first commute by bicycle

[Danny Colyer]

I wondered:
>>Did you have the advantages of no traffic lights and few cars to get in
>>the way?

and Simon Brooke responded:
> Auchencairn to Dumfries, here
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=279817&y=551384&z=5
> to here
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=296922&y=576340&z=5
> along the A711, which is on the whole a well made road, and carries
> relatively little traffic.

I guess that's rather better than the narrow, heavily trafficked A420,
crossing the even busier A4174:
<url:http://tinyurl.com/mwx9l>
leads to:
<url:http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=366500&y=173500&z=3&sv=366500,173500&st=4&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf>

This map's rather out of date. The final section of the A4174 opened in
2001. Before that the traffic wasn't /too/ bad, but since then it's got
worse every year.

Only about 20% of my commute is on the road, but the volume of motor
traffic has a huge impact on my average speed (cyclepath barriers don't
help either, of course). The only time I have any real hope of managing
a 16mph average is during the school summer holidays, and last year the
traffic still seemed to be as heavy during August than it used to be
during term time 5 years ago.

I sometimes wonder if I'd manage a higher average speed on a longer
commute. My current journey (5.4 miles in the morning, 5.6 miles in the
evening) is just long enough to warm up.

> I used a reasonable road bike - it's the same bike I still use as a
> winter bike, and have used for audaxing - but 16mph wasn't particularly
> hard (although I started using the bike to commute because I was trying
> to get fit, so was perhaps pushing harder than just 'utility' cycling).

Since concluding that rising traffic levels mean there's little hope of
improving upon past speeds, I have fallen into the trap of not really
trying. Then, because I'm so comfy on the SM, I try even less. There
are a few regulars who I sometimes ride with, and on those mornings I'm
often surprised at how much faster I end up riding without really trying.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> I think this is another argument for pannier over backpack. It's much
> quicker to shed a layer and dump it in the pannier than to remove
> backpack, remove clothing, insert in backpack, put backpack back on -
> and potentially find backpack is no longer the same shape as your back.

It's an even better argument for not wearing a helmet, IME. A helmet
takes longer than a backpack to remove and put back on.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Danny Colyer wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> I used to average 16mph when cycling a 42 mile round trip commute.
>>
>> Upon reading that, I had check whether it had been posted by Alan
>> Holmes.
>>
>> Did you have the advantages of no traffic lights and few cars to get
>> in the way?
>>
>
> I used to do a 30mile round trip commute into and across Cambridge
> and I used to average around that speed or more depending on the wind
> direction. Alan would do it in half my and Simon's time.

That's you and Simon on a 'bent tandem, obviously.

--
Ambrose

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Ambrose Nankivell
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Danny Colyer wrote:
>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>> I used to average 16mph when cycling a 42 mile round trip commute.
>>>
>>> Upon reading that, I had check whether it had been posted by Alan
>>> Holmes.
>>>
>>> Did you have the advantages of no traffic lights and few cars to get
>>> in the way?
>>
>> I used to do a 30mile round trip commute into and across Cambridge
>> and I used to average around that speed or more depending on the wind
>> direction. Alan would do it in half my and Simon's time.
>
> That's you and Simon on a 'bent tandem, obviously.

Oh, gosh, yes, I can see that being fun. Can anyone name three safe
topics of conversation for us?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

For office use only. Please do not write or type below this line.

 

[wafflycat]

"Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> All of the above sounds great but in the long term a light weight
> electrically assisted bike will get the OP up hills without sweating. Also
> very helpful for penetrating strong headwinds. Many of these bikes have
> selectable levels of assistance.
>

Noooooooooo!!! Electrically assisted bikes are Total **** [TM] as they are
*heavy*.

The sweating issue becomes less of an issue with an increase in fitness and
selection of appropriate gear to spin up a hill. My teenage son does a
13-mile each way commute by bike daily, on a normal tourer, has his bag
bungeed to a rear rack (he doesn't want to use panniers). He has a friend
who finds this cycling lark all too much (friend is another 'normal' teenage
boy) and said friend has an elcetrically assisted bike. Much teenage
guffawing can be heard when the group of teenagers are out on their bikes
and my offspring on his tourer leaves both electrically assisted thing and
mate on MTB behind... I think "Eat dust, suckers!" was one comment made in
teenage jest ;-)

Even this overweight, middle-aged, hormonally challenged female can manage
26 miles without ending up looking like a damp rag.

Cheers, helen s

 

[wafflycat]

"Adam Lea" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yesterday I decided to investigate how feasible it was to travel to work
> without the car. I live in north Horsham and work near Holmbury St Mary,
> which is approx a 24 mile round trip. As I am not used to cycling long
> distances I decided to cycle to Warnham station, get a train to Ockley and
> then cycle the last 6 miles. It took me about an hour to get to work,
> compared to the normal 20 minutes by car but hopefully I can improve on
> this as my fitness improves. I have decided to try cycling to work once a
> week and hopefully build up to eventually doing the whole distance by
> bike.
>
> One problem I had was that when I got to work I was sweating a lot partly
> because I had a backpack and so my back was very sweaty, and partly
> because the last mile involves around 70m of ascent. Another problem was I
> got rather wet and muddy since my commute is entirely on country roads.
>
> I currently have a mountain bike which is useful for getting up the hills
> but doesn't have anywhere to fix luggage too. If I were to do this sort of
> journey regularly would it be worth getting a road bike or a hybrid? For
> people who regularly commute these distances does it become much easier
> with time?
>
> Adam
>
>

Firstly - well-done!

If you don't want to buy another bike, fit semi-slicks or slicks instead of
MTB tyres, and you'll notice a difference. I am assuming that you are on
road here and not actually going up the hills in an off-road fashion...

Mudguards are *essential* in UK weather. Fit a rear rack & either use
panniers or bungee your bag to the rack.

Of course.... as the correct answer is 'one can never have too many bikes so
get another bike' In which case may I suggest a tourer - the classic
all-round bike as the answer to your problems.

My offspring cycles the 26-mile round trip to college & back on a tourer. He
bungees his bag to the rear rack. My tourer is my everyday bike that is used
for just about everything from the shopping trip to a three week cycling
tour holiday.

Sweatiness will get less as you get used to the distance and get fitter.
Don't see the increased journey time as a disadvantage - think of it as time
saved from going to the stinky, smelly gym.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Jim Price]

wafflycat wrote:
<stuff about electric bikes snipped>
This is nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I noticed last time I
posted in reply to you that my newsreader's spellchecker suggests
changing "wafflycat" to "flycatchers" - how strange is that!

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

 

[Sandy Morton]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's you and Simon on a 'bent tandem, obviously.

> Oh, gosh, yes, I can see that being fun. Can anyone name three safe
> topics of conversation for us?


S


E


X



)

--
T h e - e x t e n d e r ! ! ! !

 

[wafflycat]

"Sandy Morton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Simon

>
> S
>
>
> E
>
>
> X
>
>
>
> )
>
> --
> T h e - e x t e n d e r ! ! ! !

*That* topic followed by a sig line saying "The - extender"...

.... anyone would think it's one of those spam adverts that occasionally
arrive from lands of dubious pharmaceutical practices ;-)

Cheers, helen s

 

[Paul Murphy]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Noooooooooo!!! Electrically assisted bikes are Total **** [TM] as they are
> *heavy*.

It depends on the bike. If you get a cheapie one with lead acid batteries
then it wont be light but the newer, better quality ones with a Nickel Metal
Hydride or a Lithium battery are much lighter - to the point where they are
similar in weight to conventional bikes. As well as this you get the option
of power assistance. Many people wouldn't even want to ride a bike without
this e.g. on very hilly routes so the choice has to be a good thing.

> The sweating issue becomes less of an issue with an increase in fitness
> and selection of appropriate gear to spin up a hill.

That's assuming there is an appropriate gear to "spin up" the hill and with
very steep hills I've sometimes cycled past cyclists walking their
conventional bikes up while I'm using power assist. While its true that very
fit people may be able to "spin up" those hills on conventional bikes,
they're unlikely to be able to do so on a commute and still arrive fresh for
work.

<teenage jest snipped>

> Even this overweight, middle-aged, hormonally challenged female can manage
> 26 miles without ending up looking like a damp rag.

It's good that you're proud of your level of fitness. I like the fun and
choice that good quality electrically assisted cycles offer - it's like
having your low cal cake and eating it to.

Paul

 

[wafflycat]

"Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Noooooooooo!!! Electrically assisted bikes are Total **** [TM] as they
>> are *heavy*.
>
> It depends on the bike. If you get a cheapie one with lead acid batteries
> then it wont be light but the newer, better quality ones with a Nickel
> Metal Hydride or a Lithium battery are much lighter - to the point where
> they are similar in weight to conventional bikes. As well as this you get
> the option of power assistance. Many people wouldn't even want to ride a
> bike without this e.g. on very hilly routes so the choice has to be a good
> thing.
>

I am a skeptic on this weight issue.... really. Modern *decent* bikes are
*light*

Cheers, helen s

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote:
> <stuff about electric bikes snipped>
> This is nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I noticed last time I
> posted in reply to you that my newsreader's spellchecker suggests changing
> "wafflycat" to "flycatchers" - how strange is that!

Please explain further, I don't understand where you're going. I can see
people can be concerned about those who start posts with provocative
responses as being trolls but "flycatchers" is to obscure for me.

Paul

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:

> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Noooooooooo!!! Electrically assisted bikes are Total **** [TM] as they
>> are *heavy*.
>
> It depends on the bike. If you get a cheapie one with lead acid
> batteries then it wont be light but the newer, better quality ones with
> a Nickel Metal Hydride or a Lithium battery are much lighter - to the
> point where they are similar in weight to conventional bikes.

The Giant Twist Light weighs 47lbs. That's two and a third times as much
as my road bike - it's very nearly twice as heavy as my full suspension
mountain bike. The Dahon Roo weighs 40lbs, twice as much as my road
bike. And these are the lighter ones. Scarcely 'similar weight'.

> That's assuming there is an appropriate gear to "spin up" the hill and
> with very steep hills I've sometimes cycled past cyclists walking their
> conventional bikes up while I'm using power assist. While its true that
> very fit people may be able to "spin up" those hills on conventional
> bikes, they're unlikely to be able to do so on a commute and still
> arrive fresh for work.

Try it one day. Get a proper bike, ride up the steepest hill you can get
up on the electric 'assist', see whether you are more or less puffed out
when you get to the top. The result will surprise you.

I used to cycle a 42 mile round trip commute at 16mph average to an
office job. I arrived perfectly fresh.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> "Paul Murphy" <[email protected]> wrote

> > It depends on the bike. If you get a cheapie one with lead acid
batteries
> > then it wont be light but the newer, better quality ones with a
Nickel
> > Metal Hydride or a Lithium battery are much lighter - to the
point where
> > they are similar in weight to conventional bikes.

In other words

weight of bike+battery+motor = weight of bike

therefore weight of battery+ motor = zero

I too am a sceptic


As well as this you get
> > the option of power assistance. Many people wouldn't even want to
ride a
> > bike without this e.g. on very hilly routes so the choice has to
be a good
> > thing.

Have you heard of the "two bricks" alternative?

Carry two bricks to simulate the weight of battery etc. At the first
hill, throw away the bricks. Thanks to the loss in weight, you will
sail up the hill, as if you had an electric motor.

Of course, this won't work for the second hill.

But then, neither will the battery

If you want to have a motor vehicle, petrol is still the best fuel.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jim Price]

Paul Murphy wrote:
> "Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> wafflycat wrote:
>> <stuff about electric bikes snipped>
>> This is nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I noticed last time I
>> posted in reply to you that my newsreader's spellchecker suggests changing
>> "wafflycat" to "flycatchers" - how strange is that!
>
> Please explain further, I don't understand where you're going. I can see
> people can be concerned about those who start posts with provocative
> responses as being trolls but "flycatchers" is to obscure for me.

I'm not trying to be provocative or obscure, merely pointing out an
oddity which my newsreader came up with which just seemed rather
surreal. I'm sure if I had stepped out of line I would be in danger of a
serious slabbing. Are you not occasionally amused by the oddities thrown
up by technology?

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Tim
Woodall ([email protected]) wrote:

> When I cycle all the way to work (which I haven't done this year but
> we're now close to there being enough daylight hours) I'm doing a similar
> sort of distance with a similar average speed. Infact my average speed
> into work is closer to 18mph. The thing that really kills it coming home
> is getting out of London. (These are the averages from the GPS so
> include time stopped at traffic lights etc)

The only time I've ever achieved a 30 km/h *rolling* average into the
Nut Mines was June 21st 2002, when England just happened to be playing
Brazil at foopball. This made timing one's runs at the traffic lights
about 600% easier.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
There ought to be a /La/ against it.

 

[Call me Bob]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:59:31 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Try it one day. Get a proper bike, ride up the steepest hill you can get
>up on the electric 'assist', see whether you are more or less puffed out
>when you get to the top. The result will surprise you.

In the latest issue of A2B magazine they review the Ezee Torq, which
they describe as "the fastest electric bike yet!".

They seem super impressed with this thing, and report thus on it's
hill climbing ability:

"With reasonable effort we found it quite easy to climb a 12% (1:8)
gradient at 12mph, which is around 50% faster than a typical electric
bike. On an 18% (1:6) gradient, a bit of work in first gear gives an
unprecedented climbing speed of 10mph."

Like you Simon, I'm not convinced by the electric bike option (for)
myself, but the review is interesting reading and makes clear that
this sort of bike could be very useful for certain riders.

Yes, the bike is heavy, and it's range relatively short, but, for say
a 20 mile round trip commute, or utility type cycling, then one of
these will shift you around at an average speed of 18 - 19mph with
only moderate input from the rider.

Most of us here actively enjoy putting in our own effort, it's part of
the pleasure and satisfaction of a ride, but not everyone will share
that point of view. If the priority is maximum mobility with minimum
effort, an entirely understandable goal, then the latest electric
assist options may make sense.

Anything to get another bike on the road in place of a car.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> Paul Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> "wafflycat" <w*a*ffycat*@btco*nnect.com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Noooooooooo!!! Electrically assisted bikes are Total **** [TM] as
>>> they are *heavy*.
>>
>> It depends on the bike. If you get a cheapie one with lead acid
>> batteries then it wont be light but the newer, better quality ones
>> with a Nickel Metal Hydride or a Lithium battery are much lighter -
>> to the point where they are similar in weight to conventional bikes.
>
> The Giant Twist Light weighs 47lbs. That's two and a third times as
> much as my road bike - it's very nearly twice as heavy as my full
> suspension mountain bike. The Dahon Roo weighs 40lbs, twice as much
> as my road bike. And these are the lighter ones. Scarcely 'similar
> weight'.
>
>> That's assuming there is an appropriate gear to "spin up" the hill
>> and with very steep hills I've sometimes cycled past cyclists
>> walking their conventional bikes up while I'm using power assist.
>> While its true that very fit people may be able to "spin up" those
>> hills on conventional bikes, they're unlikely to be able to do so on
>> a commute and still arrive fresh for work.
>
> Try it one day. Get a proper bike, ride up the steepest hill you can
> get up on the electric 'assist', see whether you are more or less
> puffed out when you get to the top. The result will surprise you.
>
No, do it with a heart rate monitor at a given target heart rate, and see
which one is faster. I believe that would be a bit more accurate.
--
Ambrose

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Murphy wrote:
>> "Jim Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> wafflycat wrote:
>>> <stuff about electric bikes snipped>
>>> This is nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I noticed last time I
>>> posted in reply to you that my newsreader's spellchecker suggests
>>> changing "wafflycat" to "flycatchers" - how strange is that!
>>
>> Please explain further, I don't understand where you're going. I can see
>> people can be concerned about those who start posts with provocative
>> responses as being trolls but "flycatchers" is to obscure for me.
>
> I'm not trying to be provocative or obscure, merely pointing out an oddity
> which my newsreader came up with which just seemed rather surreal. I'm
> sure if I had stepped out of line I would be in danger of a serious
> slabbing. Are you not occasionally amused by the oddities thrown up by
> technology?

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't think you were trying to be
provocative, I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to you in this regard.

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Giant Twist Light weighs 47lbs. That's two and a third times as much
> as my road bike - it's very nearly twice as heavy as my full suspension
> mountain bike. The Dahon Roo weighs 40lbs, twice as much as my road
> bike. And these are the lighter ones. Scarcely 'similar weight'.

If you have a look at the specs for non-power assisted bikes of similar
style and similar intended use as the Giant Twist eg the Gazelle brand of
"Dutch Roadster" style bikes here: http://www.gazelle.nl , then you WILL see
they are very similar weight figures. In fairness you need to be comparing
apples with apples and that's clearly not the case with your above comments.

>> That's assuming there is an appropriate gear to "spin up" the hill and
>> with very steep hills I've sometimes cycled past cyclists walking their
>> conventional bikes up while I'm using power assist. While its true that
>> very fit people may be able to "spin up" those hills on conventional
>> bikes, they're unlikely to be able to do so on a commute and still
>> arrive fresh for work.
>
> Try it one day. Get a proper bike, ride up the steepest hill you can get
> up on the electric 'assist', see whether you are more or less puffed out
> when you get to the top. The result will surprise you.

"Proper bike" eh.... in terms of robustness and low maintenance
requirements, it could be argued that what I have is more of a proper bike
than many of the feather light racing models out there! When I was doing my
test riding deciding what to buy I did try 1 model other than what I settled
on and the one I got is MUCH more fun to ride especially when the power
assist kicks in when starting off. I wasn't looking to buy a F16 fighter in
bicycle form but rather a C130 Hercules cargo transporter. I like the
comfort of the upright riding position (can see over the roof of vans when
in traffic) as well as the fact that its sturdy enough to haul loads (and
myself at 6' 5" and 105 Kg) up bumpy hills without to much effort. I suspect
many of the feather light models around wouldn't last long with the use my
bike gets.

> I used to cycle a 42 mile round trip commute at 16mph average to an
> office job. I arrived perfectly fresh.

There are a couple of very steep (bumpy with potholes) hills near where I
live, 1 of which I rode up 4 days a week to get to work until recently, that
was not one I'd like to try on a conventional bike without showers at the
workplace. There was one cyclist I'd often pass going the other way at the
start/end of the day - i.e. he went up the hill in the afternoon/evening and
came down it in the morning - he used a conventional looking bicycle with
curved down handlebars though.

Paul