Originally Posted by
CrankyOne
I don't think weight makes any or much difference for probably 90% of people who are riding for transportation. As you mentioned, having to carry them up stairs would be the biggest issue. The problem is that in the US and to a lessor extent in the UK the bike shops don't know any better. Most have never seen nor ridden a proper city bike. They have no knowledge about the them. Anything less than a road or mountain bike is a beach cruiser and not for any kind of 'serious cycling'.
Their knowledge is largely based on racing or mountain biking so that's what they sell. They consistently say that weight is critical so all of their customers think that as well.
We all want a human powered contraption, but our human power is always just a bit short for the speed and ease with which we want to ride. So a bike beeing faster is always a major selling point, it always will be and it has always been. Before manufacturers knew anything about aerodynamics and just hadn't much possibilities to do any weight saving, they advertised with cycloid barings for lower resistance or claimed anything else specific to theirs would make the bike faster. I don't believe those things made a huge difference either, and how fast a bike feels is very subjective. You could fool me with very high tyre pressure on a rigid frame, if it's bouncy it feels faster to me.
I think it's only natural to want the fastest bike if you compete on speed. But because at this point it's about the only thing manufacturers can distinct themselves with, weight is made way too important. I don't think people realize it only counts uphill, and only as a percentage of the total weight, not just the bike, and downhill it's slower. So if it's just a bit hilly in you area without it doesn't really matter, uphill every bike will feel too heavy anyway, but it's not the bike, it's mainly you. Aerodynamics do count at higher speeds, but the main thing is the relevant surface, not the shaping, that's just a very tiny factor until you go all the way with closed wheels . If you want to average 30 km/h drop bars will certainly help, at 20 km/h even that is not helping very much and just keeping that riding position costs a bit of energy also. Slim tyres don't have a smaller friction surface, is just different shaped than the footprint of fat tyres, and their aerodynamical advantage is limited to high speeds.
For me it's important to have a bike that I can do 20 km/h on without any sweat, so I want it to ride 'light'. Tour de France and track technology isn't important for that. I need a frame that is rigid enough for my size and strength so I wont put energy into flexing it a lot, generally heavier frames are more rigid. The bike got to be straight and stay straight (a bit of strength will probably add weight), with true wheels exactly aligned. The drive train should be clean and stay clean for efficiency, and it should be build to run efficient. So I'd skip the NuVinci and the Nexus7. And the geometry helps, I not only like a lot of angle on the head tube, it helps going in a straight line and that's an energy saver. Of course if you're racing concentrated you can steer clean lines with hardly any caster, but the people I see commuting on their MTB's and hybrids are not concentrating and waist energy by not going in a straight line and correcting a lot because their bike's aren't very stable by design.
Also the ride position determines which muscles are used. If I'm on a MTB it's more a full body work out, while when I'm on an upright bike, I only use the thighs and the buttocks. These are my most powerful muscles, they have lots of torque, 20 km/h is hardly an exercise for them. When I start moving the rest of my body for power, that's when I work up a sweat.
IGH is more expensive than cheap derailleurs so if cost is an issue (and it nearly always is) then customers end up with the lightest and cheapest road or hybrid they can afford. But these are uncomfortable for average people to ride, require shorts or at a minimum a pants clip (and then still get pants greasy), and go out of adjustment quickly. The result is that people buy them but then don't ride very often.
It's just very difficult to build things both light and strong, and very expensive. Also in London a derailleur is more efficient than a SA5 or a Nexus8, but after a few months of rain and dirt, an internal hub and a fully enclosed chain case (aerodynamic!) is probably running a lot smoother. It's not just about the new bike, it's also about how it ages and holds up between maintenance.
So I liked the idea behind the Van Moof. I also believe a bike should look like what it is, if it looks sturdy and durable, it should be sturdy and durable. Bikes are going to get used in the way their looks invite people to, if it looks fragile, it will be treated nicer.