[EasyRider]

I’ve had good experience with the Stampede Charger 12″. I considered the Woom, but my son was a pretty little dude last xmas, maybe too small for a 14″. He has younger cousins so I figured we’d replace the balance bike with a pedal bicycle when he’s ready for one and pass the balance bike along. I liked the Stampede because of the fat pneumatic tires and because it has a brake lever that operates a rear drum brake. It’s good practice.

[EasyRider]

I’m def resigned to angle grinders, but I do pay attention to bolt cutter resistance. I see padlocks from $10-$100 advertised as not being vulnerable to long handled cutters. I understand that having the lock near the ground allows a thief to use their body weight and the ground to their advantage, instead of just applying arm strength the the handles. What locks are legit?

[EasyRider]

@Vicegrip 164503 wrote:

5 min? Only if you spend 4 min 40 seconds doing something else. A craptastic harbor fright $30 cordless angle grinder will defeat a $300 “New york” format lock in seconds. After a friend lost his key and was stuck I went through a best of the best motorcycle lock in under 20 seconds and that was being careful of the bike too. No need for the $1000+ gas chop saw. I am always looking at bike lock setups people use. Have not seen one yet that looks like it would be hard to defeat with an angle grinder/cutoff wheel.

Not trying to be bummer bob. Just pointing out that locks only slow thieves down.

The best locks will stop bolt cutters, but nothing can stop an angle grinder, is that right?

[EasyRider]

Maybe no need for “WSD” frames, but there’s a real need for manufacturers to design frames in smaller sizes around smaller wheels, to avoid things like 76 degree seat tube angles.

[EasyRider]

@Judd 164342 wrote:

This part of the Pike particularly sucks for pedestrians and cyclists despite being redone when the bridge was rebuilt.

And also despite the fact that there are FOUR Capital Bikeshare stations on the 1 mile stretch of Columbia Pike between Walter Reed and the Air Force Memorial, including two stations that are less than a block away from the Washington Blvd intersection.

I’ve been taking the lane on that stretch of the Pike for the last 3 years, but I’m reconsidering after these incidents. I have no doubt someone is going to be seriously injured or killed as efforts to encourage cycling in the corridor, like Bikeshare, colllide (literally) with the lack of infrastructure improvements and traffic enforcement.

[EasyRider]

@bobco85 164333 wrote:

Stays true regardless of road listed

I agree, but at least Arlington Blvd and Lee Highway have nearby alternatives.

Columbia Pike is becoming increasingly dense with residential housing for people who want to be close to work in DC. The intersection of Walter Reed and the Pike is about a mile from the MVT and the bridges leading into DC, and it’s downhill the whole way. Would be cyclists can go an additional 3 or 4 miles out of their way in order take the 4MR, ABT or Custis trails into D.C., but …

[EasyRider]

I’m sorry to hear about John and hope he recovers soon!

I do wish that transportation on that stretch of Columbia Pike was a little more geared to those living and working in the area, rather than as a thoroughfare for car commuters who live in Fairfax County.

[EasyRider]

Just for the record, I’m not in favor of “banning” e-bikes. I’ve said before that I’m amenable to speed limits during heavy use hours (morning and evening rush hours, weekend afternooons). I support these because:

1. I think there will be many more ebikes in the future than there are now.
2. Most ebikes can easily go 15mph now, with the potential to go much faster. Most non-ebikes don’t, simply because even a moderately fit rider can’t go faster than 15mph for very long. And as Vicegrip pointed out, an a faster, heavier vehicle does have much greater potential for serious injury than does a vehicle that seems just a little lighter, and a little slower.

Speed limits of around 15mph would enable those who need ebikes for mobility reasons to use them at a speed that only very fit cyclists can maintain for more than 5 or 10 minutes, and restrict those who simply want ebikes because it allows them to go 25mph without any effort on a path designed for pedestrians and low-speed cyclists. That seems a fair compromise to me. I imagine a 15-16 mph speed limit would be a bummer for some e-bike users (Gearcrushers), and a downer for the fittest on this board, too. But it seems like a reasonable alternative to the coming Wild West. For cyclists of both stripes who want to go faster, there are plenty of roads around here.

The problem of course, is that speed limits are unenforceable at present. So would a ban on e-bikes, which are designed to go unnoticed. But perhaps posting speed limits would be a start.

[EasyRider]

@lordofthemark 164011 wrote:

Seems like they agree with me, that the big advantage of ebikes is making full VC style riding a lot easier for a much wider range of riders.

I agree with you too, the “problem” is that e-bike operators prefer to ride on MUPs at such speeds, rather than on roads.

[EasyRider]

@Harry Meatmotor 163591 wrote:

Quality Wheels makes a wheel intended for converting a Surly Crosscheck to SS/fixed using an Alex DA22 rim laced to a 32h 130mm Surly Ultra New Single Fixed Flip Flop hub. It’s QBP PN WE4604, if you go to a QBP dealer, just ask them to order this PN. Should be about $200.

Thanks very much. I’m not sure the rim is wide enough for a 700×38 tire but it’s good to know about it. I came across another option from ProWheelBuilder, about $170, which would pair that Surly hub with a Mavic 319 rim (would match my existing front rim).

[EasyRider]

@zsionakides 163620 wrote:

Putting ebikes out there means that anyone can spend a couple grand and be faster than basically every rider on the trail, simply by twisting the wrist or flicking a switch.

Just wait until they don’t cost a couple grand.

[EasyRider]

Thanks folks. I did a little more hunting about and I think what I’m looking for is a wheel built from Surly’s 130mm flip-flop rear road hub, or the equivalent. It has a 47.5 chainline. Unless I can find a used one Ebay, or I may have to have one built.

I actually have a 120mm wheelset I bought from Harris Cyclery 12 years ago, still in good condition. They were a decent match for the 80s Trek road frame I paired them with, using 5mm axle spacers. But now I have a newer frame with clearance for bigger tires, and I’m fairly certain a 42-43 chainline of that old wheelset isn’t going to work with it. The chainstays on the new bike are pretty wide so as to handle the bigger rubber, and either the chainring or the crank is going to hit the chainstay when lined up with the rear sprocket. Hence the need for 47.5 chainline. I need to measure to be sure, though.

[EasyRider]

@Vicegrip 163556 wrote:

Increasing the speed of a bike regardless of how it is powered decreases the crash safety. Energy increases on the square. Dissipating stored up energy is key to impact survival. Crashing at 20 mph is bad but the energy levels between the avg speed of a human powered bike and 25 mph is huge. A 25 mph e-bike is not an e-bike it is an electric moped but is lacking some road safety items. With brake lights, turn signals lights and a horn the e-moped is far better suited for mid speed roads. How it is powered and the format of the seat and H bars maters less than the performance. When you are on it rather than in it your body becomes the energy absorption system.

Thanks for pointing this out. On a bicycle, you and the being you collide with are the crumple zone. A little faster, a little heavier, a lot more crumple.

[EasyRider]

Actually, I didn’t bring it up. The distinction between able-bodied and otherwise was in the editorial that sparked this latest conversation, and in cvcalhoun’s claim that it’s mostly pregnant women, parents, and seniors who ride e-bikes.

The editorial’s quotes from e-bike manufacturers makes it pretty clear that they the industry wants to frame the politics of e-bikes as of one of access for less-mobile groups, such as those cvcalhoun listed. But I think in the future, it’ll be mostly able-bodied people riding e-bikes, if they aren’t the majority already. I have no beef with the able-bodied riding an e-bikes, but since I think there will be A LOT of them, it does mean that I don’t think that “fingers-crossed”, or a “let’s wait till things get really bad and then we’ll get the infrastructure we want” are practical approaches to the issue of expanding e-bike use.

[EasyRider]

@dasgeh 163504 wrote:

You clearly have some sort of animosity towards able-bodied using ebikes. Why?

If that changes in the future, it’s because we’ve started to build trails specifically for bikes to go faster, which would include separation from slower users. That would be awesome! If you’re puttering around at 8 mph – either you’re with your kids, tired, or just enjoying the view – you take the slow trail. People going 25 take the fast trail, which allows for people to bike farther, which means more people on bikes. Win-win.

There’s no need to characterize my position about a public issue as a personal hangup simply because we disagree. I do have reservations about e-bikes for safety reasons, and I think a laissez faire approach to them is short-sighted. Yep, it’d be awesome if we could just double or triple the width of every bike path in the region. I don’t see that happening in the next 10 years though. Perhaps this thread will still be active by then, and we can check out the accuracy of our forecasts.

[Author]

Posts