i guess it could also be because they're less than $7 per tire:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/KENDA-700-23...item4606858f99

Just an update from over here.

7239km/4495mi
£267/$438
9.7¢/mi

I rode the other bike in today and it looks like the weather is cooperating for a lunch ride.

thanks!

will update ... keep it coming.

Probably 50¢ to the manufacturer and not worth that if they wear out so fast. Get decent replacements when it it is time and save money in the long run.

I will run through 3-5 of them purchased from the original supplier of the bike ... so that I can get a mean and standard deviation of the lifespan of the Kenda K191 under my current commuting conditions.

My prediction is first flat and/or underneath fibres showing through at roughly 2250±250 km (roughly 1400±160 miles).

Which is good value $7/1500 miles or $46 for 10000 miles on the rear. Can't complain about that!

Kenda tyres are not too bad - especially if you consider the price.

I prefer Contis for bicycle though.

the UK is a mess today and Hamburg is flooding

stats:

575km/357mi
£396/$646 total
£0.69/km
€0.82/km
$1.81/mi

goal is to catch up to the ratios of bigbenaugust:

7239km/4495mi
£267/$438
3.7p/km
4.4c/km
9.7¢/mi

photo:


quite interesting that even after all of those miles by bigbenaugust ... it's still roughly 10¢/mi ... which is pretty close to the cost of fuel is the US (recently shown to be 14.45 cents/mile)? note: I understand that fuel is not the only cost of car ownership.

even more interestingly, it seems that the best value (in the UK for total cost of car ownership) is the VW Up! which costs about 24p/mile which isn't really so bad (including depreciation, taxes, fuel, insurance, etc...)

https://www.moneywise.co.uk/cut-your-...-buy-cheap-car

it will be interesting to see how much cheaper the bike is over the long-term and to be fair we should also add 400kcal or food (probably between £1 and £4/day depending on diet (crap vs. fruits/veg/meat/beer).

Any Snow?

[update:] blanket of white this AM, here.

snow??

this afternoon:

off to Dublin to do the Xmas shopping in 3 days.

been working on my Dublin language.


edit: 'coke, many coke'

As long there isn't any negative value to you from the hassle of fixing relatively frequent flats in the middle of a commute or changing tires 5+ times too often.

Seems kind of silly to do that if you enjoy eating. It would be similar to fussing about the "cost" from more frequent calorie burning sexual activity.

Yes, but you must add all the costs up:




If one has a sitting, office job, commuting via bicycle doesn't add any food related costs - you need that to spend minimum normal amount of calories per day, plus other health benefits. But for those working physically demanding jobs, it is a thing to consider. But should be the least of ones worries.

I doubt I'll get many flats. Changes tires more often is OK ... otherwise I'll never grease/look at the wheel at all.

No.

The CO2 footprint of food is quite large.

Also, one must eat more if they aren't losing weight. Meaning, that I'm slender (6'2" and 165 when in great shape) so I don't have spare calories to burn, meaning that I must need to eat more. At a certain point, a calorie-deficient diet is detrimental resulting in situations like comprimised immune systems ... so I think it's quite fair to consider food as a cost especially when insurance, maintenance, taxes, and even depreciation are considered when owning a car.

Petrol/diesel counts for the car, why shouldn't food count for cyclists. In fact, one really should consider reduced insurance premiums when considering the benefits of cycling, but I live in a place where everyone pays the same percentage (10% in UK, 8.8 in Germany and just in the tax in Sweden in Denmark), so it doesn't count for me.

It's not a "fuss", it's an interesting social experiment because I think that bike commuters overestimate their cost savings.

Twice as many calories in a gram of fat than a gram of protein. I'm not being facetious. The extra calories aren't necessarily "more food" and don't necessarily cost more than a "healthy" diet. Granted that's more true here than where you live, but still true I reckon.

This thread and the "old fart on fixies" thread are seriously tempting me to indulge in the $99 Wally Thruster just to see how it holds up to the commute.

Dropped the flood gates on the NL Delta works , yet? graphics of Storm surge from the North
straight down the North Sea, as shown on BBC weather,, [its why they built it]

Past Tour, I've ridden my bike down the NL Coast, years ago , atop the Delta works

I'd subscribe.

CO2 footprint is irrelevant when considering personal cost savings/expenses from bicycle use.

I like to eat good food, two pizza slices are much better than one no matter what it costs in cash. I consider any activity that allows me to eat more food without gaining excess weight as adding "value" to my well being, not a negative cost. If you don't enjoy eating, that is your issue.

I don't think writing checks for insurance provides the same personal pleasure for most people, nor do most people derive any pleasure or satisfaction from sticking a gas nozzle into their car.

I agree that many bike commuters overestimate their cost savings, since the fixed costs are not significantly reduced by the relatively few miles ridden by the bike commuter. The cost of the gas saved is chicken feed. The only variable commuting cost that bike commuting can really save on is expensive downtown parking in big cities. The only significant savings comes when family bike use allows the owner to reduce the number of cars owned.

Does anybody ride their bike for fun around here anymore?

You are in the wrong thread.

Any more I feel like I'm in the wrong forum.

That depends in part on how quickly the Southern humidity rusts the frame out of existence.

More time on bike, less on computer may be the solution.

This depends on what you eat:

https://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...65121X20100602