first commute by bicycle

[Simon Brooke]

in message <C05F5106.1A177%[email protected]>, Erik Sandblom
('[email protected]') wrote:

> i artikel [email protected], skrev
> Paul Murphy pÃ¥ [email protected] den 06-04-07 01.14:
>
>> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:C05B052C.19EE7%[email protected]...
>>> I don't think that trade-off exists -- light bikes are not in any way
>>> frail.
>>> They are only more expensive and possibly less comfortable. What
>>> makes a bike heavy are things like hub gears, hub dynamos, hub
>>> brakes, suspension, and comfy saddles. If you have a bike with all
>>> these things, it's seldom worth it to spend the extra money on the
>>> best and lightest components, since
>>> it will be comparatively heavy anyway. The combination will result in
>>> a heavy bike which is not in the least stronger than a light bike.
>>
>> The things that make the bike heavier are the things that I want
>> though. I want hub brakes and gears and theres no way in the world I'd
>> want an external dynamo rubbing againt my tyre or having to rely on a
>> battery powered headlamp. These are all lower maintenance additions as
>> I see them.
>
> I accept the low-maintenance, high-weight tradeoff. But if you put an
> electric motor on it, doesn't that require a lot of maintenance? Isn't
> this a high-weight, high-maintenance solution?

Much as I dislike the concept of 'electrically assisted', I don't really
think high maintenance; at least not necessarily. A well engineered,
well sealed, in hub motor, as used on the Giant Twist and others,
doesn't seem to me very much different from a hub dynamo, and good hub
dynamos are notoriously reliable bits of kit. With decent engineering a
weatherproof switch is not beyond the wit of man, either. The battery
needs to be charged regularly but that's scarcely maintenance, and
battery replacement should be an infrequent requirement.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

 

[Erik Sandblom]

i artikel [email protected], skrev Paul
Murphy på [email protected] den 06-04-10 08.39:

> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:C05F5106.1A177%[email protected]...
> <snip>
>> I accept the low-maintenance, high-weight tradeoff. But if you put an
>> electric motor on it, doesn't that require a lot of maintenance? Isn't
>> this
>> a high-weight, high-maintenance solution?
>
> There is no additional maintenance reqd associated with my bikes design as a
> result of having an electric motor. It's a brushless design and the
> powerplant is looked upon as being a "sealed unit" It contains the bottom
> bracket so there's one less set of bearings to adjust. These Panasonic bike
> powerplants have an excellent reputation and other than some initial battery
> charger design problems (which have since been rectified), I'm not aware of
> any reliability issues.


Well I'm impressed if the motor is maintenance-free. But you must need to
charge it and change the batteries sometimes, neither of which are required
for ordinary bikes.


> <snip>
>> Fibre schmiber. My Brompton is all steel except the aluminum handlebar.
>> Hub
>> dynamo, hub gears, rim brakes, hefty iron-looking rear rack, and weighs
>> under 14kg. It won't run smoothly over potholes, but I don't feel that's a
>> necessary or desirable design goal. If that was necessary, you could weld
>> all the folds, and it would probably do potholes and still weigh 14kg.
>
> Are you suggesting that full size, full frame bikes made of steel weigh
> around 14 kg as well?


I don't know how much they weigh. The point is, if you can make a folding
bike which is strong enough and weighs 14kg, you can easily make a
non-folding one which is even lighter. Plus as I mentioned, the 14kg
includes the heavy, maintenance-free hub dynamo and gears, just like yours
does.


> If I ever want a folding bike, certainly I'll consider
> one of those. I want the frame rigidity which comes with a full frame,
> that's one reason why I bought the gents frame version (with top tube)
> rather than the ST version of the Giant Twist.


I'm not sure what one would need with a stiffer bike than the Brompton.
Apart from that I have nothing to add to Simon Brooke's response.


>> http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/
>>
>> What do you use that bike for? No mudguards, racks, or lights. This is a
>> racing bike.
>
> Well I don't have one of those.


I meant the question as "what is the intended purpose of this bike". It was
asked rhetorically. You can't have a racing bike with a motor, that's
cheating. That would be motorcycle racing.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Paul
> Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> The problem is that even though carbon fibre composite construction is
>> stronger than many other designs for tensile strrength, its NOT as
>> robust and knocks or over stessing it can have "hidden" consequences
>> whereas impending failure of alloy components is more obvious, without
>> sudden catastrophic failure.
>
> Last October, as regulars here will be bored of hearing, I crashed my
> 8.7Kg carbon fibre bike into a pile of granite boulders at 46mph. The
> frame was returned to the manufacture for damage assessment, and was
> found to have no structural damage. No damage was detected in the fork
> or handlebars either, but I replaced both on the precautionary
> principle.
>
> Yes, carbon fibre is vulnerable to hidden damage. But it is /very/ strong
> and resilient.

I agree with the first 2 under the proviso that the loads need to put the
fibres in tension otherwise all hell can break loose. Definitely not the
third though (despite your bike's lucky escape in this case).

> Oh, and if we're comparing bikes on a like for like basis, then this
>
>> If I wanted a super lightweight carbon fibre electric bike there's
>> always one of these "yellow dreams" :
>> http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/index.htm
>
> is still 250% heavier than, for example, this:
>
> http://gb.cannondale.com/bikes/06/ce/model-6rct0s.html

Like for like is no where near applicable in that comparison - bling factor
of that one is 0/10 and it wouldn't get you noticed by most people. Just as
some people may want to take a set of pocket scales with them when they
visit the bike shop thats not for most people, some want a stylish look and
thats not an "apple" (as in apples for apples). My earlier comparison of the
Gazelle and the Twist was like for like however. It's a case of different
strokes for different folks. My point is that people who claim that all
electrically assisted bikes are heavy compared to like for like
un-power-assisted, are clearly wrong.

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Paul
> Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that full size, full frame bikes made of steel weigh
>> around 14 kg as well?
>
> No, as little as half that.

Not most of them and if you want to pay the money for a "light weight" steel
framed bike then you'd likely be better off getting an Al alloy framed one
on a strength to weight basis. The advantage of steel over Al alloy is that
it doesn't suffer metal fatigue (cracking from cyclic stresses) like some Al
alloys.

<individual frame as a component related text snipped>

> Using less exotic components, a good-quality steel road bike weighs about
> 9-10Kg. Tourers are heavier, but that's mostly due to additional
> equipment (racks, etc), larger tyres and stronger wheels. Very little of
> the extra weight will be in the frame.

The types of bikes which come with steel frames, often use steel as a cost
saving measure though so "good quality" couldn't be used in those cases. I'm
not interested in a "specify your own components and we'll build it" type of
bike and most people wouldn't want the costs of this.

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:C060617A.1A231%[email protected]...
<snip>
>
> Well I'm impressed if the motor is maintenance-free. But you must need to
> charge it and change the batteries sometimes, neither of which are
> required
> for ordinary bikes.

The batteries last up to approx 500 recharge cycles on my bike and I've read
of a user getting over 7000 miles out of one before the battery needed
renewing. The range is supposed to be about 20 miles but I use mine on hilly
conditions and I'm over 100 kg so I get less than this. A brief recharge at
the end of the commuting day is all that's required and it takes under a
minute in labour to arrange this (and under 4 hours charge time - although
the charger auto regulates to prevent over charging if you leave it on
overnight).

>
<snip>
> I don't know how much they weigh. The point is, if you can make a folding
> bike which is strong enough and weighs 14kg, you can easily make a
> non-folding one which is even lighter. Plus as I mentioned, the 14kg
> includes the heavy, maintenance-free hub dynamo and gears, just like yours
> does.
>
While I believe entirely that there's a place for folding bikes, they are a
compromise solution to enable convenient folding and to minimise space used
when folded. There are a number of proprietary components of non-standard
sizes used on these bikes, again they do what they're designed for very well
but they're not a serious replacement for a non-folder in situations where
folding isn't needed. I'm not familiar with quality folding pedelecs, there
is the Panasonic unit here at 16.9 kg but it doesn't have the above lower
maintenance bits: http://www.panabyc.co.jp/en/product_fld_s01.htm I'd
imagine those would add up to less than 1 kg in additional total weight but
who wants to have to go swapping bits around on their new bike.
>
>> If I ever want a folding bike, certainly I'll consider
>> one of those. I want the frame rigidity which comes with a full frame,
>> that's one reason why I bought the gents frame version (with top tube)
>> rather than the ST version of the Giant Twist.
>
>
> I'm not sure what one would need with a stiffer bike than the Brompton.
> Apart from that I have nothing to add to Simon Brooke's response.

I responded to Simon's post separately. The larger, heavier wheels/tyres and
stiffer, larger frame of most non-folders make for more comfortable
commuting and improved flexibility with regards to fitting extras e.g. for
touring, hauling the shopping home etc.

>
>>> http://www.petrol.free.fr/ElectricShop/
>>>
>>> What do you use that bike for? No mudguards, racks, or lights. This is a
>>> racing bike.
>>
>> Well I don't have one of those.
>
>
> I meant the question as "what is the intended purpose of this bike". It
> was
> asked rhetorically. You can't have a racing bike with a motor, that's
> cheating. That would be motorcycle racing.

Oh I see. Maybe they have electric bike races with them? I'm travelling to
an electric bike rally in Wales during May. There will be a "fun race" type
event and it'll be interesting to see what the serious competitors (which
there are sure to be a few of) enter with!

Paul

 

[Paul Murphy]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>
> Much as I dislike the concept of 'electrically assisted', I don't really

May I ask what's there to dislike about the concept? Certainly I can
understand that there are still a few issues to be improved upon with regard
to practicalities but the concept of having additional power assistance on
tap for a small weight penalty (and sure to get even smaller still as
battery and motor technology advances) to me seems like the holy grail...

> think high maintenance; at least not necessarily. A well engineered,
> well sealed, in hub motor, as used on the Giant Twist and others,

The Giant Twist range is different to many electric bikes in that it
actually has the power plant built into the bottom bracket/crank area and
the power assistance drives the chain just like the riders pedalling effort.
You must be thinking of the cheaper Giant Suede which has the inferior wheel
hub motor design. The first is preferred because it allows the motors output
to go through the gears and regular drivetrain whereas wheel hub powerplants
currently have limited operating efficiency envelopes.

Paul

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul
Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > in message <[email protected]>,
Paul
> > Murphy ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> Are you suggesting that full size, full frame bikes made of steel
> >> weigh around 14 kg as well?
> >
> > No, as little as half that.
>
> Not most of them

I assure you that if you look at steel framed bikes costing between £89
(the price of a Giant Twist Light) and £1099 (the price of a Giant Twist
Comfort), most of them will weigh a /lot/ less than 14Kg (or else carry
more than one passenger).

> and if you want to pay the money for a "light weight"
> steel framed bike then you'd likely be better off getting an Al alloy
> framed one on a strength to weight basis. The advantage of steel over
> Al alloy is that it doesn't suffer metal fatigue (cracking from cyclic
> stresses) like some Al alloys.

The advantages of steel as a frame building material are primarily that
it is resilient and repairable. Aluminium alloy frames are generally not
repairable, and neither are carbon ones.

>> Using less exotic components, a good-quality steel road bike weighs
>> about 9-10Kg. Tourers are heavier, but that's mostly due to additional
>> equipment (racks, etc), larger tyres and stronger wheels. Very little
>> of the extra weight will be in the frame.
>
> The types of bikes which come with steel frames, often use steel as a
> cost saving measure though so "good quality" couldn't be used in those
> cases. I'm not interested in a "specify your own components and we'll
> build it" type of bike and most people wouldn't want the costs of this.

If you are talking about bikes you can get for £899 (the price of a Giant
Twist Light) or £1099 (the price of a Giant Twist Comfort), however, you
are not talking about a cheap bike; you are talking about a quality
bike. The Paul Hewitt Poggio frame, for example, hand built in steel to
your personal measurements, and weighing in medium size 1600 grammes,
costs £575, leaving £324 for the build kit - which isn't enough for
anything exotic, but will buy something perfectly decent; and certainly
get you a complete bike under 10Kg.

It's 'like for like' again. Yes, if you compare a top of the range
electrical assist bike with a Halfords Special (and ignore the price
tags), the electrical assist bike will look quite good. But if you
compare any electrical assist bike with what you could get to do the
same job for the same money, you'll see once again why it is that the
lazy man does the most work.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
/-\ You have discovered a security flaw in a Microsoft product. You
|-| can report this issue to our security team. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)?
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care?
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem for free?

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> While I believe entirely that there's a place for folding bikes, they
> are a compromise solution to enable convenient folding and to minimise
> space used when folded. There are a number of proprietary components of
> non-standard sizes used on these bikes, again they do what they're
> designed for very well but they're not a serious replacement for a
> non-folder in situations where folding isn't needed. I'm not familiar
> with quality folding pedelecs, there is the Panasonic unit here at 16.9
> kg but it doesn't have the above lower
> maintenance bits: http://www.panabyc.co.jp/en/product_fld_s01.htm I'd
> imagine those would add up to less than 1 kg in additional total weight

To quote from that very page:

"Non-contact magnetic distortion torque sensor enables light pedaling
(sic) even when the battery runs out."

In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal up
it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd want
to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!

And note that, for the price of one of those, you could get this:
http://gb.cannondale.com/bikes/06/ce/model-6BS1.html
or this:
http://www.kinetics-online.co.uk/html/speed.shtml

Either of which would do a hilly urban commute better, faster, and almost
certainly for less effort.

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

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
>> Much as I dislike the concept of 'electrically assisted', I don't
>> really
>
> May I ask what's there to dislike about the concept? Certainly I can
> understand that there are still a few issues to be improved upon with
> regard to practicalities but the concept of having additional power
> assistance on tap for a small weight penalty (and sure to get even
> smaller still as battery and motor technology advances) to me seems
> like the holy grail...

What is there to like about the concept?

It adds an insignificant amount of power assist with an inadequate range
for a very significant weight penalty; most of that power goes into
shifting the extra weight the system adds; and when the battery runs out
- as sooner or later it will, either because of age or because through
the exigencies of life it didn't get charged when it should have -
you're left with an unfit person on a machine which even a fit person
would have difficulty pedalling, which means either you need a breakdown
truck to get you home or you have to abandon the heap of crud at the
roadside.

And that's not all, of course. Every time you have to get the thing in or
out of a building, you have to lift it, and there's all that extra
weight to lift.

It's like cycle helmets. People buy cycle helmets because they perceive
cycling is dangerous. People buy electric-assist bikes because they
perceive cycling is hard work. In both cases they're just wrong.
And /why/ they're wrong is clearly illustrated by your arguments in this
thread: you persist in comparing high spec, high price electric assist
bikes with low cost, low quality pedal cycles, and say the electric ones
are better. Well, for that money, so they bloody should be!

What you won't do is compare an electric bike to a pedal cycle that costs
the same. You've probably never even sat on a pedal cycle that costs the
same as your electric assist machine, let alone tried to ride one up a
hill. If you did, you'd find it a revelation.

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

;; not so much a refugee from reality, more a bogus
;; asylum seeker

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke ([email protected]) wrote:

> In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal up
> it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd want
> to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!

I don't need to imagine it, I do it every day...

Actually that's not strictly true, as the Speedmachine is a fair bit
more than that.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Simon
> Brooke ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>> In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal
>> up it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd
>> want to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!
>
> I don't need to imagine it, I do it every day...
>
> Actually that's not strictly true, as the Speedmachine is a fair bit
> more than that.

Yeah, I quite often ride a bike with a laden weight greater than that up a
hill. And of course, with a laptop on the back, if I've got both batteries
in, that's more battery power than the Giant Twist Lite.

I still don't believe my laptop would help me get up a hill, though.
--
Ambrose

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Simon
>> Brooke ([email protected]) wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal
>>> up it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd
>>> want to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!
>>
>> I don't need to imagine it, I do it every day...
>>
>> Actually that's not strictly true, as the Speedmachine is a fair bit
>> more than that.
>
> Yeah, I quite often ride a bike with a laden weight greater than that
> up a hill. And of course, with a laptop on the back, if I've got both
> batteries in, that's more battery power than the Giant Twist Lite.

Yes, but again you're not comparing like with like - comparing a laden
pedal cycle with an unladen electric assist. If you were lugging your
laptop home on the electric assist, you'd have even more weight to
shift.

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

There are no messages. The above is just a random stream of
bytes. Any opinion or meaning you find in it is your own creation.

 

[Erik Sandblom]

i artikel [email protected], skrev Paul
Murphy på [email protected] den 06-04-11 01.25:

> A brief recharge at
> the end of the commuting day is all that's required and it takes under a
> minute in labour to arrange this (and under 4 hours charge time - although
> the charger auto regulates to prevent over charging if you leave it on
> overnight).


That sounds great, but it's still something you never need to worry about on
an ordinary bike, hence I think it needs to be sorted under "maintenance".


>> I don't know how much they weigh. The point is, if you can make a folding
>> bike which is strong enough and weighs 14kg, you can easily make a
>> non-folding one which is even lighter. Plus as I mentioned, the 14kg
>> includes the heavy, maintenance-free hub dynamo and gears, just like yours
>> does.
>>
> While I believe entirely that there's a place for folding bikes, they are a
> compromise solution


The only compromise is that they are more expensive to buy, and more
complicated to service. There are no other compromises, at least not for
commuting. Brompton themselves say their bikes are unsuitable for off-road,
but we are discussing commuting on prepared surfaces.

I think you are placing too much importance on issues of strength and
rigidity. Any bike is strong enough and rigid enough, even for a rider
weighing 100kg and even with panniers and low-maintenance hub stuff. You
just have to give it the proper maintenance, and that goes for all bikes.


> to enable convenient folding and to minimise space used
> when folded. There are a number of proprietary components of non-standard
> sizes used on these bikes, again they do what they're designed for very well
> but they're not a serious replacement for a non-folder in situations where
> folding isn't needed.


Of course they are a serious replacement. There's nothing wrong with them.
Just a little more expensive, just a few more proprietary parts as you say.
Sometimes it's said that they have a rather upright position, but so do many
other bikes and it's not considered a disadvantage then. It's not like they
break if you don't fold them!

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

 

[Erik Sandblom]

i artikel [email protected], skrev Simon
Brooke på [email protected] den 06-04-11 10.44:

> In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal up
> it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd want
> to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!



I don't think 17kg is an extremely heavy bike. The one below weighs 23. It's
somewhat popular, though the extra weight makes it a little impractical
compared to average bikes. It bugs me a little that these are popular, since
it re-inforces the idea that bikes are only for short distances.
http://www.kronancykel.se/se/bikes/Shop/productPopup/?pId=19&k1=&k2=


> And note that, for the price of one of those, you could get this:
> http://gb.cannondale.com/bikes/06/ce/model-6BS1.html
> or this:
> http://www.kinetics-online.co.uk/html/speed.shtml


Those are missing racks, lights and mud guards and thus impractical for
commuting. That brings us to 12-13kg for the Birdy, doesn't it?


> Either of which would do a hilly urban commute better, faster, and almost
> certainly for less effort.


You can't be sure of that. The motor might provide more power than the extra
weight requires.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

 

[Erik Sandblom]

i artikel [email protected], skrev Simon
Brooke på [email protected] den 06-04-11 11.02:

> It adds an insignificant amount of power assist


Are you really sure?


> with an inadequate range


No, it gets him to and from work on one charge. That's adequate.


> for a very significant weight penalty; most of that power goes into
> shifting the extra weight the system adds;


Again it would be nice to see if you have some numbers to support this.


> and when the battery runs out
> - as sooner or later it will, either because of age or because through
> the exigencies of life it didn't get charged when it should have -
> you're left with an unfit person on a machine which even a fit person
> would have difficulty pedalling, which means either you need a breakdown
> truck to get you home or you have to abandon the heap of crud at the
> roadside.


No. Using an electric assist bike does not make you unfit. It's "electric
assist", not "electric replace".


> you persist in comparing high spec, high price electric assist
> bikes with low cost, low quality pedal cycles, and say the electric ones
> are better. Well, for that money, so they bloody should be!
>
> What you won't do is compare an electric bike to a pedal cycle that costs
> the same. You've probably never even sat on a pedal cycle that costs the
> same as your electric assist machine, let alone tried to ride one up a
> hill. If you did, you'd find it a revelation.


Hmm, that might be interesting.

--
Erik Sandblom
my site is EriksRailNews.com
for those who don't believe, no explanation is possible
for those who do, no explanation is necessary

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <C061B564.1A6DE%[email protected]>, Erik Sandblom
('[email protected]') wrote:

> i artikel [email protected], skrev Simon
> Brooke pÃ¥ [email protected] den 06-04-11 10.44:
>
>> In other words, if the motor runs out on a hill and you try to pedal
>> up it, you're going to knacker the thing permanently. Not that you'd
>> want to - imagine trying to pedal a 16.9Kg bike up a hill!
>
> I don't think 17kg is an extremely heavy bike. The one below weighs 23.
> It's somewhat popular, though the extra weight makes it a little
> impractical compared to average bikes.

I would hazard a guess, though, that the area in which it is 'somewhat
popular' is somewhat flat.

>> And note that, for the price of one of those, you could get this:
>> http://gb.cannondale.com/bikes/06/ce/model-6BS1.html
>> or this:
>> http://www.kinetics-online.co.uk/html/speed.shtml
>
> Those are missing racks, lights and mud guards and thus impractical for
> commuting. That brings us to 12-13kg for the Birdy, doesn't it?

Mudguards, 232 grammes the pair (SKS RaceBlades, ones with permanent
mountings are likely to be lighter); rack, 540 grammes (Topeak QR Beam
Rack - I couldn't be bothered to unbolt a bolt on one, but again it
would be lighter); lights 132 grammes the pair (Cat-eye LED, including
batteries) total 904 grammes. So that takes the Birdy up to 11.3Kg, to
be precise. Which, by coincidence, is precisely what the Birdy City
(which has all those things, and an epicyclic gearbox, and is
substantially cheaper) weighs.

--
[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.