>>>>Ride and wear what makes you comfortable and happy. It's all about having fun to me.<<<<

I think that might be Grant's message. However, several of the bicyclists I know suffer from social anxiety disorders (I think it's why we/they like to ride alone) and these sometimes cause them to blurt and overstate opinions when they finally do open up. Perhaps that's all we're seeing in GP's book. His message is good and wholesome and positive for cycling, but he just sucks at putting it out there without coming off arrogant and offensive.

Also from his interview on NPR:
This is where he misses the boat. A bike makes a great workout tool and people's lives are busy. If I just wanted to stare at tail lights on my way to work I might as well drive. But if I can get a good workout in while commuting, to me that's a huge bonus. I also realize that for some people a workout is the last thing they want their commute to be. That's cool too.

Parts of Grant's message are fine. I agree that few folks (if any) really need clipless pedals or lycra to commute. But to call the very idea of wearing lycra for a commute "ridiculous" is condescending and frankly narrow minded. For whatever reason spandex offends his idea of what riding a bike should be.

The thing is that cycling belongs to everybody, - not just him. If somebody is inspired to ride their bike to work after reading his book, - that's great. But it's equally as great if somebody watching Tour de France decides that they can ride their bike a few miles to work. And is it really such a bad thing if they decide to wear the jersey of their favorite team? This town crawls with purple jerseys when the Vikings are playing and nobody bats an eye.

Yeah I know what you mean. Funny thing is, for the most part on my commute I wear the clothes I work in but after commuting for a few years I decided to get into a different "style" of riding (eg. - not "racing" at least to me). The last thing I wanted to do was wear lycra but as I rode longer distances I realized that *for me* cycling specific clothes are where it's at, even though I'm not considered anything close to a racer. 20-70 mile rides are just more comfortable for me wearing cycling shorts & jerseys...and makes those long rides more fun. :)

I guess I play for both teams of this issue.

I still don't understand what a full kit consists of? I wear cycling shorts, running shoes and a cotton t-shirt when I ride and I use platform pedals. This is how I ride and I like it.

It's a short interview and he spends a decent chunk of it dissing carbon. He says he likes steel bikes which is no surprise. Carbon has no place on a bike and especially not a fork as far as he is concerned. In his mind it's an example of the racing industry's bad influence.

I think he's too busy grinding an ax to see what benefits lighter bikes can have. In the computer industry there's been a drive to make lighter and lighter laptops. Why? Because they're faster? No, because lighter laptops are easier to carry. By the same token, a lighter bike can make life easier.

Here's a pic of one the bike racks in our office:

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/f...C664A9F81B.jpg

We have two racks like that. This pic was taken the day this one was finished and already a few of us had put our bikes in it. Notice however, that there's a bike on the floor instead of in the rack. Why? Because the woman who owns the bike had a hard time lifting it up to get it on the rack.

The racks on our trains are of a similar style. The racks on the bus require you to lift your bike onto them. Plenty of people live in apartments that require them to carry their bikes up and down stairs. In fact, a woman just started a thread looking for a light bike for similar reasons. And of course, lighter bikes are easier to get up hills.

Sometimes the racing industry brings us benefits that maybe weren't exactly intended but are benefits all the same.

Don't get me wrong, a heavy bike can have some benefits too. I once helped a young women get her bike into the rack on the train. She spent the rest of train ride flirting with me and suggested that we go for a ride together some time. I'm married so I politely turned her down, but telling the story to my wife had its own benefits. My wife likes to remind me where my bread gets buttered when she's jealous. ;)

To me a "Full Kit" is matching club/team jersey and shorts at minium. Probably also includes matching socks and preferably shoes and helmet that don't clash. ;)

I think in this forum Full Kit is often just a shortcut way of saying "too much spandex", - whatever that is.

I'd say he's got a pretty valid point, at least in regards to using carbon frame/forks for utilitarian bicycling. Carbon failure has been pretty well documented. If a laptop fails it doesn't severely maim or kill you (Dell batteries not included). And your argument that carbon is better because you can put it on your rack at work or train is hilarious at best.

It's more of the same. At some level Grant Peterson telling me I need a specific fork rake and leather saddle is the same as my mom telling me I don't need a brand new car just one w/ airbags as long as I get off that bike. And Grant's book does say that if your commute merits any water cooler discussion whether for weather, traffic, or risk, then it should be reserved for a car and not a bike. So ipso facto if your work clothes are not suitable for your commute, then neither is your bike. That is his basic message. And since most of my riding is commuting, his story doesn't fit into mine much.

(And I don't think his audience is commuters at all, it's leisure riders, and I already know that a leisurely ride w/ my kids will not merit head-to-toe spandex and a Death Star Fire Control Officer aero helmet)

Oh, and by the way, he just happens to sell the stuff you should buy. Also, looks like he forgot to comb his hair, lending to his general retrogrouch attitude.

What it is - is any skin tight spandex shorts, or even worse, spandex bibs worn anywhere as outerwear in public more than 2 foot from the bicycle.

There's documented failures of forks of all materials.

I'm sure there were plenty of people who resisted the change from steel to alloy rims, handlebars, etc because of fears over safety. In time most people have grown to accept aluminum as the preferred material. I'm also sure there were more problems with early designs. Over time the same will happen with carbon, - wider acceptance. We'll see it in more applications. It's not only going to be on our bikes, but it will show up on our cars too. Boeing is using literally tons of carbon fiber in each Dreamliner it builds.

As far as weight goes, I'd say being able to put your bike on a rack or easily carry it up to your apartment is a plus, wouldn't you? I don't like putting my winter bike on the racks here at work. It's tough to do without banging it against something. I do it, but I don't like it. My road bike is a dream by comparison. If that doesn't matter to you that's fine but we have other posters specifically asking for lighter bikes for the reasons I've listed.

This is a meaningless statement because failure of most materials has been well documented.

Carbon fiber is stronger and more resistent to fatigue than any metal frame:

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/

Modern carbon layup is highly resistant to impact damage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_O9PLorYPA

First, the video you linked is a stress test of Carbon Vs Aluminum. Not Carbon vs every-other-metal, so your statement when paired with your support is pretty meaningless. Regardless, my point was never about strength and the video you posted sums up my point quite nicely, so thanks. The aluminum bent and it wasn't sudden but gradual. The carbon snapped rather drastically and suddenly. I'd much rather be riding the aluminum when it failed, even if it isn't as strong. Here are some interesting photos of some carbon frames:

http://www.bustedcarbon.com

In 20 years I'm pretty certain I'll still be riding my 1989 steel frame at that time, I'm curious what will happen to your carbon frame.

Aaaaaaaaaaand cue the complete and utter nonsense.

Lol, looks like you already cued up the passive-aggressive non-response.

Yeeeeeeeesssssss, that's it.

So when it comes to the video of the guy whaling on a carbon fork versus a reynolds steel fork you have no comment.

Metal is, of course, completely impervious to overtorque, crashes, and garage doors. :rolleyes:

I will be riding an 8 oz carbon nano-tube matrix frame because I am not afraid of progress.

If I was racing, I would certainly ride a carbon bike. But for commuting, I prefer steel for many reason, one of which is I don't have to worry about it snapping and then in-turn getting run over by a car. If you want to ride carbon, that's fine. I love locking my bike up next them, I know mine is safe for the day.

Ahem...one of GP's steel bikes would be an even bigger theft magnet...

I remember Petersen's own tests. He and an employee had a "sword fight" with a steel and carbon fiber fork. After a few whacks, he reported the carbon fork was unscathed and the steel fork looked like a pretzel. This result did not illustrate his paradigm, soooooo...he proceeded to partially cut through one of the carbon fiber fork's blades with a hacksaw (I'm not making this up.) Then when he whacked the carbon fiber fork again, it shattered.

It was the point when the whole Rivendell/Petersen thing jumped the shark for me.

In other news, I have an unrideable BikeFriday tikit (my principle commuter bike) sitting next to me now, because the company issued a stern warning at the end of last week against continuing to ride the bike. They have discovered the steel steerer tube can suddenly fail (curiously enough, without coming into contact with a hacksaw).

Even by not paying attention on the interwebz forumz standards, your failure to notice that I'm on your side here is pretty mind blowing.

I'll bet that GP goes to Corvette conventions to tell the folks there that their cars are all wrong, being made of fiberglass or carbon.

Tag typo. My bad.

I find most anti-carbon diatribes to be uninformed nonsense, but the stem/steerer interface is one of the areas that must keep vendors of carbon forks up at night. No matter what the material, steel, carbon, aluminum, the steerer/stem is a real problem. If you actually look at the busted carbon site, there aren't too many posts that actually cause me any concern at all. What would cause me concern is hidden damage, but that doesn't make a good blog post

"If your commute is reasonable — say, 10 miles or under — no problem," Petersen adds. "Dress the way you're going to dress for the weather, or the day."

He seems to be reasonable here. In Florida where I am, even riding slow I am soaked within a mile. If I were to wear my work clothes on a ride of 10 miles, my work mates would probably start complaining pretty soon.


"There shouldn't be any debate at all," Petersen says. "Riding a bicycle should be just a natural part of your life. It's so easy. We are the only ones — 'we,' speaking as an American — we are generally the only ones who commute to work in racing clothing. Where is there room for debate about how ridiculous that is?"

But now is he contradicting himself? What would Grant wear in 90 degree, 90% humidity? Lycra is pretty useful in that weather. Would baggy mountain bike shorts be acceptable to grant but not lycra? I don't wear tight lycra myself at least not often. But, I am the oddity in my location. I wear a pair of stretchy but not skin tight messenger knickers year round whether I'm on a training ride with the fastest in the state or riding to work. Most of the people I'm training with would probably be very uncomfortable wearing knickers in the summer here whether they were commuting or training.


As for the equipment a commuter bike should have, here's what Petersen recommends: "A bell; lights; reflectors; kickstand; baskets; bags," he says. "You know, make the bike useful. Certainly for commuting, it is not a workout tool. It should be a pickup truck on two wheels."

My Surly Cross Check is my main commuter lately. And, it has what Grant fails to mention above, fenders. However, I've used all of my bikes for commuting including my road race bike, mountain bike, and folders. I think he misses a key point in that all bikes can be used for transportation. Ride what you brought. They all have advantages & disadvantages. With a 28 mile round trip I'm not likely to want to commute on a Dutch city type of bike. And none of my bikes have kick stands as I use all of them for group rides (with the exception of my Tikit). And as tjspiel mentioned above, he misses the point that a commuter bike can be a very useful tool for training. Why not incorporate my commuting miles into my training. Not doing so would be absurd!




Petersen says other things bike commuters should avoid include special "click-in" shoes that lock your feet onto the bike's pedals. For a commuter, "they are just absurd," he says.

I totally disagree with his statement above. What is absurd about something well built and efficient. I would hate to do my 28 mile round trip commute on platform pedals.