Short Washington Post article titled "Bicycles open fire near Capitol Hill" - "Two people on bicycles fired shots as they pursued a car late Saturday in a Northeast Washington neighborhood on the edge of Capitol Hill, authorities said."
The police admit no understanding of the motive, but divine that "it did not appear to be a random attack." Their solution? "Officers will patrol the area and will give special attention to people on bicycles as well as to enforcing traffic regulations, police said."
The attention grabbing "near Capitol Hill" does not mean they were riding around the Capitol itself shooting guns from bikes - they were more than a mile from the U.S. Capitol.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Bicycles to Africa
Once again, my Google news alert brings in an interesting item, a story about a Danish bicycle approach to providing developmental assistance through bicycles to Africa. There are various approaches to this that I am familiar with. In an earlier post about an article about the "Team Rwanda" cycling team there was mention that the attempt to provide bicycles suitable for that country was hindered by the high cost of getting the parts there.
The Baisikeli Company in Denmark - "Baisikeli" is "bicycles" in Swahili
The Baisikeli company has a model that does not give the bikes away but sells them.
Alas, there is nothing in this world that is perfect - in looking around on Flickr for photos related to Baisikeli, they seem to have gotten into a problem with a Dutch company that claims they copied one of their cargo bike designs for a bike that is rented to businesses in Denmark for three years and then will be shipped and sold in Sierra Leone and Mozambique.
The (apparent) Baisikeli copy of the Workcycles bike
I am sympathetic to the Workcycles complaint that "the unique frame geometry and structural elements have been copied to the millimeter, while about a dozen cosmetic changes have been made to dodge legal protection" but put off by the remark that "it also happens to be very crudely made, unlike our real Fr8." If the Baisikeli people could have gotten permission to use the design that would have been a better approach but one doubts that a bike built to the Workcycles standard would be useful for this business model in Africa for various cost-related reasons.
Hmmm.
The Baisikeli Company in Denmark - "Baisikeli" is "bicycles" in Swahili
The Baisikeli company has a model that does not give the bikes away but sells them.
Baisikeli works towards developing the bicycle industry in the developing world. Bicycles are important in poor areas because with cheaper and better transportation opportunities, people living in poverty can increase their income and get access to education and health care.This is quite different than a model that gathers cast-off bicycles, ships them to Africa, and gives them away. Also, since they are (I think this is correct) primarily shipping bicycles that they have themselves used in their businesses, the types of bicycles sent to Africa are of fewer different types.
In Denmark, Baisikeli collects used bicycles and ship them to Mozambique and Sierra Leone where they are repaired and sold. All expenses in Denmark are financed through the two bike shops in Copenhagen; so all the money earned in Africa can be reinvested in developing the workshops into producing their own bikes.
Baisikeli - cykler for et bedre liv from Henrik Mortensen on Vimeo.
Alas, there is nothing in this world that is perfect - in looking around on Flickr for photos related to Baisikeli, they seem to have gotten into a problem with a Dutch company that claims they copied one of their cargo bike designs for a bike that is rented to businesses in Denmark for three years and then will be shipped and sold in Sierra Leone and Mozambique.
The (apparent) Baisikeli copy of the Workcycles bike
I am sympathetic to the Workcycles complaint that "the unique frame geometry and structural elements have been copied to the millimeter, while about a dozen cosmetic changes have been made to dodge legal protection" but put off by the remark that "it also happens to be very crudely made, unlike our real Fr8." If the Baisikeli people could have gotten permission to use the design that would have been a better approach but one doubts that a bike built to the Workcycles standard would be useful for this business model in Africa for various cost-related reasons.
Hmmm.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Complex Landscape of Bicycle Safety
My Google "news alert" for news items on the Internet about bicycles brings a strange collection of cycling safety-related items this morning.
A short article in the Economist takes the lesson from commuter cyclist Michael Wang's fatal accident in Seattle (actually, from three recent fatal cyclist acidents in the Seattle area) that, "with a very few exceptions, America is no place for cyclists" because it isn't safe - "dying while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands."
The article concludes that traffic calming, dedicated cycle tracks, and stop lights and traffic laws that favor cyclists work together to create a safer environment for cycling. Portland, Oregon is given credit for following this approach while Seattle flunks - "Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks."
Meanwhile a Danish design award, in the category of "play," was given to the Hovding "airbag helmet," from Sweden. (I did a short blog post about this helmet earlier when it garnered attention for its unusual approach.) The designers of this "helmet" (that inflates on impact from a collar) won 100,000 Euros! The problem this "helmet" solves is that, "people would rather get hurt than mess up their hair." And a typical helmet may be "too sporty" for the rider's particular sense of style. The theory is that a significant number of these helmet-refuseniks will then buy these 500 dollar helmet-substitute collars (that appear to require recharging, among other issues). Some statistics related to head injuries and fatalities in western Europe are tossed in to support the need for this product. (For the same countries that the Economist says are safe.)
The Danish design committee seems completely at odds with the Dutch cyclists interviewed in this 2011 video who were asked about cycling and helmets - they seem to regard their everyday cycling as entirely safe, and most state they would refuse to wear helmets if required to (much less a rechargable helmet-like collar that costs as much as ten helmets). They are asked when they started cycling (typically, at age three-four), why they use a bicycle for transport (a not-very-surprising list, from "good for the environment" to "less expensive" etc.), how many days per week (typically five to seven), and "why don't you wear a helmet." The answers to this question are much more varied, but do include "because I look like crap" but also (my favorite) "because only Germans do that" and "it's safe without" and "it's very safe."
The last question is whether the person would wear a helmet if it became required by law in Holland - the typical answer is "no" with some explanations such as "you really don't need one" and "you (the typical cyclist) are not traveling very fast." One commented (after indicating she would follow the law) that "I don't think I would ride so often then." (The Australian doing the interview also asked if a Dutch cyclist, visiting Australia, would follow their helmet law - but the answers weren't so interesting to that one.)
This is a somewhat disjoint post, I realize - but then so is much of my thinking about this topic. No more disjoint than the reality of cycling safety, I suspect.
A short article in the Economist takes the lesson from commuter cyclist Michael Wang's fatal accident in Seattle (actually, from three recent fatal cyclist acidents in the Seattle area) that, "with a very few exceptions, America is no place for cyclists" because it isn't safe - "dying while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands."
The article concludes that traffic calming, dedicated cycle tracks, and stop lights and traffic laws that favor cyclists work together to create a safer environment for cycling. Portland, Oregon is given credit for following this approach while Seattle flunks - "Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks."
Meanwhile a Danish design award, in the category of "play," was given to the Hovding "airbag helmet," from Sweden. (I did a short blog post about this helmet earlier when it garnered attention for its unusual approach.) The designers of this "helmet" (that inflates on impact from a collar) won 100,000 Euros! The problem this "helmet" solves is that, "people would rather get hurt than mess up their hair." And a typical helmet may be "too sporty" for the rider's particular sense of style. The theory is that a significant number of these helmet-refuseniks will then buy these 500 dollar helmet-substitute collars (that appear to require recharging, among other issues). Some statistics related to head injuries and fatalities in western Europe are tossed in to support the need for this product. (For the same countries that the Economist says are safe.)
The Danish design committee seems completely at odds with the Dutch cyclists interviewed in this 2011 video who were asked about cycling and helmets - they seem to regard their everyday cycling as entirely safe, and most state they would refuse to wear helmets if required to (much less a rechargable helmet-like collar that costs as much as ten helmets). They are asked when they started cycling (typically, at age three-four), why they use a bicycle for transport (a not-very-surprising list, from "good for the environment" to "less expensive" etc.), how many days per week (typically five to seven), and "why don't you wear a helmet." The answers to this question are much more varied, but do include "because I look like crap" but also (my favorite) "because only Germans do that" and "it's safe without" and "it's very safe."
The last question is whether the person would wear a helmet if it became required by law in Holland - the typical answer is "no" with some explanations such as "you really don't need one" and "you (the typical cyclist) are not traveling very fast." One commented (after indicating she would follow the law) that "I don't think I would ride so often then." (The Australian doing the interview also asked if a Dutch cyclist, visiting Australia, would follow their helmet law - but the answers weren't so interesting to that one.)
This is a somewhat disjoint post, I realize - but then so is much of my thinking about this topic. No more disjoint than the reality of cycling safety, I suspect.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Maxim Gun & Tricycle (1901)
From a Scientific American supplement article, 1901
BICYCLE ARTILLERY.
The bicycle artillery corps is a body of recent creation which seems to be destined for a great future. In fact, it is now in a fair way of doing reconnoissance duty in place of the cavalry. How much superior, indeed, is a bicyclist to a horseman. He is always ready to start immediately, while the latter has to wait to harness and saddle his steed. Then, again, the bicycle is faster than the horse, and requires less care; and the fact that no food is needed constitutes an appreciable advantage in a campaign in which so many difficulties are met with in the way of procuring forage. It is true that the bicycle can be used only upon roads, but in France and Germany the byroads, large and small, are so accessible that the use of it is capable of being made general.
. . . . .
Such considerations have led the large English house of Vickers, Sons & Maxim to devise a machine gun tricycle, which we represent in the accompanying engravings. Two Maxim guns are mounted upon the tricycle, the weight of which is 120 pounds, while that of the two guns is 54, that of the tripods 106, that of the spare pieces 8, and that of the 1,000 cartridges, with their case, 86. This constitutes a total weight of 374 pounds, to which is to be added that of the two men who ride the vehicle. It seems that such a tricycle is capable of running at a high rate of speed upon a level. Upon up-grades, however, it is necessary to dismount and push the machine.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
A Better Kickstarter Bicycle Product Proposal
In two earlier posts, I looked at three other Kickstarter proposals for new bicycle products. Most recently, I looked at a proposal for a self-inflating bike tire that I thought was silly - are people that lazy that they need this produce?? (Also, they are trying to raise $250,000 - WOW.)
Before that I looked at two safety-related bicycle add-ons both based on the "biking is dangerous - let's make it safer" way of thinking about cycling.
There is also a proposal for Flipphandle, a product that simplifies bicycle storage by making it easy ("at the push of a button") to turn the handlebars 90 degrees from center so that they line up with the bike frame.
I like this idea a lot, although I have a few problems with its presentation in Kickstarter. For one thing, the video and photos always show a straight handlebar bike, which would be the kind that presumably benefits the most from this device. But what about bikes with "traditional" handlebars? It would seem that they would benefit somewhat too, but the Kickstarter come-on should either show the produce with this kind of handlebars or clarify that the product is only aimed at part of the bicycle market, those with straight handlebars. (My assumption is that the drop-handlebar crowd would not want be interested in this feature even if there was some small benefit.)
Really though I wonder about the audience for this - do they expect to sell this through bike stores and the Internet as an aftermarket product? Because I don't have a sense that most people invest like that in their bikes. What would be great is if a bike company with "urban" bikes with straight bars would add this to a bike or bikes they sell, if only as an option.
In the Flipphandle comments it says that they are looking to develop folding pedals as well. This makes a lot of sense as a tie-in with the folding handlebars if you are thinking of this more as a solution for walking a bike in tight situations and less as a solution for storage. For one thing, anyone who walks her or his bike much, particularly with standard platform pedals, has had the unpleasant experience of banging some part of a leg against a pedal, which considering the design of many such pedals can be painful. A bike with folding handlebars and folding pedals would be much easier to maneuver in a subway car as shown in the video than one with just folding handlebars.
For whatever reason, they don't seem to have much chance of raising the necessary money at the rate they are going. And I certainly don't need one - I have three bikes with drop handlebars and one mountain bike used 3-5 times a year to ride in snow.
Before that I looked at two safety-related bicycle add-ons both based on the "biking is dangerous - let's make it safer" way of thinking about cycling.
There is also a proposal for Flipphandle, a product that simplifies bicycle storage by making it easy ("at the push of a button") to turn the handlebars 90 degrees from center so that they line up with the bike frame.
I like this idea a lot, although I have a few problems with its presentation in Kickstarter. For one thing, the video and photos always show a straight handlebar bike, which would be the kind that presumably benefits the most from this device. But what about bikes with "traditional" handlebars? It would seem that they would benefit somewhat too, but the Kickstarter come-on should either show the produce with this kind of handlebars or clarify that the product is only aimed at part of the bicycle market, those with straight handlebars. (My assumption is that the drop-handlebar crowd would not want be interested in this feature even if there was some small benefit.)
Really though I wonder about the audience for this - do they expect to sell this through bike stores and the Internet as an aftermarket product? Because I don't have a sense that most people invest like that in their bikes. What would be great is if a bike company with "urban" bikes with straight bars would add this to a bike or bikes they sell, if only as an option.
In the Flipphandle comments it says that they are looking to develop folding pedals as well. This makes a lot of sense as a tie-in with the folding handlebars if you are thinking of this more as a solution for walking a bike in tight situations and less as a solution for storage. For one thing, anyone who walks her or his bike much, particularly with standard platform pedals, has had the unpleasant experience of banging some part of a leg against a pedal, which considering the design of many such pedals can be painful. A bike with folding handlebars and folding pedals would be much easier to maneuver in a subway car as shown in the video than one with just folding handlebars.
For whatever reason, they don't seem to have much chance of raising the necessary money at the rate they are going. And I certainly don't need one - I have three bikes with drop handlebars and one mountain bike used 3-5 times a year to ride in snow.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
More Kickstarter Bicycle Improvement Possibilities
Kickstarter is "the largest funding platform for creative projects in the world" (they say) and it turns out, some of these opportunities are for new products to make cycling safer or easier (and hopefully more popular). In a previous post I looked at a couple of modestly scaled money raising endeavors for safety lighting proposals. Thanks to tire that inflates itself as you ride. They only need $250,000 (yes, a quarter of a million dollars) to get this under production!
It's a clever idea - there is a small tube that runs around the entire tire right in the middle of where the tire contacts the ground and as the bike compresses this tube, air if forced through the valve into the tire until some previously set limit is reached, then it stops. If the pressure goes down, it pumps it back up.
Of course there are many clever ideas that are patented that don't enjoy commercial success for one reason or another. What about this idea?
The problem that the inventor is trying to solve is simple enough - bike riders should be able to jump on their bikes and ride off knowing that the tire will soon be inflated to the right pressure if some air has escaped since the last time the bike was used. It is not an anti-flat system that would say pump the tire up fast enough to keep ahead of a lead created by a nail (for example). It also solves the problem of having your tires always at a consistend pressure as you ride since I don't think anyone has ever argued that the small amount that this happens is actually a problem for anyone. Therefore your user is the person who is tired of pumping air in her or his bike tires once in a while before riding.
Are their many such people, really? One wonders. For one thing, while it is not a good thing, many people who ride even relatively frequently (for Americans) are rather lax about their tire pressure, based on conversations I have had. Those people who do care about it, it seems to me, are not likely to feel a desire to turn this activity over to an automatic system to do it for them.
Efforts to keep air in the tires or avoid having flats have been proposed (and patented) since the development of the safety bike in the 1880s, so attempts to simplify cycling by reducing interactions with tires are not new. For example, below is an 1896 patent for a "self sealing" bike tire.
Patent 551,408, the self sealing tire
Why didn't the self sealing tire succeed? Well, because it was a layer of complexity and cost on top of what is the best thing about bicycles - that they are pretty simple devices. And also that they introduced a new failure "opportunity" rather than just getting rid of the old one. And of course you have to pay more for it.
This particular idea is quite elegant (in a way) but the Kickstarter proposal fails to suggest what the price point is that they have in mind for these fancy tires that inflate themselves. While in theory anyone would say, "sure I want a tire that keeps itself at the right air pressure" I suspect when they see the relative cost they will wonder if operating the pump occasionally is really that inconvenient (for that portion of the cycling public who care about their tire inflatiion situation other than when the tire is more or less flat). That, in the end, is the issue - are people (Americans - I assume a Dutchman for example would guffaw if he saw this product) so lazy that they will pay $$$ more for a high priced tire rather than fill it with air occasionally themselves? The product developers don't argue that it is a safety issue, unlike that yellow light in your Ford Explorer so you don't tip the thing over with underinflated tires.
And I'm pretty sure, notwithstanding their remarks in the FAQ, that this approach does introduce new problems to manage. They claim that a "little filter" will keep dust and dirt from interfering with the intake of air to inflate the tire, but given where it is (down practically on the ground) and the small sizes, presumably then the issue is the "little filter" getting a lot clogged. Also, as shown in its development phase, this pressure gauge limiter thing that rides on top of the inner tube valve looks like trouble with a capital "T". They admit in their FAQ that in production this thing would ideally be a lot smaller and perhaps not angled straight out from the rim but rather along the rim somehow, or supported by a spoke. Well - yeah. Because a weak point in every inner tube is at the valve, so putting that big monster thing on top of the valve is begging for trouble. They don't need just their own tire, I think, but their own wheel-tire combo.
Finally, the tube (they call it a "lumen" which apparently is a biology term for a tube-like structure) that is compressed as the wheel turns and does the pumping runs on the outer center of the tire where the greatest wear is on any bike tire. However thick the wall of that lumen (tube) is is how long your tire lasts. If you get a little cut through that lumen - well, so much for the self inflating feature and the tire is ruined (which they admit in their FAQ). So, for a given style of tire, this self inflating tire costs more but lasts a shorter period of time and has a risk factor for the failure of the feature that you paid extra for.
Industry statistics don't say how many bicycle tires are sold, but presumably the best result for the inventors would be to get a nice urban bike equipped with these tires as standard equipment. Perhaps they'll get lucky.
Anything that makes riding a bike easier can be considered, if you are in the cycling camp, to be good for society (more green, more exercise, etc.). This is something that replaces one small inoffensive task (that many are a bit inattentive to, but with few serious consequences) with unnecessary complexity and cost, and then claims to be easier. I guess it depends how you define "easier."
That's enough Kickstarter bike projects for today.
It's a clever idea - there is a small tube that runs around the entire tire right in the middle of where the tire contacts the ground and as the bike compresses this tube, air if forced through the valve into the tire until some previously set limit is reached, then it stops. If the pressure goes down, it pumps it back up.
Of course there are many clever ideas that are patented that don't enjoy commercial success for one reason or another. What about this idea?
The problem that the inventor is trying to solve is simple enough - bike riders should be able to jump on their bikes and ride off knowing that the tire will soon be inflated to the right pressure if some air has escaped since the last time the bike was used. It is not an anti-flat system that would say pump the tire up fast enough to keep ahead of a lead created by a nail (for example). It also solves the problem of having your tires always at a consistend pressure as you ride since I don't think anyone has ever argued that the small amount that this happens is actually a problem for anyone. Therefore your user is the person who is tired of pumping air in her or his bike tires once in a while before riding.
Are their many such people, really? One wonders. For one thing, while it is not a good thing, many people who ride even relatively frequently (for Americans) are rather lax about their tire pressure, based on conversations I have had. Those people who do care about it, it seems to me, are not likely to feel a desire to turn this activity over to an automatic system to do it for them.
Efforts to keep air in the tires or avoid having flats have been proposed (and patented) since the development of the safety bike in the 1880s, so attempts to simplify cycling by reducing interactions with tires are not new. For example, below is an 1896 patent for a "self sealing" bike tire.
Patent 551,408, the self sealing tire
Why didn't the self sealing tire succeed? Well, because it was a layer of complexity and cost on top of what is the best thing about bicycles - that they are pretty simple devices. And also that they introduced a new failure "opportunity" rather than just getting rid of the old one. And of course you have to pay more for it.
This particular idea is quite elegant (in a way) but the Kickstarter proposal fails to suggest what the price point is that they have in mind for these fancy tires that inflate themselves. While in theory anyone would say, "sure I want a tire that keeps itself at the right air pressure" I suspect when they see the relative cost they will wonder if operating the pump occasionally is really that inconvenient (for that portion of the cycling public who care about their tire inflatiion situation other than when the tire is more or less flat). That, in the end, is the issue - are people (Americans - I assume a Dutchman for example would guffaw if he saw this product) so lazy that they will pay $$$ more for a high priced tire rather than fill it with air occasionally themselves? The product developers don't argue that it is a safety issue, unlike that yellow light in your Ford Explorer so you don't tip the thing over with underinflated tires.
And I'm pretty sure, notwithstanding their remarks in the FAQ, that this approach does introduce new problems to manage. They claim that a "little filter" will keep dust and dirt from interfering with the intake of air to inflate the tire, but given where it is (down practically on the ground) and the small sizes, presumably then the issue is the "little filter" getting a lot clogged. Also, as shown in its development phase, this pressure gauge limiter thing that rides on top of the inner tube valve looks like trouble with a capital "T". They admit in their FAQ that in production this thing would ideally be a lot smaller and perhaps not angled straight out from the rim but rather along the rim somehow, or supported by a spoke. Well - yeah. Because a weak point in every inner tube is at the valve, so putting that big monster thing on top of the valve is begging for trouble. They don't need just their own tire, I think, but their own wheel-tire combo.
Finally, the tube (they call it a "lumen" which apparently is a biology term for a tube-like structure) that is compressed as the wheel turns and does the pumping runs on the outer center of the tire where the greatest wear is on any bike tire. However thick the wall of that lumen (tube) is is how long your tire lasts. If you get a little cut through that lumen - well, so much for the self inflating feature and the tire is ruined (which they admit in their FAQ). So, for a given style of tire, this self inflating tire costs more but lasts a shorter period of time and has a risk factor for the failure of the feature that you paid extra for.
Industry statistics don't say how many bicycle tires are sold, but presumably the best result for the inventors would be to get a nice urban bike equipped with these tires as standard equipment. Perhaps they'll get lucky.
Anything that makes riding a bike easier can be considered, if you are in the cycling camp, to be good for society (more green, more exercise, etc.). This is something that replaces one small inoffensive task (that many are a bit inattentive to, but with few serious consequences) with unnecessary complexity and cost, and then claims to be easier. I guess it depends how you define "easier."
That's enough Kickstarter bike projects for today.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Knack Cycling for Everyone - Book Review
Cycling for Everyone - A Guide to Road, Mountain, and Commuter Biking by Leah Garcia and Jilayne Lovejoy (Knack, 2010) is lovely to look through and reflects considerable effort, but I'm not sure that it is "the ideal new resource for anyone looking to get introduced, or reintroduced, to today's world of cycling" (as it says on the rear cover).
Amazon has a "look inside" link for its page for this book so you can get a fairly good sense of what the book is like.
What's good:
* More than 400 photographs - it must have been a major effort just to figure out and produce all of these; it's a fun book to page through.
* Certainly introduces at a high level many issues connected to cycling.
* Presents some topics quite well when the book's format (that seems to be part of the Knack series) provides the right amount of space.
What's not-so-good:
* Typically one photo is all that is provided for any particular issue, even for the description of maintenance activities where a sequence would be more helpful. In this regard, the extremely structured format of the book works against it.
* The highly structured format for each page also means that there can't be much detail written about any particular subject - for the most part each subject is dealt with in two facing pages.
* Despite being an introduction to the subject, it often reads as though you already know something about the subject - in the summary of what makes a road bike a road bike, it says "uses 700c wheels, caliper brakes, and skinny smooth tires" - skinny smooth tires is clear, anyway.
* Doesn't answer many "why" questions. Again, due to the limited space for text, much of what is provided are descriptions without explanation.
* The glossary is too short and misses many terms used in the text without explanation, and is the one part of the book with no images. In the text one is told to avoid potholes to avoid getting "pinchflats" which are just one item not in the glossary (or the index, for that matter).
I concluded that there is far more to cycling than I had realized since it doesn't turn out to be possible to provide anything like a comprehensive introductory guide to the different types of cycling (mountain, road, commuting) in a single book.
I was somewhat amused by the subjects where the authors chose to provide additional information - since they live in Colorado, they are quite a bit more into mountain biking than commuting by bike so unlike most subjects that must be dealt with in two pages, you get "terrain tips - part 1" and "terrain tips - part 2" (or four pages!) on handling rough riding on a mountain bike. (The coverage of bike commuting in this book is weak, when you get down to it.)
And they are pretty much satisfied with the modern buy-lots-of-crap-and-keep-corporations-afloat approach to cycling - this is most noticable in their discussion of winter clothing, where wool sweaters you might already own are not mentioned - the models are attired in hundreds of dollars of special cycling clothing. (Don't get me wrong, I happen to take that approach too, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the most cost effective and I sure didn't start that way.) I think this reflects a lack of enthusiasm for true beginning bike commuters - mountain biking is more fun.
Summary - it's a pretty book to look at, and has it's tidbits of useful info here and there. It isn't a particularly useful comprehensive introduction.
Amazon has a "look inside" link for its page for this book so you can get a fairly good sense of what the book is like.
What's good:
* More than 400 photographs - it must have been a major effort just to figure out and produce all of these; it's a fun book to page through.
* Certainly introduces at a high level many issues connected to cycling.
* Presents some topics quite well when the book's format (that seems to be part of the Knack series) provides the right amount of space.
What's not-so-good:
* Typically one photo is all that is provided for any particular issue, even for the description of maintenance activities where a sequence would be more helpful. In this regard, the extremely structured format of the book works against it.
* The highly structured format for each page also means that there can't be much detail written about any particular subject - for the most part each subject is dealt with in two facing pages.
* Despite being an introduction to the subject, it often reads as though you already know something about the subject - in the summary of what makes a road bike a road bike, it says "uses 700c wheels, caliper brakes, and skinny smooth tires" - skinny smooth tires is clear, anyway.
* Doesn't answer many "why" questions. Again, due to the limited space for text, much of what is provided are descriptions without explanation.
* The glossary is too short and misses many terms used in the text without explanation, and is the one part of the book with no images. In the text one is told to avoid potholes to avoid getting "pinchflats" which are just one item not in the glossary (or the index, for that matter).
I concluded that there is far more to cycling than I had realized since it doesn't turn out to be possible to provide anything like a comprehensive introductory guide to the different types of cycling (mountain, road, commuting) in a single book.
I was somewhat amused by the subjects where the authors chose to provide additional information - since they live in Colorado, they are quite a bit more into mountain biking than commuting by bike so unlike most subjects that must be dealt with in two pages, you get "terrain tips - part 1" and "terrain tips - part 2" (or four pages!) on handling rough riding on a mountain bike. (The coverage of bike commuting in this book is weak, when you get down to it.)
And they are pretty much satisfied with the modern buy-lots-of-crap-and-keep-corporations-afloat approach to cycling - this is most noticable in their discussion of winter clothing, where wool sweaters you might already own are not mentioned - the models are attired in hundreds of dollars of special cycling clothing. (Don't get me wrong, I happen to take that approach too, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the most cost effective and I sure didn't start that way.) I think this reflects a lack of enthusiasm for true beginning bike commuters - mountain biking is more fun.
Summary - it's a pretty book to look at, and has it's tidbits of useful info here and there. It isn't a particularly useful comprehensive introduction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)