# Why don't modern bikes need less maintenance?



## nickyboy (3 Feb 2013)

Cars have become much more reliable and require far less maintenance that they used to in the past. Service intervals are now far higher than they used to be and most drivers do practically no maintenance at all.

But there seems to be no improvement in bike design that has led to a reduction in maintenance. We still have to go through complicated, time consuming routines to keep them on the road.

So how come the car industry has been so successful in reducing maintenance required but the bike industry hasn't?


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Feb 2013)

because cars are not bikes?


----------



## nickyboy (3 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> because cars are not bikes?


It seems like the car industry has made huge steps with its products, bike industry hasn't. We're still stuck with faffing around after each long winter ride cleaning, re-lubing

I'm just wondering if bike design from a maintenance perspective has reached a pinnacle and can't be improved upon or has the bike industry not tried as hard as the car industry?


----------



## mcshroom (3 Feb 2013)

Some things are much better than they used to be. Tyres with puncture protection last longer, aluminium rims don't need the rust taking off of them periodically, Disk brakes are far more long-lasting than any rim brakes and I would say that sealed hubs and BBs have made bikes far more resilient.

Bikes have also become far more complicated in general, and also lighter. Cars are already heavier and more powerful so adding a bit more to make them tougher isn't as noticeable as it would be on a bike.


----------



## simon.r (3 Feb 2013)

You could get an almost maintenance free bike if you wanted to - but it would have hydraulic discs, hub gears and a belt drive. Very practical, but heavier and not as slick as a derailleur equipped, canti braked bike.

A bit like comparing a low maintenance VW Diesel Golf to a Lamborghini to stick with the car analogy?


----------



## dave r (3 Feb 2013)

Are we sure that modern bikes need more looking after? or are we more fussy about keeping them nice.? I have two nice bikes and I like to keep them nice, years ago I rode bikes I cobbled together from bits and cheap second hand bikes, they only got the minimum amount of work done on them to keep them running, they weren't worth doing any more than that.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (3 Feb 2013)

some bikes don't need anywhere near the level of maintenance as others. For instance my off-road touring bike/expedition bike needs very little maintenance compared to either my mountain bike or my road bike. the difference is inital cost, design and the fact it is hub gears (a rohloff hub). Clean the chain once a week or so on a world tour (typically every 300-500 miles or so), change the chain maybe once every 8,000-9,000 miles, front & rear sprocket only got changed when I needed to change the ratios for the hub - something sutable for flat road use is not suitable for off-road steep mountain use - difference between The Netherlands/Germany/Denmark and Norway/Turkey/Tajikistan for instance. Tyres lasted 5,000 miles for my OH, 9,000miles for me. Never looked at the wheel hubs or the bottom bracket, OK I broke 1 spoke on it (my OH broke 6 spokes over 9,000 miles), 2 sets of brake pads, 2nd set are still going strong and don't expect to replace them anytime soon.

Now compare that to my road bike or mountain bike which needs the chain doing each and very time I use the bike because the lane I live on which is coated in mud most of the time, has done 1,250 miles to a chain (road bike). My touring/expedition bike is roughly 9 times the price of my road bike (in fact my expedition bike new costs more than my 2nd hand car did 5 months ago). Which has had less problems - well actually my expedition bike and I've done a much greater distance on it than the car!

You get what you pay for. Stay with derailuer gears and parts fail much more quickly, more maintenance is needed. Change technology to something costing much more initally (or run with a single speed) and have less to do in the long run.


----------



## gaz (3 Feb 2013)

Weight. things can be made more durable but then they weigh more. Cycling would then be less appealing as any hill you got to would require a ski lift to get up.


----------



## nickyboy (3 Feb 2013)

gaz said:


> Weight. things can be made more durable but then they weigh more. Cycling would then be less appealing as any hill you got to would require a ski lift to get up.


But cars have got lighter over the years and are now much more reliable and need less maintenance.
It's not so much the catastrophic failures that I am on about, it is the day to day maintenance that the car industry seems to have succeeded in getting away from. They have done it so what's stopping the bike industry?


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> It seems like the car industry has made huge steps with its products, bike industry hasn't. We're still stuck with faffing around after each long winter ride cleaning, re-lubing
> 
> I'm just wondering if bike design from a maintenance perspective has reached a pinnacle and can't be improved upon or has the bike industry not tried as hard as the car industry?


 
I still don't understand why you are comparing cars to bikes from a maintenance perspective. A fully-enclosed transmission will cure a lot of your maintenance issues. They have been around for a while now..


----------



## Onthedrops (3 Feb 2013)

Because everybody loves to give their bikes lots of TLC after a ride out.
No better feeling than going out on a clean and freshly lubed bike. Especially when you've done it all yourself.


----------



## derrick (3 Feb 2013)

If you keep it nice and clean and lubbed up. they require very little maintanance, i know guy's with cars spend longer cleaning them up than i do cleaning bikes, and mine are spotless.


----------



## youngoldbloke (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> Cars have become much more reliable and require far less maintenance that they used to in the past. Service intervals are now far higher than they used to be and most drivers do practically no maintenance at all.
> 
> But there seems to be no improvement in bike design that has led to a reduction in maintenance.* We still have to go through complicated, time consuming routines to keep them on the road.*


???? What's so complicated and time consuming? Have you tried changing a nearside headlamp bulb on a Ford Focus?


----------



## dave r (3 Feb 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> ???? What's so complicated and time consuming? Have you tried changing a nearside headlamp bulb on a Ford Focus?


 
The Ford connect van is as bad, I had to get one of the lads on the shop floor to do it, I couldn't do it my hand wouldn't contort enough to do it.


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> But cars have got lighter over the years


Really?


----------



## boydj (3 Feb 2013)

The point you are missing about cars is that in many ways they are a lot more complex now than they ever were. Most modern cars now have electronic engine management systems which are way beyond the amateur mechanic to service or even to diagnose problems. While service intervals are typically longer than they used to be, this is all to do with advances in oil technology combined with more reliable electronics. Improved reliability has come from the same improved manufacturing techniques with better tolerances that has seen us move from 5/6 speed to 11 speed. Beware the advent of electronic shifting and the impact on the home mechanic.


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> But cars have got lighter over the years and are now much more reliable and need less maintenance.
> It's not so much the catastrophic failures that I am on about, it is the day to day maintenance that the car industry seems to have succeeded in getting away from. They have done it so what's stopping the bike industry?


 
They have got considerably heavier over the years. 

Multi valve engines, abs systems, additional soundproofing, bigger wheels and tyres, bigger brakes, air bags, bigger seats.....this list goes on and on. The difference between a Mk1 and Mk7 Golf is about 200kg
Car brake calipers have gaitors around the pistons to keep the crud away from them. My motorbike (like all modern ones) has none of that and whilst the brakes are enormously powerful, have very little protection from the elements...just a thin o-ring on each piston to act as a dust seal. Redesigning them with gaitors like car calipers would make them much heavier, and increase the unsprung weight...which messes with the handling big time. Cycles are much the same...all done for weight saving. Chain is the best way of transferring power to the wheels, belts or drive shafts and planetary gears aren't.


----------



## nickyboy (3 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> Really?


yup
http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/

But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance. I'm not sure that's happening with bikes. Perhaps the fundamentals of bike design had already been perfected years ago and this is as good as it's going to get?


----------



## Arch (3 Feb 2013)

I have a summer bike (derailleur, rim brakes) and a winter bike (hub gear, hub brakes). I swap them over every six months or so, and at that point, they may get maintained. Or not.

I'm fairly sure a car wouldn't cope with that.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Feb 2013)

The other issue is whether there is a cost to this reliability

The family car is now no longer something that you can tweak of tune without a computer system for the timing, sealed units that need replacing as a whole and then checked with another computing system.. Much of this needs to be done at the dealer

I prefer the ability to be able to modify or replace on a bicycle rather than a maintenance free machine that I cannot personalise


----------



## simon.r (3 Feb 2013)

boydj said:


> The point you are missing about cars is that in many ways they are a lot more complex now than they ever were. Most modern cars now have electronic engine management systems which are way beyond the amateur mechanic to service or even to diagnose problems. While service intervals are typically longer than they used to be, this is all to do with advances in oil technology combined with more reliable electronics. Improved reliability has come from the same improved manufacturing techniques with better tolerances that has seen us move from 5/6 speed to 11 speed. Beware the advent of electronic shifting and the impact on the home mechanic.


 
I assume that diagnosing electrical problems on a bike is easier than on a car, mainly due to the much smaller number of 'black boxes' on a bike. I'll happily be corrected on this, but I'd guess that if an electronic bit goes wrong on a bike it's thrown away rather than repaired. Which, to be fair, is what we do on standard bikes - front mechs aren't repaired*, just replaced. Cost is the obvious issue, but if and when electronic shifting filters down to cheaper bikes it will, by definition, be cheaper to replace.

*Awaits post from someone who has just spent 3 weeks refurbishing a front mech


----------



## simon.r (3 Feb 2013)

Arch said:


> I have a summer bike (derailleur, rim brakes) and a winter bike (hub gear, hub brakes). I swap them over every six months or so, and at that point, they may get maintained. Or not.
> 
> I'm fairly sure a car wouldn't cope with that.


 
Modern cars can easily cope with that.

20,000 mile service intervals aren't unusual. I'll be surprised if I have to do anything to mine before 20,000 miles, with the exception of checking the tyre pressures and oil level and filling up the screenwash bottle a few times.


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> yup
> http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/








From http://www.treehugger.com/cars/no-wonder-fuel-economy-is-stagnant-cars-ballooned-up-since-1980.html which I don't claim is an unbiased site, but the graphs do seem to fit my perception that cars are getting bigger and heavier not lighter - look at old Mini vs new Mini, or the growth of the Golf. A modern _Polo_ looks bigger than the Golfs of previous decades


----------



## Linford (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> yup
> http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/
> 
> But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance. I'm not sure that's happening with bikes. Perhaps the fundamentals of bike design had already been perfected years ago and this is as good as it's going to get?


 
I think what they actually mean is 'like for like' components. We use special steels with greater wear properties, or greater ability to withstand the bending stresses, and we use multiple tempering cycles as well as nitriding (surface hardening) to give a hard crust around a soft and pliable core. It doesn't allow us much scope on changing the designs muck though.

You can't get away from the fact that whilst these individual components might be getting lighter, they are also adding every toy unther the sun around them. I also forgot Mk1 Golf...a fan heater, manual windows, manual locking. Mk7 Golf = climate control, central locking, electric windows all around, and a big multi speaker stereo.


----------



## Matthew_T (3 Feb 2013)

Has anyone heard about belt driven bikes? Basically a rubber belt to replace a chain.

I think that if every bike had one, they would be a lot cleaner, need less maintenance, and possibly cost less (its just grooved rubber afterall).
Whoever designs the system will surely be in the money.


----------



## simon.r (3 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> ...but the graphs do seem to fit my perception that cars are getting bigger and heavier not lighter - look at old Mini vs new Mini, or the growth of the Golf. A modern _Polo_ looks bigger than the Golfs of previous decades


 
You're right. I drove a Mondeo estate about 20 year ago. I was looking at new Fords recently and I reckon the current Focus is about the same size as the 20 year old Mondeo was.

I'd guess that the weight increase is due to a combination of that and the extra equipment that is more or less standard now and wasn't 20 years ago - things like airbags, power steering, ABS and so on.


----------



## mcshroom (3 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> yup
> http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/
> 
> But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance. I'm not sure that's happening with bikes. Perhaps the fundamentals of bike design had already been perfected years ago and this is as good as it's going to get?



Some data - I chose a Ford Escort/focus as they are very common.

Mk1 Escort - 767kg
Mk6 Escort - 1080kg
Mk1 Focus - 1080kg
Mk2 Focus - 1248kg

They are getting heavier


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Feb 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Has anyone heard about belt driven bikes? Basically a rubber belt to replace a chain.
> 
> I think that if every bike had one, they would be a lot cleaner, need less maintenance, and possibly cost less (its just grooved rubber afterall).
> Whoever designs the system will surely be in the money.


 
try running a belt drive with a 10 or 11 speed setup...


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Feb 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Has anyone heard about belt driven bikes? Basically a rubber belt to replace a chain.
> 
> I think that if every bike had one, they would be a lot cleaner, need less maintenance, and possibly cost less (its just grooved rubber afterall).
> Whoever designs the system will surely be in the money.


 
I am not sure the point you are trying to make or the question you are asking, if you are asking whether they exist, the answer is yes, there are some single speed ones and some with hub gears. However the frame must be hinged to get the belt in and out, as you can not break it and rejoin it like a chain.


----------



## simon.r (3 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> try running a belt drive with a 10 or 11 speed setup...


 
I'm surprised that no-one has yet come up with a good constantly variable transmission suitable for a bike, using a belt.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Feb 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Has anyone heard about belt driven bikes? Basically a rubber belt to replace a chain.
> 
> I think that if every bike had one, they would be a lot cleaner, need less maintenance, and possibly cost less (its just grooved rubber afterall).
> Whoever designs the system will surely be in the money.


 
I have two belt driven bikes from the eighties (Strida 1)

The seating of the belt in the teeth of the cog is not as secure as a chain and cog, so they tend to slip

May have been resolved by now?


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Feb 2013)

simon.r said:


> I'm surprised that no-one has yet come up with a good constantly variable transmission suitable for a bike, using a belt.


 
I'm not - have you seen the size of them?


----------



## Matthew_T (3 Feb 2013)

IMHO I doubt it would work with a cassette. However, a chain is fixed length so the technique wouldnt be much different.

Yes, the belt would probably come off quite a lot when changing gear, but I am sure someone could come up with a decent idea nowadays. As well as making the grooves or teeth in the belt more substantial to not slip.


----------



## MacB (3 Feb 2013)

There's the Nuvinci 360 CVT which has been lightened significantly but is still a heavy lump even compared to the heaviest of other hub gears. I've never tried one but there are some good reviews around though there is a glaring lack of anything approaching efficiency data.

Belt drives are already here for hub gears and single speed, not seen a fixed gear option and can't imagine how you could have a derailleur style one - as mentioned above the belts are one piece so the rear triangle needs a break in it. The belts are also very sensitive to alignment, tension and frame flex. If you wanted a Rohloff belt drive then I'm led to believe that Rohloff try to limit supply to approved frames only.

A lot of that has put me off belt drives for now and I suppose a full chain case on a hub gear would give you pretty much the same low maintenance levels.

You can run a bike with remarkably low maintenance levels and excellent longevity of parts. But there are drawbacks generally around weight, cost and efficiency. Though Rohloff claims as good or better efficiency than a derailleur setup this presupposes a less than clean well maintained drivetrain. It's a similar tale for claims around minimal weight penalties as they tend to compare against weightier derailleur components.

That doesn't mean I'm not a fan of hub gears and rohloffs but you have to be realistic.


----------



## MacB (3 Feb 2013)

Oh and there's a BB mounted gear box getting some chatter, it's from Pinion in Germany and is 18 sequential gears. This is an interesting idea as it's pretty direct gearing and puts the weight central on the bike and removes rotational weight. I'm not an engineer but I think it doesn't have planetary gears like a normal hub gear but rather every gear becomes a kind of direct drive. The gear range is also wider than any other conventional or hub gear option out there.

Downsides are really cost related again as it requires a specifically designed frame and cranks, the initial outlay and high number of tweaks/revisions I've read about would put me in a cold sweat just thinking about being an early adopter.

But if it pans out longer term and lives up to the inventors claims then I can see my temptation growing.


----------



## snailracer (3 Feb 2013)

There are plenty of reliable bikes - they typically have chaincases, run thick chain, wide axles, hub gears/single speed, metal mudguards and hub brakes. They are found in great abundance in foreign places where bikes are left outside exposed to the elements and aren't considered "sporting equipment" - we just don't buy them in the UK because we prefer our lightweight toys.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Feb 2013)

I think that's it. We're using kit that was top-flight race material only a few years back. Only we don't have a team of mechanics following us around.
Having said that, I don't recall doing much maintenance these days - mostly indexing the gears. That wasn't needed before 1985, obviously.


----------



## MrJamie (4 Feb 2013)

Dan B said:


> From http://www.treehugger.com/cars/no-wonder-fuel-economy-is-stagnant-cars-ballooned-up-since-1980.html which I don't claim is an unbiased site, but the graphs do seem to fit my perception that cars are getting bigger and heavier not lighter - look at old Mini vs new Mini, or the growth of the Golf. A modern _Polo_ looks bigger than the Golfs of previous decades


While you're probably still right, comparing a new and old model isn't necessarily like for like just because the name is the same. New Minis are nothing like old minis and smaller cars like the Polo have grown into a slightly bigger car I believe and have in some cases been replaced with a new smaller model that is more similar to the original - think Fiesta & Ka or Polo & Lupo/Up!. I'd also guess that while bike components continue the trend of getting lighter, car components in motorsport and sports cars at least will be getting lighter. 

Perhaps one day bikes will go the way of having optional electronics that monitor and adjust various tensions, tyre pressure sensors etc. I'd really hate to not be able to maintain a bike so easily as you can now though.


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Feb 2013)

MrJamie said:


> Perhaps one day bikes will go the way of having optional electronics *that monitor and adjust various tensions, tyre pressure sensors etc.* I'd really hate to not be able to maintain a bike so easily as you can now though.


Why? It's not that difficult is it?


----------



## Jimmy Doug (4 Feb 2013)

I've been asking myself this question a lot of late - and I never did get round to starting a thread on it. When I came back from Norway, I found I had to:

Change the front bicycle rack - cost: €100 (I went for a Tubus)
Change the entire drive train - cost €100
Went through two chains before I realised I had to do the above: cost €20
Change the front wheel - cost €50
Change the mudguards - cost €60 (SKS P45 + two Brooks mudflaps)
Other equipment, but not bicycle-mechanic related problems (change the computer, change my shoes)
The total cost of all that was €400 - and I'm sure I'm going to have to replace something else before too long. It sounds like a lot of money, but .... the bike had done over 13 000 kms before I had to change anything (apart from a couple of chains). OK, so everything went at the same time, but nevertheless, if you compare that to a car ... Well, my car is supposed to be the most reliable in the world (Toyota Corolla), but last year I spent €600 on changing a belt, and that was apparently only half the job, and half the cost. I've also had to change tyres, do a complete oil change .... All in all, I think I'll stick to my bike, thanks. OK, so I may need to spend ten minutes a week cleaning it, and maybe grease bearings from time to time, but these small jobs are as nothing compared to the cost and time needed to maintain a car by a qualified mechanic. What's more, I don't even need to wait around at petrol stations, look desperately for parking spaces, worry about insurance ... In a word: bikes are much less hassle than cars, and a hell of a lot cheaper!


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

Seems I was wrong about the car weight thing, sorry about that. Although it is true that individual components are getting lighter (steel is now typically 0.3mm thick, it used to be 2mm for example). 

But back on topic. It just seems that a car owner, or washing machine owner or whatever probably uses less than 0.1% of its running time on maintenance. But a bike owner has to use a much higher %
I hate maintenance, it is time spent doing something when I could be riding my bike or sitting around in my pyjamas having a cuppa or whatever.
If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it


----------



## Jimmy Doug (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> But back on topic. It just seems that a car owner, or washing machine owner or whatever probably uses less than 0.1% of its running time on maintenance. But a bike owner has to use a much higher %
> I hate maintenance, it is time spent doing something when I could be riding my bike or sitting around in my pyjamas having a cuppa or whatever.
> If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it


 
But if you were to create a washing machine that was expected to work outside in the mud and the rain, with all its working parts fully exposed to the elements, I can guarantee you it wouldn't be so reliable.


----------



## simon.r (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> If someone designed a bike that had "normal" performance characteristics but, say, only needed a drive train clean every thousand miles then I would be willing to pay a premium for that. Maybe I am dreaming and it can't be done, but other industries seem to have found ways to do it


 
For those of us who don't race and don't chase performance targets I think the difference in performance characteristics between a hub geared, belt driven bike and a mid-range derailleur geared, chain driven bike is small enough to be insignificant. There's no denying that there is a difference, but in real world conditions I'd guess it'd equate to a drop in average speed of 1mph or less?

To the best of my knowledge there isn't an off the shelf 'racing bike' with a hub gear and belt drive, but I suspect that's down to market forces - most cyclists wouldn't accept the small drop in performance. Hence low maintenance bikes tend to be commuters or tourers.

The actual time spent maintaining a derailleur system isn't very long - a few minutes maintenance for every 10 or 20 hours riding time is normally enough.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

When someone comes on a cycling forum and starts moaning about fettling and cleaning, this is an indicator of a/ he doesn’t really care about his bikes, b/ he doesn’t know how to fettle and clean, or c/ he’s lazy.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Feb 2013)

It is hard to compare decade with decade, but I think bicycles have got pretty good in terms of durability.

The measure is skewed slightly by the extraordinary lightness now available to the fairly ordinary buyer. With lightness comes a tendency towards fragility, but I'd say that the average steel or aluminium road bike stands up pretty well.

I bugger about with my wheel bearings far less frequently than I did 20 years ago. BBs are sealed units, fit and forget. No grease nipple between the pedals and no need for one either.

It is hard to compare chains, as they get more and more like delicate items of decorative neckwear every year... but I think I get as much or more out of them as ever I did. 

When I think of the parts that need attention, they tend to fall into two categories:

1. Parts I have neglected (ungreased cables, dirty mechs)
2. Standard service items (chain, brakes and so on).

Tyres, certainly, seem better and more durable and puncture-resistant. Rims are lighter and tougher. I think there has been progress.

I think there have been retrograde steps too. Despite frequently changing stems as my children grow up, I still do not like threadless headsets. Quills are the past and the future in my Luddite mind.

The main issue for me with cars is the power unit. These seem significantly better than they were 30 years ago in terms of flexibility, power output, service interval and pretty much everything, if slightly light on character. 

Juxtaposed with that and quite contrariwise, the power unit for my bicycle seems less reliable than it was 30 years ago. It is also heavier, slower and less able to hit the higher revs. Bags more character than it had, but as a motor it is dreadful.

For me, the power units in cars have got much better and on bicycles (with me as the reference point) they have deteriorated.


----------



## Sittingduck (4 Feb 2013)

Onthedrops said:


> Because everybody loves to give their bikes lots of TLC after a ride out.
> No better feeling than going out on a clean and freshly lubed bike. Especially when you've done it all yourself.


 
Speak for yourself - I hate cleaning mine 
Bikes are there to be ridden... not to be polished, imho!


----------



## Arch (4 Feb 2013)

black'n'yellow said:


> try running a belt drive with a 10 or 11 speed setup...


 
or a 14 speed Rohloff hub gear, which is perfectly doable.

There have been belts for years. Generally, I think, people don't like 'new' ideas, unless they think they are getting more of something - so they hail a 10 speed cassette as a great sporty advance, although it's not necessarily faster than a 9 speed, you still have to turn the pedals to make it work and most day to day cyclists won't use more than three gears anyway. Whereas a belt only offers 'sensible' advances, but seems like a weird step too far for some reason

It's possible that belt technology has improved enough to make this resurgence the one that makes it big time, but I think the conservative nature of many cyclists holds sway.


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> When someone comes on a cycling forum and starts moaning about fettling and cleaning, this is an indicator of a/ he doesn’t really care about his bikes, b/ he doesn’t know how to fettle and clean, or c/ he’s lazy.


you forgot the option of a+b+c


----------



## Shut Up Legs (4 Feb 2013)

Considering all the positive aspects of a bike (cheap, enviro-friendly, good exercise, blah blah blah, I'm sure you've heard them all), I think the higher maintenance effort is a small price to pay . On my Vivente tourer which has done many miles over the last 4 years, there are numerous scratches and marks on the frame, classic signs of _beausage_, but I keep the all-important moving parts as squeaky-clean as I can manage, because it makes the ride much smoother and more enjoyable.


----------



## lulubel (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance.


 
I don't think this is true. In the case of household appliances, they're not becoming more reliable. In the "good old days" household appliances lasted for years and years and years, as long as they were given a bit of a service every now and then. Nowadays, they work until they break (usually when they're just out of warranty) at which point they're unrepairable, or not worth repairing from a financial perspective because the part that needs to be replaced is sealed and expensive, so they're thrown away and replaced.

It would be interesting to compare the money and time spent maintaining an old washing machine (for example) during its lifetime with the money and time spent replacing modern washing machines over the same time period.

I think it's good that bikes need regular maintenance. If you do it yourself, you learn a lot about your bike and how it works, so you're more likely to be able to repair it yourself if it breaks (possibly even at the road side). Modern cars that just run without any maintenance for the majority of the time leave their owners dependent on expensive repairs and/or roadside recovery when something does go wrong.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I have two belt driven bikes from the eighties (Strida 1)
> 
> The seating of the belt in the teeth of the cog is not as secure as a chain and cog, so they tend to slip
> 
> *May have been resolved by now?*


Nope. When all is shiny and new and perfect they work like a dream and it's all downhill from there. By which I mean there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that over time the performance of modern belt drive systems degrades in cycling applications, largely I think because the belt and drive cogs are exposed to the elements.


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2013)

snailracer said:


> lements and aren't considered "sporting equipment" - we just don't buy them in the UK because we prefer our lightweight toys.


Or is it that they are not made readily available in the UK because the industry can make a lot more money promoting sporty bikes and selling replacement parts for the expensive lightweight soft materials from which they are made?


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

I wonder what progress could be made in making the whole drivetrain more of a sealed unit? Of course there's a weight issue but, frankly, for fatties like me an odd kg here or there makes no difference
Imagine something fully sealed with a little oil reservoir that you could top up every now and then, and then change the oil every year or so. Fully sealed bottom brackets have taken over so why not?


----------



## MacB (4 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Nope. When all is shiny and new and perfect they work like a dream and it's all downhill from there. By which I mean there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that over time the performance of modern belt drive systems degrades in cycling applications, largely I think because the belt and drive cogs are exposed to the elements.


 
I think Gates now spec a belt equivalent of a pushing up chain tensioner for this very reason. I think the lack of long term reports and ability to retrofit are probably enough to steer me away from belts for the foreseeable future. I just don't see chaindrive hub gears as something that's crying out for an upgrade to a belt. The longevity of parts is already good and they work just fine with cheap and cheerful bits.


----------



## sidevalve (4 Feb 2013)

Several point I see here. Cars are now disposable utility objects with a planned life of 8 - 10 years [ask a dealer if you doubt this]. The industry has engineered them on that basis, everything is designed to last a fixed time with a specific "maintenance routine" then more or less all die at once. Bikes will last as long as you can be bothered keeping them. The derailer is a crude and terrible way to change gears in an engineering sense but it works and it's lightweight, a trade off between convenience and longevity. There were bikes [may still be] with shaft drive and enclosed hubgears but they were very heavy and not cheap to make.
The belt is a problem, although it can be light it doesn't like the wet remember very early m/cycles used, [and discarded] the belt drive. Modern toothed belts may solve the problems but they will require internal gears, again an expense for, in 99% of cases, very little gain.


----------



## simon.r (4 Feb 2013)

sidevalve said:


> ...remember very early m/cycles used, [and discarded] the belt drive.


 
There are quite a few current motorbikes that are fitted with belt drives. Mainstream manufacturers as well - BMW and Triumph amongst others.


----------



## G3CWI (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> So how come the car industry has been so successful in reducing maintenance required but the bike industry hasn't?


 
I agree. It's the same with horses.


----------



## Ningishzidda (4 Feb 2013)

Three of the most common complains about a new car are:-

Trip Comp./Navigation Systems Diff. To Understand/Use 
Unusual Transmission Noise
Poor Performance/Lacks Power

Bikes are the same then.


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> I wonder what progress could be made in making the whole drivetrain more of a sealed unit? Of course there's a weight issue but, frankly, for fatties like me an odd kg here or there makes no difference
> Imagine something fully sealed with a little oil reservoir that you could top up every now and then, and then change the oil every year or so. Fully sealed bottom brackets have taken over so why not?


These things you mention are available throughout Europe, but they are not "cool" in the UK..
Blame it on the Armstrongs and Wiggins of this world, unfortunately our cycle industry, national press and opinion formers would have us believe that we should be following the examples set by the pros and be flying about the place at high speed ignoring the fact that pro sport cyclists have a back up team keeping their bikes in tip top condition regardless of expense, and the pros don't carry their work clothes in their panniers or tow a dog in a trailer behind them.


----------



## sidevalve (4 Feb 2013)

simon.r said:


> There are quite a few current motorbikes that are fitted with belt drives. Mainstream manufacturers as well - BMW and Triumph amongst others.


 As I said the belt was discarded [it slipped too easily in the wet for a final drive] and although the modern toothed belt is sometimes used on both primary and secondary drives [Kawasaki, H Davidson, Norton as well as Triumph and BMW] it is still in a minority even when the power is there to drive it and weight is not the factor it is on a bicycle. The problem is that a seperate gearbox is required, fine on a m/cycle but IMHO not really needed on 99% of bikes. Only customer demand can drive the manufacturers and as snorri says customers want [or are told they want, and believe it] lots of gears and sexy looking bicycles. We live in a throwaway society and that, sadly, includes bicycles.


----------



## tyred (4 Feb 2013)

My 1951 Rudge:



Rudge Roadster  by braveheart1979, on Flickr

Note the fully enclosed chain, the fully enclosed gear system, the oil ports on the hubs/bb, the fully enclosed dynamo lighting system and the sensible width, low pressure tyres for riding on real world road surfaces. A low maintenance and highly practical bicycle suitable for commuting, utility riding and even lightweight touring, suitable for pretty much anything except racing, but how many cyclists actually race?

Unfortunately nobody sells bikes like this in this country nowadays as people are too obsessed with weight and fashion. A bike shop would struggle to sell a bike like my Rudge today due to the obsession with weight and fashion even though it is the most suitable type of bike for the majority of cyclists. It is heavy, but once you get a bike like this moving, it maintains momentum and isn't difficult to ride at all if the gear ratios are chosen correctly.


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of half way house between the charming Rudge Roadster and the modern, fully exposed drivetrain bikes?
I do think that there is a shift in your typical bike customer taking place. More and more middle class, middle aged blokes (like me I suppose) who aren't used to fettling, cleaning, lubing every couple of rides in the winter. They're used to buying something, using it and that's it. 
Interesting that the question now seems to be why is the take up in these low maintenance solutions so low? Does the public get what the public wants or the public want what the public gets? (thanks for that one Paul Weller)


----------



## Cycleops (4 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> They have got considerably heavier over the years.
> 
> Multi valve engines, abs systems, additional soundproofing, bigger wheels and tyres, bigger brakes, air bags, bigger seats.....this list goes on and on. The difference between a Mk1 and Mk7 Golf is about 200kg.



In you hadn't noticed it is a physically much bigger car. It is simply not in the interest of manufacturers to make them heavier in the quest for much improved fuel consumption.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> yup
> http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/
> 
> But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance. I'm not sure that's happening with bikes. Perhaps the fundamentals of bike design had already been perfected years ago and this is as good as it's going to get?


 
I'm not sure why you have posted that link.

Cars have got heavier with stuff around the chassis, not necessarily the chassis itself.


----------



## Linford (4 Feb 2013)

Cycleops said:


> In you hadn't noticed it is a physically much bigger car. It is simply not in the interest of manufacturers to make them heavier in the quest for much improved fuel consumption.


 
It needs to be bigger to put all the kit in it, and conform to the EuroNcap standards

I forgot to mention, side impact beams, roof pillars much stronger, bigger crumple zones, catalytic converters, more convoluted routing of exhaust pipes....alll takes more space.


----------



## tyred (4 Feb 2013)

The traditional roadster could be lightened considerably at the manufacturing stage without too much effort. Alloy rims, stem, bars and chainset, a light alloy, PVC or canvas chaincase, lighter plastic mudguards and light fittings and lighter gauge steel tubing (the frame on a 28" wheeled roadster is made form very heavy gauge tubing, few people need a bike that strong. This was a relic from the days of unsurfaced roads prior to WW1).

An interesting experiment is to take a lugged steel lightweight road frame and build it with alloy North Road bars, hub gear, wider rims/tyres and fit a hockey stick chainguard and effectively have something that looks like a real roadster but is considerably lighter and nicer to ride.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Feb 2013)

Linford said:


> It needs to be bigger to put all the kit in it, and conform to the EuroNcap standards
> 
> I forgot to mention, side impact beams, roof pillars much stronger, bigger crumple zones, catalytic converters, more convoluted routing of exhaust pipes....alll takes more space.


 
sound deadening, ICE, satnav, etc etc.....

And, although on the surface cars may seem like they need less maintenance, when they do it is more than likely they will need to be plugged into a £20k machine and require a mechanic to service.

The car industry, in my opinion, have purposefully (or at the least, not been interested in it) made cars more difficult to service and maintain.


----------



## Licramite (4 Feb 2013)

I think the crux of the matter is , the bicycle of today hasn't changed in its mechanism for over 100years - see the safety bike 1890? (earlier think) - were as the car has moved on a bit since the model T.

the whole drive mechanism could be hydralic and practicly friction less with very few working parts. , the whole frame could be one peice. it comes down to commercial drive to change. bikes are a bit iconic and realively cheep. - bsically theres not enough money in it to make it worth while.


----------



## lulubel (4 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> These things you mention are available throughout Europe, but they are not "cool" in the UK..
> Blame it on the Armstrongs and Wiggins of this world, unfortunately our cycle industry, national press and opinion formers would have us believe that we should be following the examples set by the pros and be flying about the place at high speed ignoring the fact that pro sport cyclists have a back up team keeping their bikes in tip top condition regardless of expense, and the pros don't carry their work clothes in their panniers or tow a dog in a trailer behind them.


 
They're also less suited to the UK than to the flatter countries where they tend to be more popular. (The focus here in Spain, the second most mountainous country in Europe, is also on keeping weight down.)

There's also the difference that the majority of cyclists in the UK (and again, this is the same in Spain) use their bikes for fun and leisure rather than utility purposes. If I needed my bike for transport, rather than choosing to use it in preference to the alternatives, I'd probably look for something that needed less maintenance, and accept that it would be heavier. In countries where it's the cultural norm to use bikes for utility instead of/as well as leisure, it makes sense that people tend to choose lower maintenance options.


----------



## palinurus (4 Feb 2013)

If there was a commuter bike out there with a full chaincase- i'm thinking a structural chaincase such that the rear wheel can be attached from one side only for easy (although still rare- I'd have excellent tyres of course) puncture repair, really low maintenance brakes- hubs maybe, I suspect disks probably require a bit more work to keep them going, plus fitted dynamo lighting I'd have it. Burrows 2D was pretty close.

I don't mind working on bikes (I do cyclocross sometimes) but I really dislike having to tinker with my everyday bike on a fairly regular basis.

I am on the lookout for an old bike with a chaincase for local trips, I wouldn't commute on it because of puncture repair faff.


----------



## lulubel (4 Feb 2013)

tyred said:


> My 1951 Rudge


 
That Rudge is a lovely bike. If I had the time and money to spend on them (and the space to keep and work on them) I'd be totally into classic bikes.


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2013)

lulubel said:


> There's also the difference that the majority of cyclists in the UK (and again, this is the same in Spain) use their bikes for fun and leisure rather than utility purposes..


This is only because the government transport policy has been skewed towards private motoring and away from public transport and cycling for the last fifty years, including planning policies which require people to use cars to gain access to many facilities.


----------



## tyred (4 Feb 2013)

palinurus said:


> I am on the lookout for an old bike with a chaincase for local trips, I wouldn't commute on it because of puncture repair faff.


 
Puncture resistant tyres

You won't get too many punctures on the Raleigh branded roadster tyres anyway. They are very thick and heavy.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Feb 2013)

Lets not get onto an anti car rant. The car has been tremendously benficial and liberating to individuals to pursue opportunities and increase quality of life, for them and family, time saving as well. As much as bikes are a brilliant low cost and low impact means of transport they are only part of the many ways of getting around. I hate having to continually clean and lube what ever bike I am commuting on, but for the times I use my car which is daily I know I don't have to put in the same level of cleaning or maintenance that I do my bikes which currently have open to the elements transmissions. Even my Brompton needs regular cleaning an lubing despite being a hub gear. I would love a hub gear such as Rohloff with a full chain guard or with a belt drive and guard to keep off the crud. Also disc brakes but I already have these on my MTB/commuter which are so much more reliable and low maintenance than rim brakes, plus they work whatever the weather. There are proper commuting bikes low maintenance bikes but they are tend to be more pricey than the normal dross that can be bought. It depends whether cyclists will only be riding in summer or in all weathers through out the year 7 days a week. There are enough threads on here showing how unprepared many cyclists are for the conditions eg ice and snow. Strangely car drivers are no different refusing to purchase show or winter tyres and make do with summer tyres on their £30k Audi or BMW, preferring instead to spend £3k on a flat screen TV.


----------



## tyred (4 Feb 2013)

I think the biggest issue is the derailleur gearing. I live in a rural area and the roads are usually wet and muddy and I find I can't be bothered riding my derailleur equipped bikes anymore as I can't be bothered cleaning them. I haven't rode any of my geared road bikes since last August.

I built an old skip rescue gaspipe touring frame with a 3 speed hub and have covered about 1,500 miles on it over the winter and love it. When the chain looks dirty, I pull it off (traditional cir-clip type joining link, takea few seconds) and soak in diesel, dry and soak in warm engine oil and I do that about every 3 months and rarely do anything else with it, just like the cycle manuals of the 1920s recommended. No sign of any chain stretch so far.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Feb 2013)

tyred said:


> I think the biggest issue is the derailleur gearing. I live in a rural area and the roads are usually wet and muddy and I find I can't be bothered riding my derailleur equipped bikes anymore as I can't be bothered cleaning them. I haven't rode any of my geared road bikes since last August.
> 
> I built an old skip rescue gaspipe touring frame with a 3 speed hub and have covered about 1,500 miles on it over the winter and love it. When the chain looks dirty, I pull it off (traditional cir-clip type joining link, takea few seconds) and soak in diesel, dry and soak in warm engine oil and I do that about every 3 months and rarely do anything else with it, just like the cycle manuals of the 1920s recommended. No sign of any chain stretch so far.


 
Indeed but chain stretch is a totally different issue. Chain stretch will depend on riding styles and whether hilly or flat
terrain, heavy or no load on bike.


----------



## style over speed (4 Feb 2013)

tyred said:


> My 1951 Rudge:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Pashley still sell a bike that is almost identical: http://www.pashley.co.uk/products/roadster-sovereign.html

I have a Velorbis like this which is pretty identical to a raleigh DL1 except it has hub brakes, and big fat tryres.. they are fantastic bikes and way nicer to ride than modern hybrids, and it comes with rack, guards, hub dynamo and hub brakes, its good for riding in any weather. its a real shame they struggle to sell.


----------



## lulubel (4 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> This is only because the government transport policy has been skewed towards private motoring and away from public transport and cycling for the last fifty years, including planning policies which require people to use cars to gain access to many facilities.


 
I didn't say it wasn't.

I thought we were discussing why there's a trend towards owning bikes that require a lot of maintenance, not why people choose to use bikes for transport or not.


----------



## Licramite (4 Feb 2013)

It's a point, most people don't ride as a main means of transport, but for sport and leisure - when bikes were your only means of transport they looked more like style over speeds bikes. chainguards to keep your trousers/legs clean, mudguards the lot. and didnt need the derailer (god they are a temprimental pain) and 18gears.
It doesn't help that modern bikes are a bit like cars in that unless you have a workshop of specialist tools you cannot take the important bits appart (my old mini all I needed was an 1/2 inch spanner , a hammer, a 1/4" screwdriver and I could fix just about everything)


----------



## Amanda P (4 Feb 2013)

Most of the bikes we see in Britain are, let's face it, toys. They're not designed for regular, utility use. If they were, they'd have exactly those features you've all outlined - hub gears, disc or hub brakes, chain cases or belt drive etc etc. 

Worse, we're snobbish about our bikes (and our cars) in a way that in other nations aren't. I find it hard to believe that some of my colleagues would rather arrive at work covered in road muck and with a sweaty back than be seen on a bike with mudguards or a rack. But they would. I don't know why - no-one would recognise them with their helmets and glasses on anyway!

You can see where I'm going with this. Spend some time in a place where bikes aren't mostly just toys, and yes, you'll see the odd stripped-down road bike - but mostly at weekends. On weekdays, fat-tyred, flat-barred, chain cased, back-pedal-braked leviathans rule the road bike path.

(*Actually, that's a bit unfair. They're often built big, but can be surprisingly light).

Those bikes don't need much maintenance. When they do, they're generally entrusted to a specialist workshop, just as we do with our cars.

A couple of years ago I was working in the Netherlands. I'd agreed to meet a farmer at the edge of a village early one morning. I arrived before him at the field and parked up to wait for him. He was late, and while I was waiting, I saw some of the chaps from the 'executive' village-edge homes setting off for work. In fifteen minutes I saw three guys in suits come out of their houses, briefcase in hand, walk past the BMW/Audi/Mercedes on the drive, get a chunky, upright bike out of the garage or the rack and pedal off to work.

When I mentioned this to a Dutch colleague, he wasn't surprised, but pointed out that they'd have been _Executive_, expensive bikes. It's enough to _own_ a prestige car in the Netherlands. But it'd be stupid to drive it into town. Stilstaand verkeer is a phrase you hear a lot on traffic reports.


----------



## tyred (4 Feb 2013)

I think back pedal brakes are an overlooked feature here as well. They work very well in practice, are weather proof and basically maintenance free.


----------



## Bromptonaut (4 Feb 2013)

As above a belt need a redisign to so it can run through seatstay/dropouts/chainstay. It also needs to be a very precise length unlike a chain where there is a facility to vary number of links.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Feb 2013)

Ningishzidda said:


> Three of the most common complains about a new car are:-
> 
> Trip Comp./Navigation Systems Diff. To Understand/Use
> Unusual Transmission Noise
> ...


 

I thought it was only BMW and Audi drivers who lacked power and performance


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Feb 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> As above a belt need a redisign to so it can run through seatstay/dropouts/chainstay. It also needs to be a very precise length unlike a chain where there is a facility to vary number of links.


 The Strida design was such that there was ne rear trianle to cause this issue


----------



## Jimmy Doug (4 Feb 2013)

One of the things I love about my bike is that I _can_ maintain it. When something breaks, which is rare, I _can_ replace it. And every time I change something, every minute I spend working on it, I appropriate it a tiny amount, make it just that little more my own. When you buy a B'Twin Triban 3 or whatever, you have a factory built, standardised machine that differs from no other bike that came out of that factory. But every time you replace something, and most people can still do this themselves, you personalise it just that little bit. Obviously, there are constraints, both technical and financial, that limit what you can change; but you still imprint something of yourself on that machine. My EBC Country Traveller is now unique: no other EBC Country Traveller is exactly like mine; no other bike in the world is exactly like mine.
Bikes require work to keep them running smooth, but that's a small price to pay for what they give in return. What other machine has mankind invented that gives more than it takes? Getting you from A to B quickly, cleanly and efficiently, saving you money and keeping you fit all at the same time? Hell - they're evening claiming that cycling can help make you happier and keep your brain functioning properly. Soon they'll be saying that it can improve your sex-life too - perhaps they already have. So, I don't care if I need to spend 10 minutes a week maintaining my bike - even if I do need to grease the bearings every six months too. It's the least I can do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2013)

MacB said:


> I think Gates now spec a belt equivalent of a pushing up chain tensioner for this very reason. I think the lack of long term reports and ability to retrofit are probably enough to steer me away from belts for the foreseeable future. I just don't see chaindrive hub gears as something that's crying out for an upgrade to a belt. The longevity of parts is already good and they work just fine with cheap and cheerful bits.


Even with snubber bearings fitted the feedback on the longevity of Gates drives used on hub geared mtb's stateside is mixed, especially if bits of the scenery get pulled into the drive or you ride on terrain where gritty paste builds up on the read 'cog'. It's a solution in search of a problem in our application; probably works fine on road with a light plastic chaincase and a Rohloff but honestly otherwise what's the point. I've had a drive belt slip on a brand new strida which is why I didn't buy one and went Brompton instead (I still take my old Strida Mk 3.5 out to the shops just for the hell of it though, it's flat and I pedal gently)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The Strida design was such that there was ne rear trianle to cause this issue


Indeed. But then the Strida design fixes that problem but introduces a whole lot of other ones.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2013)

tyred said:


> My 1951 Rudge:
> 
> 
> 
> Rudge Roadster  by braveheart1979, on Flickr


A thing of beauty. The danes still ride bikes like this so they are still out there.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Feb 2013)

tyred said:


> I think back pedal brakes are an overlooked feature here as well. They work very well in practice, are weather proof and basically maintenance free.


Coaster brakes have their place.








In a skip*



*I am actually joking I have a two-speed hub with a coaster brake that slots into my fixed when the fancy takes.


----------



## mcshroom (4 Feb 2013)

Out of interest, how long each year does the OP think he spends filling up the car at the petrol station? I would call that maintaining the vehicle.


----------



## MacB (4 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Even with snubber bearings fitted the feedback on the longevity of Gates drives used on hub geared mtb's stateside is mixed, especially if bits of the scenery get pulled into the drive or you ride on terrain where gritty paste builds up on the read 'cog'. It's a solution in search of a problem in our application; probably works fine on road with a light plastic chaincase and a Rohloff but honestly otherwise what's the point. I've had a drive belt slip on a brand new strida which is why I didn't buy one and went Brompton instead (I still take my old Strida Mk 3.5 out to the shops just for the hell of it though, it's flat and I pedal gently)


 
that's the word, snubber, I'm not as up as you on the longevity and real world reports but they do seem to be living up to my fears/concerns re adopting such a system.

Have a hub gear, with the right dropouts, and you can switch to SS, fixed or derailleurs at the drop of a hat. I don't think I could sacrifice that for a belt drive.


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Feb 2013)

Gates quote the life of the belt as 'more than twice that of a chain'.

That's not much given the cost of the components and the need for an adapted frame.

Tension and alignment appear more critical than it ought to be, and if it breaks you are proper stuck unless you carry a spare belt.

A belt drive is attractive on paper, combined with sealed bearings elsewhere you have a clean, dry bike.

But I reckon it needs more development.

http://www.carbondrivesystems.com/support.php?lang=us


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Feb 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Out of interest, how long each year does the OP think he spends filling up the car at the petrol station? I would call that maintaining the vehicle.


- and how long does the vehicle spend at the garage being serviced, MOT'd?


----------



## mcshroom (4 Feb 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> - and how long does the vehicle spend at the garage being serviced, MOT'd?


Or being cleaned?


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Out of interest, how long each year does the OP think he spends filling up the car at the petrol station? I would call that maintaining the vehicle.


Not nearly as long as I spend filling myself up with fuel for cycling. But then again I count that as pleasure rather than maintenance.

Joking aside, car maintenance (excluding cosmetic cleaning done at a car wash) probably 2 hours per year - just a bit of oil top up, windscreen top up, tyre pressure check. Bike maintenance a lot more than 2 hours. And I drive a car more hours than I ride a bike

Edit: I hadn't allowed for professional servicing so my 2 hours is probably more like 10 hours. Still less than I spend maintaining the bike


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Feb 2013)

So your car is never serviced? MOT? Have you never had to hang around an exhaust centre, wait for tyres to be fitted?


----------



## mcshroom (4 Feb 2013)

nickyboy said:


> Not nearly as long as I spend filling myself up with fuel for cycling.



That would still be the case if you were driving the car. You still require food to do so


----------



## nickyboy (4 Feb 2013)

mcshroom said:


> That would still be the case if you were driving the car. You still require food to do so


Agreed, but you haven't seen how much food I eat when I'm cycling  I probably spend longer refuelling than I do on the bike


----------



## recumbentpanda (4 Feb 2013)

The Rudge Roadster illustrated a few posts up-thread was designed for the road. Since then the bike industry has been dominated by sports fashion. It's as if you couldn't buy ordinary general purpose cars, but could only buy sports cars, or even race cars crudely adapted to be road legal. That's the equivalent of many bike designs on the road today. A real modern road bike? Jump on and go, integrated lighting etc etc? imagine something between a commuter hybrid and a Boris Bike. There are a few out there, but they aren't the usual type.


----------



## youngoldbloke (4 Feb 2013)

recumbentpanda said:


> The Rudge Roadster illustrated a few posts up-thread was designed for the road. Since then the bike industry has been dominated by sports fashion. It's as if you couldn't buy ordinary general purpose cars, but could only buy sports cars, or even race cars crudely adapted to be road legal. That's the equivalent of many bike designs on the road today. A real modern road bike? Jump on and go, integrated lighting etc etc? imagine something between a commuter hybrid and a Boris Bike. There are a few out there, but they aren't the usual type.


- but..... it's only relatively recently that road bikes, fixed bikes etc have become fashionable. The decline in road bikes was hastened by the promotion of 'off road', 'mountain bikes' and the like. Tractors, not sports cars! The new popularity of bikes that are really suitable for road use is leading to increased interest in Audax and long distance touring bikes, and commuting and utility bikes and is IMO a very positive development


----------



## Jimmy Doug (5 Feb 2013)

youngoldbloke said:


> - but..... it's only relatively recently that road bikes, fixed bikes etc have become fashionable. The decline in road bikes was hastened by the promotion of 'off road', 'mountain bikes' and the like. Tractors, not sports cars! The new popularity of bikes that are really suitable for road use is leading to increased interest in Audax and long distance touring bikes, and commuting and utility bikes and is IMO a very positive development


 
Agreed. I commute on my touring bike. It's very practical and requires relatively little maintenance.


----------



## User16625 (5 Feb 2013)

Some industries such as space exploration and commercial air travel have gone backwards in some ways. No more concord, no more space shuttle. On the other hand computers have come on a bundle. It wasnt that long ago I logged on to the internet while listening to the computer equivalent of tinnitus, got frequently disconnected and a crap bandwidth. Now I have a computer on my lap in a room separate to the modem while watching TV on it. Bicycling doesnt seem to have gone either way as far as im aware. I guess the industries have their own priorities. I dont think there really is much that can be done to a bicycle. Its parts are exposed to the elements and will therefore need more in maintenance regardless.


----------



## Licramite (6 Feb 2013)

Technology is commercially driven, - if it don't make money - it dies. - it might be technologically brilliant but if it doesn't turn a buck it goes nowhere
Bikes are the same, theres a massive amount that can be done to bikes, but like all ideas it has to wait until the market is developed enough , the Ka took over 10years from concept to market place. - and the bike industry has very little money behind it compared to the car industry.

bikes don't have to be a continuation of the 100year old safety bike design - its just cheaper that way.

bikes in many ways have gone back wards (well in this county) with the commercial world pushing the mountain bike on people who will never use them off road, and because they go like wheelbarrows on road giving up cycling. -( but its the old 4x4 craze pushed on new cyclists )


----------



## nickyboy (6 Feb 2013)

Licramite said:


> Technology is commercially driven, - if it don't make money - it dies. - it might be technologically brilliant but if it doesn't turn a buck it goes nowhere
> Bikes are the same, theres a massive amount that can be done to bikes, but like all ideas it has to *wait until the market is developed enough* , the Ka took over 10years from concept to market place. - and the bike industry has very little money behind it compared to the car industry.
> 
> bikes don't have to be a continuation of the 100year old safety bike design - its just cheaper that way.
> ...


 
I think you're right. The market, at the moment, seems to accept a certain amount of cleaning/maintenance/fettling as part of the joy of cycling.

However, there is a demographic shift in cycling underway in UK at the moment. Wealthier, middle class men are the growing market sector. To over-generalise, these people aren't as willing or able to do the maintenance stuff as the traditional working class (for want of a better categorisation) cyclist

Who knows, maybe in 10 years time the "maintenance-free lightweight road bike" may be the norm in response to this


----------



## Licramite (6 Feb 2013)

to be fair to the useless generation. - I only got into proper bike repair/maintenance after building up a fair collection of tools (some for the bottom bracket tools are already obsolete as I move to a sealed unit.)and finally got a decent bike stand to hold the bike when working on it. - if you ain,t got the specialist tools its damn near impossible.
i would welcome a maintenance free lightweight road bike. -
It's not only at home but often on the road you suddenly have to do some maintenance, (gears suddenly stop changing etc.) which means carrying tools.


----------



## fossyant (6 Feb 2013)

Bottom brackets, or more to my point the sealed cartridge has been a revelation. I am not talking about hollow tech or BB30 or the later stuff. 

Sealed and they are, until you get play, not failure, but a slight wobble. Great. Two of my bikes are running 15 year old cartridge units, one Ultegra and one Dura Ace, never needed to do more than remove and refit the unit once in a few years. The MTB eats the cheap Shimano UN 5X series BB quite often, but the fixed is on a same series and hasn't even made one go rough in 4 years of daily crap on the roads. That is amazing. Cheap BB, under loads from a fixed chainset and the bearings haven't got play. Super smooth.


----------



## Psycolist (7 Feb 2013)

Why dont modern bikes need less maitanance ? Simples, no one has told the muck that times have moved on


----------



## al78 (8 Feb 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> When I mentioned this to a Dutch colleague, he wasn't surprised, but pointed out that they'd have been _Executive_, expensive bikes. It's enough to _own_ a prestige car in the Netherlands. But it'd be stupid to drive it into town. Stilstaand verkeer is a phrase you hear a lot on traffic reports.


 
Interesting that even though such a high proportion of them ride bikes for transport, they still suffer from regular traffic congestion.


----------

