Originally Posted by Bug Shield

I believe that for bikes to be used as transportation they need to be reliable. Reliability is where I see room for improvement.

Originally Posted by -=(8)=-

bike enthusiasts are what turn people off to cycling.
Commuting is very simple and cheap and can be done on pretty much anything. The usual advice given in these forums make it seem very expensive and complicated
Ive used a few coaster bikes and never had a problem.

Originally Posted by Mos6502

I actually think mountain bikes and BMX bikes are what deter new cyclists.
Kids these days get started on BMX bikes, have no idea how a bike is supposed to fit, have no idea that biking can be easy or convenient. Then you have mountain bikes, too many gears, heavy, soft tires - a pain to pedal if you're somebody who is new to riding. So the kids grow out of bikes, and the first timers give up and hang the mountain bike in the garage.

The old Schwinn Suburban with 27" wheels and five speeds was close to what would probably most encourage newbs to stick to cycling. Proper frame, low rolling resistance, intuitive gear changing (only one front ring), real brakes - a modern version should just be lighter.

Originally Posted by NormanF

US department stores like Sears in the old days sold bikes made by highly regarded bike manufacturers like Raleigh and Steyr. Don't be quick to dismiss them because the "house brand" was often a good value.

This is not at all the case today with the big box store bikes. There is a world of difference in quality between the Walmart Schwinns and the IBD Schwinns.

Originally Posted by gregf83

That's great for an occasional workout but may not be ideal if you have a longer commute you want to do every day. It's not easy to do a recovery ride or an easy day on a SS if you have a decent sized hill to climb.

Originally Posted by jpatkinson

Got it. I wouldn't rely on a GPS device to decide the grade. 47% is actually impossible to climb on a bicycle. Even 25% is close to impossible for most mortals. Do you have a map of the area? - JP

Originally Posted by wolfchild

I spin a very easy gear ratio on my fixed gear 46x18 ( 69 GI). No problem riding everyday...I used to ride 78 GI and it was a little too much for the daily grind... 78 GI was too much of a hassle on windy days when loaded down hauling groceries, so I stay below 70.. My fixie is not stripped down for racing, it has fenders and front rack and a seat post rack, I found out that it's best to keep my gear ratio below 70.

Originally Posted by JosephG

Nope! Its only at one point though, that part of it is 40-47%. I took a screen shot; couldn't get my mouse at the right point to show the 47%, but right there its 44.9%, and you can see the other hills:

https://i.imgur.com/M7TiIKN.png?3

Most of the hills are around 25-35%, one that is on my commute is a quarter mile at 30-45%.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

47% grade in NJ? Not likely unless a novel method of measuring grade is used.
The normal way to calculate elevation grade is: grade = elevation/ distance x 100. Elevation is the height measured from lowest point to the highest point. Distance is is horizontal distance from the bottom point to the highest point.

Originally Posted by DogBoy

Just so we are clear: Grade = elevation/distance. So 47% grade means that there is a 47 ft increase in vertical elevation for every 100 ft of horizontal travel. A 47% grade will produce an angle of 25.2 degrees above horizontal. %Grade != Angle degrees. 47% grade on a bike? I'd say doable, extremely unpleasant. 47 degree angle on a bike? I'd say not doable without special accomodations.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Assuming the horizontal axis is distance in miles, and the climb is 122 feet in height over a horizontal distance of .95 miles (5,106feet) the grade of the hill is 2.43%. (122/5106) x 100= 2.4322

BF mathematicians feel free to correct the calculation.

Originally Posted by acidfast7

Neither is commuting

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

Correct. Commuting is training for race day. Interval training, to be specific.

Originally Posted by JosephG

The overall grade. As I pointed out above, and stated in my original post.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

pay no attention to ILTB, he is just yanking your chain.
those of us who commute up hills know why gears are a good thing

Originally Posted by JosephG

In 7.8 miles this morning, I went up 813ft, with grades up to 47%. Some of that is part of my commute. For some reason, I don't see SS working out.

Originally Posted by spare_wheel

pay no attention to ILTB, he is just yanking your chain.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

An 813 foot hill over 7.8 miles of horizontal distance would be a 1.975% elevation grade. The graph you posted shows no elevation close to 813 feet; are you adding up all the climbs, ignoring the descents, to come up with the 813ft. number? It may represent how many feet you climb overall, but does not represent the elevation grade of the hills.

The only place in NJ with a 47 percent grade may be from street level and up a 6" curb to the sidewalk.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

BF mathematicians feel free to correct the calculation.

Originally Posted by JosephG

Take a look at the areas of western NJ on a topo map. Start around Round Valley. Its not all flat in NJ.



And as you mentioned, its elevation over distance, but its not restricted to 100 ft - just rise in elevation over a distance. Which is why you even see the mention of 37% (20 degrees-ish?) grade over a 6.5m distance in the Canton Ave article on wikipedia.

Originally Posted by cooker

The graph depicts the elevation profile of an 8 mile ride, and he has placed the cursor at a spot early in the ride to reveal the grade there. The 0.95 mi refers to how far he has ridden: you'll see that the cursor is quite close to the 1 mile marker. I'm not sure what 122 ft refers to - maybe cumulative climbs in that 0.95 miles, not counting downhill sections. I would guess the '6:02' refers to how long he has been riding.

If you look at the elevation profile of his route at that point, you will see that the curve veers up sharply, so he is saying that at that spot, the grade is (briefly) 40%+.

Originally Posted by JosephG

Take a look at the picture again, and let me get you some math.

The starting point of that hill is 82 feet. The peak of it is at 194 feet. The total length of the rise is .05 miles, which is 264 feet.

(194-82) / 264 = 112 / 264 = .424, or a 42.4% grade.

arctan (.424) = 22.98 degrees.

Would you like more examples?

Originally Posted by cooker

If you look at the elevation profile of his route at that point, you will see that the curve veers up sharply, so he is saying that at that spot, the grade is (briefly) 40%+.

Originally Posted by gregf83

Curbs have particularly steep slopes but they're quite short. I'd like to see any of the roads you're talking about. Generally these claims of steep slopes are due to erroneous calculations.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe it is an ADA ramp at a curb cut, or something else equally hilly and as long that can be found in N.J. The only hill I ever found in southern N.J. is on the Ben Franklin Bridge from Philadelphia to Camden and it isn't very steep. Don't know of any sustained long steep hill in northern NJ either where anybody would be commuting. A 3 speed should be adequate for any healthy individual to commute anywhere in the state.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

I can look at the graph and "say" that a specific spot is 100% grade if that spot happens to represent the 2" vertical rise of a railroad rail over the road level. It would of course be nonsense, but not much different than claiming that there are 47% grades on any NJ highway.