Originally Posted by Inertiaman

Most of the comments on this thread are totally missing the point. Some folks seem to not even familiarized themselves with the design of the lock. Its not intended as an alternative to U locks. Its intended to be a more secure and lighter weight alternative to cables. Virtually any cable can be snipped in less than a minute with even a poor pair of diagonal cutters, a very common tool. So cable locks aren't even very good to prevent opportunistic theft. And cables are relatively heavy and bulky compared to the Ottolock.

The Ottolock, on the other hand, is very lightweight (120g). Its very convenient to use (faster than many cable designs). Yes, the 3 digit combo could be systematically hacked, but how long will it take to try +/- 500 combos? (I'm using the average tries to get to the one of the 1000 possibilities). Attempts to hammer/smash/lever the lock head are very likely to further trap the band, not release it. It can be cut, but the multiple layers of steel and kevlar DO create significant problems for many of the common cutting tools. It will substantially delay any thief w/ simple tools, compared to a cable lock. And since it can be cinched up tight, it presents orientation problems for the cutting tool that cable locks typically do not. So if I'm a thief, and I approach a bike rack, I'm going after the cable lock before the Ottolock, that's for certain.

Given the above, an Ottolock is arguably the best alternative for some common cycling scenarios. Touring being one of them. Take, for example, something like the Baja Divide. 40 days of riding, maybe 5 or 6 times you want to lock your bike. No way you want to lug 2+ pounds of U lock with you. Even a 300-400g cable is super annoying. But 120g of strap (which, btw, has additional uses around camp and on the bike) is a modest price to pay to have decent security for the 10 min trip into Walmart in La Paz.

I've been frustrated by the lock options for touring for literally decades, and the Ottolock is a welcome alternative.