From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: The Future of the Bike
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:52:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.bicycles.tech
Distribution: usa
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <1jprf0INNia3@morrow.stanford.edu>, GE.DWS@forsythe.stanford.edu
(Drew W. Saunders) wrote:
> 
[Jobst Brandt wrote]
> >I don't see the belt coming to bicycling, at least not for high
> >performance bicycles.
> 
> That's where I see the future of cycling, or rather where I'd like
> to see the future of cycling, in non-high performance bicycles.

Well, I hope the future of cycling includes high-performance bicycles.  But
I agree with you that the greatest need for change is in lower-performance
cycling to get more people involved with the bike as a practical means of
transportation.  Notice I said cycling, not bicycle engineering.

> Many people who currently like to commute short distances by bike
> either don't want to or don't know how to maintain their bicycles.
> A belt drive would reduce maintenance needs for a low-torque
> commuter bike quite nicely, especially if paired with 5-spd hub.

But I don't think a belt is needed for this.  A chain in a chain-case, with
a 5-speed or even 3-speed hub, is virtually maintenance-free and has been
very successful in Europe and Asia.

> Put the brakes in the hubs and it stops nearly as well (or as
> poorly) in the rain as in dry, with even less maintenance.

But hub brakes for the front wheel tend to be expensive or heavy or both,
while hub brakes on the rear alone are inadequate.  Also, hub brakes
produce heavy forces on the spokes and necessitate heavy wheels.  The
maintenance on ordinary caliper or cantilever brakes is no big deal, and
with alloy rims they are adequate in the rain.  Alloy rims, in turn, are
now cheap enough and strong enough to be used on any bicycle that is
intended as more than a toy.

I think the biggest obstacles to the widespread use of simple, inexpensive
bikes for shopping, commuting, and other short-haul, low-speed uses are the
fear of traffic and the risk of theft.  Neither is very amenable to
technological fixes.

The fear of traffic will have to be dealt with socially, legally, and in
the design of roadways and the layout of cities.  It's a tall order, but it
will help a lot when gasoline and cars begin to be prohibitively expensive,
which they will some day.

The theft problem is rather more tractable, and the main thing that needs
to be done is to give all sorts of institutions some legal and economic
incentives to provide reasonably secure short-term bike storage.  A good
start would be to simply *allow* cities, businesses, and all other
operators of parking facilities to substitute bike facilities for car
facilities on a one-to-one basis in all existing plans, regulations, and
requirements.

Now I know this thread is mostly about technological innovations for
high-performance bikes, so I'll offer a brief wish-list: tougher paint
(Imron is good, powder-coat is good, but there's room for improvement). 
Even better steel so that steel frames can be even more superior than they
are.  Cheap titanium would be nice too, but I think better steel is more
probable.

How 'bout this one:  a frame pump that looks like a Silca with the old-time
Campy metal head but works and lasts like a Zefal HP.

Kid's bikes with low-cost composite frames, so they don't weigh a ton.

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!