking.html

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tandem-brakes.html http://www.tandems.co.uk/tandems-explained/

Tricycles often have both brakes on the front wheel, and that could be done with a disc and a rim brake.

UK law at least requires that bicycles (unlike tricycles) have braking systems on both wheels.

You could have two brakes operated by one lever (as is done for some disabled cyclists), but when one brake is enough to lock the wheel, I can't see any reason to do so.

(On an expedition tourer, having rim brakes fitted as a backup in case you can't get spares for a disc brake might make sense, but you would only use one at once on a given wheel.

Even then, you would probably just use a frame where rim brakes could be fitted if necessary.

Or just pick one .)

When disc brakes first appeared - a lot of mountain bikes ran with a single disc brake (mechanical) at the front and a vee brake at the rear.

Whilst not ideal in terms of rear braking power or aesthetics - it's a perfectly viable option and might even make the task of fitting panniers to the rear of a bike easier.

There would be little point to put both kinds of brakes on same wheel.

No matter how hard you brake, the maximum amount of force you can apply is just before when the wheel locks.

Add any more force and the wheel locks, add even more

and it just keeps on being locked.

Either type of brake alone is perfectly capable of locking the wheel under normal circumstances, so there is little point to try to add any more braking force.

See the Merida Komfort model for rent at Finse 1222 .

They offer a bike with front and rear disc brakes, plus coaster (pedal) brakes.

These are used on the Rallarvegen, a 53km downhill mountain bike path from 1200m elevation to sea level.

With very steep sections, the triple brakes serve the purpose of redundancy.

Question: Was just wondering if a dual option like this was possible or even desirable.

Can a bike have both rim and disc brakes?

It is possible to have rim and disc brakes, the usual configeration is disc at the front and rim at the rear. In fact, when disc brakes first appeared many companies produced bikes with this configuration and a lot of mountain bikes ran with a single disc brake (mechanical) at the front and a vee brake at the rear. However, both types of brake on one wheel is unnecessary as such a configuration would not have any advantage.

It is possible to put different brake types on the front and back, which has some advantages when fitting panniers. Some frames have mountings for both types, and bikes can be sold using either. While it is theoretically possible to have one of each type on a single wheel, this may be difficult to implement while ensuring even force from both and the advantage is not clear on most bikes. Both brakes should be able to lock the wheel, so the added force would be redundant. Double brakes are used on some tandem bikes and tricycles, or for redundancy on some downhill bikes.