I used to be a bike mechanic, and have gotten to work 90% by bicycle for the past two decades, so I'll take a stab at some of the questions:
- Belt drives are great. They're sturdier than chains, cleaner, and something I love, quieter. The angle of the belt doesn't change, the way a chain does, which means you can add a chain guard, as this bike does. Which keeps it yet cleaner. You can ride to work without worrying about grease on your pants.
- Whatever people ride in the Netherlands, a half-decent bike is a lot more pleasant than something slapped together. The gears don't grind, the brakes work, they weigh less--which hardly affects speed, but makes them easier to lug around, take up stairs, etc. Fancy carbon is unnecessary for commuting or about-town, but $500 for a quality bike that will be easy to maintain is reasonable. I speak as someone who has three frankenbikes in the garage--slapping something together is fun, but it's like getting an $800 car. Likely to be a headache.
- That said, bike shops tend to be snobby, and try to get you to buy more than you need. Regular people don't need carbon, or 30 gears, or to spend >$1k.
- It's nice that this is an integrated system. Fenders are great (again, keep you clean), and are often a pain to get on without them rubbing or making noise. Having them built in is a big plus, and makes the price more reasonable. Likewise, the trailer, racks, and bags that are made for this are all reasonably priced, and presumably work together well.
- If there are hills near you, 2 speeds suck--I live in SF and I'd be pushing this thing up hills all day. I'm also not a fan of coaster brakes. But this is a geo/personal thing, ymmv.
- If you're going to order a bike online and want something cheaper, two people in my office bought a Schwinn Discover on Amazon for about $270, and they're great bikes. They came in good shape, partially assembled, but benefitted from my doing a quick tune-up. Even if you paid a shop to do that for $50, still a lot cheaper than the Ikea bike, which itself could probably use some fine-tuning.
My elder brother used to build bicycles out of bits he pulled out of a river. Like, literally.
He once built a bicycle that was so awful that it lasted him a complete undergraduate session at university, then a complete postgraduate session at a different university, and then I got it and it lasted me a complete (four-year) undergraduate session at a third university, and didn't get stolen once.
I only managed to get rid of it by leaving it, unlocked, in the hall of residence bike sheds, over the summer vacation. Even then it was possible the bin men just threw it away. But I like to think that it got thrown back into a river, and is waiting to rise again in future generations and make some other poor student's life a misery...
Before my actual bike, I had a mountain bike for something around 15years. I never changed or did anything to the chain. It was perfect.
Now I bought a new one. After 2 years I went to the shop to have it checked. They had to change the chain. When I told them my story with the old bike they told me: "that's how it is today. Chains are not what they were". I'm still in disbelieve. Can you confirm this?
TL;DR: Keeping an unworn chain on your bike is important.
I can't speak much to bike chain quality, but 15 years with one chain seems kinda exceptional. I am also relative child still, so I may just not have been alive to experience chains that last that long. Chains are tested by measuring the distance between links with a tool[0], or by checking to see how much wiggle room your chain has between links when it's on the largest cog[1]. If the distance is too great, that means the chain has "stretched" (which is a bad word for it - the pins that hold the links of your chain together wear, and the distance between each link grows, so nothing has actually stretched). Worn chains usually also start to cause wear to your cassette and cog, so getting them replaced can be important. Make sure to maintain your chain by keeping it clean, adding lubricant once in a while, etc.
I gave it away to a friend and in the chain was stretched. He had to change it as well as the cassette but still...I probably had to change it 5 years ago. That is not 2 years.
Why are bikes still getting stolen? So many bikes are stolen that you'd think the market for stolen bikes, and parts, which can't be THAT huge, would be saturated.
There's a demand, so there's a market.
The problem is other people buy stolen bikes. I would also call those thieves, even if they don't do the stealing by themselves. As long as one buys something without original papers, they support the guys who do the stealing itself.
They probably just mean proof of purchase. The other important bit is the serial number (analogous to a car's VIN), often found under the bottom bracket.[0] You can (and should) register it with the local police, and there are a few online registries too. It's not an effective deterrent[1], but it's better than nothing. (I've had a bike returned to me because I registered it. That was before I learned to always use Kryptonite U-locks.)
Yeah, I didn't keep any paperwork or proof of purchase unless it's in a random box of junk somewhere. It didn't even occur to me to do so. I probably kept the sales papers for a little while in case I needed it for a warranty claim, but if I have them now, I don't know where.
Don't. My bike was stolen by rapidly sawing (dremeling?) through a Kryptolok in broad daylight in a place with some of the most heavy law enforcement presence in Europe. Their locks are much weaker than their marketing.
Kryptonite are plenty strong, they are a good deterent, but not theft proof by any means. I've talked with people who's job was to cut bike locks. It was generally something like cables, 15 seconds. Offbrand u-locks 45 seconds and 1/3rd of a cutting wheel, name brands minute in a half and a cutting wheel. Then the "new york style" heavy ulocks were on the order of 5 minutes and 3 wheels.
Certainly there are bigger cutting discs, if you are willing to make a bunch of noise and sparks you can cut them more quickly.
Sorry to hear that. It's the strongest lock I've come across[0], but yea, once power tools come into play I can't imagine much of anything standing up to metal cut off grinder. What do you use now to secure your ride?
I never even registered my bike for insurance. It didn't occur to me and I'm not sure it really crosses the threshold of value/hassle for me.
The bigger point is that it's unreasonable to paint all people who buy used bikes without papers as supporting bike thieves. Anyone buying my bike would not get paperwork with the sale, but the bike is not stolen.
> The bigger point is that it's unreasonable to paint all people who buy used bikes without papers as supporting bike thieves.
It's absolutely accurate to portray them that way; sure, there are some used, no-papers bikes that are not stolen, but people willing to buy such bikes are what creates financial support for bike thieves, since all stolen bikes sold meet that description, and if people weren't willing to buy bikes in that condition stolen bikes couldn't be sold.
I've had a bike stolen where the frame manufacturer offers a simple online service to report a bike as stolen. There is zero excuse for anyone buying it to not check the number that is engraved onto the frame, not to mention with police who similarly have the serial number in a database.
Imagine if people had to drive around in creaking beater cars with leaking roofs because you couldn't store anything nicer anywhere but a garage with surveillance, and even then if someone finds out you have a nice car in a garage, there will be a breakin. That's pretty much the situation with bikes, and police simply shrug at what in most cities is very much organized crime and a huge quality of life issue.
> but people willing to buy such bikes are what creates financial support for bike thieves, since all stolen bikes sold meet that description
All stolen bikes also have two wheels. I guess buying a bike with two wheels also creates a market for stolen bikes?
This is ridiculous. No one without papers can sell a bike according to you. I get that bike theft is a problem but you don't solve it by blaming innocent people. A lot of legitimate bikes are sold without papers.
That's like asking "Why are people still manufacturing bikes, you'd think everyone who wants a bike would have one by this point". Bikes generally have shorter lifespans than people, and we're also making new people-who-want-bikes all the time.
I'm guessing that it's more like people are getting them stolen regularly. What I don't get is why the bottom of the pyramid (cf other branch of this thread) doesn't fill up.
Because people who possess stolen bikes are just as vulnerable to bike thrives as everyone else. If only non-stolen bikes got stolen, the pool of people willing to buy stolen bikes would probably not support any significant level of theft for very long, but that's.not how it works.
It's not a pyramid scheme, because people who buy stolen bikes are also subject to having their bikes stolen. Pyramid schemes are acyclic, the market for stolen bikes is not.
The bottom of the pyramid should fill up with stolen bikes faster than the bikes rust out. Although I guess with 13M more births than deaths each year, there's 13M more potential outlets for stolen bikes. My guess is that most of those buy new or unstolen used, but with only 1.5M bike thefts a year, I may have just data'ed myself out of my OP! (All data for US 2015)
Depends on the bike, but can be true. Fifteen years ago you might have had 7 cogs in the back, and today you can have 10 or even 11. Which means chains are a little thinner, to accommodate the extra gears.
Also, depends on mileage not years--an old, unridden bike will be fine. You can usually get ~3k miles from a chain without having to change the cassette (the cluster of gears in the back). If you let the chain go too far, it stretches, which wears the cassette out more quickly, then you need to change both. You can judge chain wear objectively by measuring the distance between chain links.
My daily bike doesn't have have indexed gears (it doesn't click when you shift), which will last longer. I use fairly cheap chains/cassettes, and just replace both every 10k miles or so. Simpler.
As I understand it, chain stretch is not due to the links stretching. Instead it happens because the rollers wear down and get thinner. And I don't see any reason the rollers need to be different on 10/11/12 speed chains. So if newer chains wear faster, isn't it something else like materials?
It wasn't mileage. I was a more frequent biker back then. I'll get one of those measuring tools and learn how to use them. Otherwise it'll be 2 years again after this season.
Modern bikes have a greater number of gears on the cassette on the back wheel, which in turn requires a thinner chain. Thinner chains wear quicker.
It’s one of the reasons hub gears (or, for the true hipsters as the stereotype goes, a fixie) can be so completely bombproof - the lack of dérailleur gears means the chain can be made much heavier duty & lasts much, much longer.
That said, your mountain bike probably did have quite a bit of chain wear, it just hadn’t reached the point that the chain had started to skip. How many gears did it have on the cassette?
Chains might not be what they used to be but the multi-geared sprockets with tight tolerances definitely aren't. It's cheaper to change the chains sooner than to wait until they wear out your sprockets badly enough that you can't fit a new chain on it and need to change both.
2 years of life out of chains sounds reasonable to me if you drive a lot. Exposure to dirt, salt (from de-icing), moisture, etc can shorten the life of your chains. Keeping them clean and well oiled will make them last longer. And using quality chains in the first place, your bike might have come with cheapo chains.
When I was cycling 3000km/year, I replaced the chain every couple of years.
But it seemed to depend massively on how careful I was with cleaning, and where I was cycling. 99% on roads, with regular lubrication, and the chain lasted ages. Then I moved house, and cycled the same distance, but on gritted paths, and more often in the rain. Chains could be ruined very quickly if I was lazy, and didn't clean off the mud and grit.
If the machine doesn't have very many miles on it, it doesn't need a new chain unless it's terribly corroded or somehow damaged. If you get a new chain on a low-mileage bike, you will not need to replace the cassette/freewheel as well. If it's something with some miles on it, best bet is just to go for the whole drivetrain at once (chain rings, cassette, chain). I also used to be a bike mechanic. It's crazy to see the electronic shifting on high-end road rigs. Impressive, but crazy.
For mountain bikes and race bikes, this might actually be true. I used to have an MTB with stainless steel sprockets. Never needed to change them. Nowadays, they are mostly aluminium, I think. Furthermore newer bikes have more gears typically. The rear cassette used to be 7 speed, now 10 or 11 is not uncommon. This means narrower chains.
Also chain may be lighter now, especially the high-end ones.
Lighter bikes are definitely more fun to ride, but probably at some cost....
You can still get 6-7-8 speed rear cassettes (which use a common 6-7-8 speed chain size) if you're worried about chain durability and don't care about the extra range. In general 10/11 speed parts are still more expensive than 6/7/8 or 9-speed parts.
The great thing about 10/11 speed cassettes is that you can go single on the front end. I did that three years ago, and man is it better.
So I sacrifised the very highest and the very lowest gear compared to my old 3x9, but this thing never drops the chain off the front end, there is no front derailleur that always gets bent and fails to shift properly, and there are no awkward momentum-bleeding crazy shift-down-one, shift-up-the-other moves. And you save money, weight and complexity, meaning less maintenance and less failures.
> The great thing about 10/11 speed cassettes is that you can go single on the front end. I did that three years ago, and man is it better.
Well, maybe if you live somewhere pretty flat. Or are willing to give up some high-end range (>25 mph). 10/11 speed cassettes generally only have a few teeth wider range than a ~7 speed, for example (e.g., you can get a 13-28 7-speed and the bigger 11 speeds are 11-32 (road)) . Mostly, the jumps are just much closer together, which makes for a smoother shift and easier to find a comfortable gear at a given effort.
> So I sacrifised the very highest and the very lowest gear compared to my old 3x9, but this thing never drops the chain off the front end, there is no front derailleur that always gets bent and fails to shift properly, and there are no awkward momentum-bleeding crazy shift-down-one, shift-up-the-other moves. And you save money, weight and complexity, meaning less maintenance and less failures.
Yeah, there are definitely some benefits! In my area (Seattle) with my level of fitness, I'm a fan of 2x front cogs.
Yeah, I don't know about road bikes, I run a 10 speed 11-34 MTB cassette in a low-end downhill rear derailleur (Shimano Zee). My area is not exactly flat, I guess I make up for it by being an old squats addict. It's good enough for light trail use for me, even with two kids in the bike trailer.
I wouldn't care if the chain is heavier. The scary stories I heard from what happens if the chain falls apart are enough for me. I would even pay more. No problem.
However, when I asked the guys in the shop, they had nothing like that.
I've had a chain break once in probably 30k miles of riding, and only because I'd monkeyed with it (taken links out when converting to 1x7 speeds). Pros put unreal amounts of torque on equipment that's crazy light, and their chains break very rarely. Not something I'd worry about.
Pros also get their chains changed as frequently as they want. I doubt any pros are riding 2000 miles per chain like plenty of amateurs do.
Also the biggest pro I've ever heard of is Magnus Backstedt at 6'4 and 207lbs. He's a GIANT compared to everyone else on the pro tour. "Big" Tom Boonen only weighs 180lbs and Lance Armstrong was 165. Pros have really good power for their weight, but in absolute numbers the power isn't that excessive.
If you want to see people who are tough on gear, you have to look at track riders. That's where a 1400W rider isn't anything special and 1800W+ starts to become impressive. Also since they're on single gear bikes the torque they put down at low speeds to accelerate is absolutely insane.
The chain and gear sprockets are progressively getting thinner in pursuit of lower overall bike weight. This is driven by the racing side of cycling, similar to automotive tech coming through R&D in Formula 1 racing.
A lighter bike is nicer to ride. It is less effort to accelerate from a stop and a 1kg difference will be noticeable when riding up hill.
The trade-off of the thinner drive train components is that they will wear and stretch faster. Continuing to use a stretched chain will cause accelerated wear on the sprockets. When the sprockets get too worn the teeth become very pointy and chain will start to skip on the rear cassette or drop off the chain rings.
Track bikes (fixed gear, single speeds) are the exception, as the chains are still very thick as they are designed to take more force from acceleration from the track sprinters.
15 years ago it was likely a 7 speed. In that same space todays bikes have 11-12 gears.
Additionally chains and gear teeth can wear together way past the designed for tolerances. So over 15 years things might work, but then you have to replace the chain, cassette, and chainrings. Replacing any piece alone would likely make things MUCH worse.
Generally if you ride daily it's worth replacing a chain annually, or at least checking for "stretch", which is actually wear. Chains are MUCH cheaper to replace than chainrings and cassettes.
They exist. I saw one in an issue of Popular Mechanics a few years ago. Forget the name though unfortunately. It was an e-bike with a NuVinci CVT and had these crazy wheels that had nothing but three massive spokes.
My belt driven Scott Sub 10 slips teeth under really high torque. I dont know if this is typical of all belt driven, but they seem less robust under torque genrally.
You should check the tension of your carbon belt. Gates has an app to help you do that. Usually is just a matter of loosening the back weel bolts, adjusting the screws that push on the axel and retightenig the weel. If your frame doesn't have the adjustment screws you should check your bike manual.
I got one of those! I've done most of my commuting on it during the past year. Mine doesn't slip under load. Perhaps check with your bike shop that it is tensioned enough?
I just have a tough time believing a belt is better than a chain, when I've had two cars with timing belts break before the suggested replacement mileage, but never had the problem with a timing chain. It seems like the same would be true of a bicycle.
Chains are great if you drive a car to 125k miles and junk it, but I've recently started preferring belts since I try to make mine last 200.
Eventually the chain tensioners wear out and changing a chain is enough work that I usually scrap the car at that point. Belts are much easier to change, and perhaps more importantly, inspect.
I've driven a lot of cars beyond that point where the chain guides don't exist... The sounds of a chain sloshing around are unmistakable :). If you're lucky it will skip a few teeth one day and give you a chance to fix it.
Unlucky, it skips a bunch of teeth and bends all the exhaust valves. I managed to salvage one of those too by driving around at high rpm until the valves had...Hammered themselves mostly straight again. Wouldn't recommend, usually you'll get an iffy cylinder or two after that that mysteriously only fire above 2000 rpm
Chains on bicycles do break occasionally, and there are practical reasons why a belt is better, which is they don't need to be covered in black stain-your-pants-if-you-ever-touch-it grease.
Just to be the contrarian, the timing chain failed on my Saturn at 70k miles, and the engine was destroyed.
If a bike chain breaks, the bike isn't destroyed, though it could be hazardous if you're honking up a hill when it happens. But for the most part, chains wear out and you replace them.
In my view, the benefit of the belt is not lifetime, but the lack of oil, making it cleaner. With that said, I don't have a belt drive bike, but would consider it if I ever get a new bike.
You might want to rethink that 100,000 miles. I've noticed a lot of car manufactures (e.g. Kia) that recommend a change at 60,000. I would not ignore that recommendation.
Timing bits are considered emissions equipment. In California (and states that follow California requirements) this means a 150,000 mile warranty. Most manufacturers will thus specify a change interval that avoids warranty service. Some, like Mazda in the 90s, will use the same belt rated for 49-state compliant intervals and simply bump up the interval.
A negative for belt drives, especially on a bike this price, is the cost of replacement parts. I think a shimano nexus 3sp would be a much more sensible option, though obviously it's not as striking and wouldn't get to the HN front page.
I can somewhat understand the belt-guard around the pedal gear, but why all the way back to the rear wheel? This bike sounds like a scam, especially if you look at the cost...
I suspect that some of the design choices come down to styling. In terms of cost, this is a bike with a special market niche: Placement in Ikea stores, and branding associated with European lifestyle.
I know nothing of bicycles, but I do recall when automakers started replacing timing chains with timing belts. The results weren't always great, especially with interference engines where misaligned timing means bent valves.
More interesting is the fact that it's a 2-speed automatic. I've seen previous attempts at adding automatic transmissions to bikes but much of the reviews out there seem to mostly complain about the shift points and inability to control them. E.g. they shift at a fixed speed and there's no way to "kickdown" unlike an automotive automatic, which also takes into account engine speed and throttle position. I suppose the analogous indication for a bike would be the force being applied to the pedals.
If you're going to bother with internal hub gearing, you might as well make it manual-- its even easier than shifting a derailleur and you don't need to be moving. Its not like automatic 2-speed shifting is solving a real problem.
I’ve got a Norco (CityGlide) with the SRAM 2-sped automatic on it. It’s pretty good. The shift is more based on the torque applied than the speed you’re going at; coasting and then using light torque will shift back to first gear pretty quickly.
Aside from the belt drive, this looks pretty close to the CityGlide that I have, and at a similar price (on sale). (The CityGlide lists around CA$799, and I got mine at a bike show for CA$450; I’ve spent more since then, including getting fenders.) If I didn’t already have a two-speed automatic, I’d probably look at this seriously.
I also have a Dahon (Speed P8) that I use in the winter, although I might be using the Norco a bit this winter. When I replace the Dahon, I’m strongly considering a Montague full-sized folding bike.
The 2-speed internal gear hub seems to be the same SRAM Automatix that you have probably heard of, it's been around for a while (since 2011?) and used in quite a few bikes on the market.
Belt driven bikes have actually been around for quite a while. They aren't nearly as common as chained bikes but are generally less greasy/dirty. They are also usually good for people who don't do a ton of bike maintenance because (unlike a chain) a belt will never rust.
I remember us using the hardware for a belt driven bike in a solar car race, I recall it offered higher efficiency than chain drives that were available.
Edit: Actually I think the main draw was the continuous gear ratios you got, somewhat comparable to a CVT
Chain drives are about as efficient as you can get, actually. Can be more efficient then meshed gears.. But only if the chain is properly maintained.
Belts may not have pins, but it still needs to simultaneously stretch and compress to go around pullies. The deformation and friction losses add up.
With the solar-powered EV the fact that belts lend themselves to a simple and reliable CVT (constant velocity transmission) probably made up for drive train losses. They could run the motor at the optimal RPM regardless of speed, which can make a huge difference.
With bicycling 'race bike image' and fashion plays a huge role in what people are willing to buy.
People tend to want to spend the money on aping 'Tour De France' bicycles. So high seats and low bars for a 'racing position'. Clipless peddles, high dollar light-weight components... Especially going from 32 spoke wheels to as few as 8 or even 4 spokes are all symptoms of this trend.
And that's just road bikes. Mountain bikes have their on trends with the heavy suspension components used for downhill that soak up all the energy from the rider, etc.
It's the bicycle equivalent of trying to use a Nascar or Class B Rally car for getting groceries. You end up with a really expensive, fragile, high-maintenance, really uncomfortable bike totally inappropriate for touring/commuting/trail riding.
Belt drives don't have a place in racing, so they usually don't have a place in most people's bicycles. The reality is that belts drives are a trade off between maintenance and efficiency.
This Ikea bicycle uses a 2-speed automatic geared hub with belt drive. It features built-in lights and a very upright riding position. It has front disk brake and rear coaster brake (you have to peddle backwards). It looks fairly heavy and ruggedly built.
The advantage of this is that it offers very simple controls and should be extremely low maintenance. It should accept abuse and neglect and run for a long time.
So things like... A family bicycle for running to the local store. Going on flat, level trails. It would be very nice for a 'campus bike' for universities or corporate areas were you spend time going from one building to another. Rental bikes.
It should lend itself to any situation were you are dealing with fairly flat ground, leisurely pace, and multiple people sharing the bicycle.
It won't ruin clothing, it won't spray water and dirt everywhere. You pants are not going to get caught in the gearing. You are not going to have rusted chains or dragging brakes. If it falls over you don't need to un-bend things or re-adjust derailleurs, etc.
The things to worry about this is the same for most Ikea products: Non-standard components, sizing and shockingly cheap components that sabotage the rest of the product. if it uses rugged and standard sizing/components for everything then it will probably be awesome... if not then it could be a turd.
Bear in mind that Ikea is a Swedish company, where the 'race bike image' is much less common, and is pretty irrelevant to their target market for this bicycle. The bicycle looks like 90% of the ones you'd find in Scandinavia, and is intended for daily use commuting, shopping, socialising and so on.
They give the weight as 16kg, which I think is fairly light for a bicycle of this type. Most people would add the basket and rear rack though.
My bicycle has a stainless steel self lubricating chain but I know where you're coming from. lots of people are put off by the idea of maintenance of their not very often ridden bicycle.
They will still be disappointed when they get this one out of the garage next summer to find the tyres are flat and splitting.
Why would a bike in storage deteriorate that much more quickly than one in use? You do need to store the tires inflated, but I use one set of tires for years, and I keep the bike outdoors in all weather and use it daily.
I do get the impression bike tires have gotten better over the years, because I don't remember tires being that robust in my childhood (but, well, memory and all...).
Electric motors in a garage or storage room (e.g. for a heating system) might be a source of ozone, or sunlight on oils and solvents. The storage itself isn't the problem, it's the higher-than-average level of ozone in typical places rarely used bicycles might be stored.
I've found that keeping tires out of the sun makes the biggest difference. If kept out of the sun, bike tires can last a long time. One time I bought a bunch at the same time, and over the years I've regularly gotten one or two out of storage and found them satisfactory.
They had hard foam tire bikes when I was a kid but they didn't last long. And solid rubber tires are heavy. Decreasing rotating mass on a bicycle is always a good thing.
This is more like the belt drives we have had available in motorcycles for a long time just a smaller/lightweight version of it (due to much less power involved)
I have a pair of friends that are serious tandem riders and they now run their premium touring tandem with Gates Carbon Drive. They switched from chain because, if you didn't know, tandem bikes with strong riders have a reputation for eating chains. (Premature stretch, leading to cog/ring wear, and eventually breakage because of the torque involved.) Belts are stronger than chains in some regards and I think high-torque applications is one of them. Witness Harley-Davidson switching to belts decades ago, away from chains. Also, on a bicycle, a belt system can shed almost a pound versus an equivalent chain-cog-ring-derailleurs setup. While being very quiet and very clean.
Downsides ... unlike an easy chain repair, you can't repair a belt in the very rare case it breaks. So you carry a spare on a tour. There are suggestions that frictional losses are higher with belt versus chain, though. And belts are apparently weaker when twisted or laterally flexed than chains, so storage and initial setup is more critical.
Gates belts are dramatically stronger than chains. The bigger downside is the frame needs to built to accommodate the belt. The chain/belt passes through the rear triangle and you have to have a way to open it for a belt.
The transmission efficiency is probably nothing compared to the IGH and it's weight.
I was a little upset when honda dropped timing gears from the vfr engine. Chains are less reliable ... belts even less so. But issues of stretch and timing are irrelevant on a bicycle drive.
Fyi, the accepted horsepower-to-belt ratio for motorcycles is around 100hp for every inch of belt width. Beyond that, stretch and slipping become an issue no matter the material. Thats why sportbikes have stuck with chains.
I've been keeping an eye on this bike's development for a while, and I'm not disappointed with the outcome. It's still more expensive than a box-store bike, but I hope that availability at IKEA will make it more appealing to college students. Internal gears and a belt drive will make for more interesting maintenance, but anything beats the hi-ten 18-speed monstrosities that currently dominate college campuses.
Looks fragile to me. Cheap disk brakes. Hand brakes. Gears? Expensive tires (why mountainbike style tires on a normal road?) I bet my €50 franken bike lasts longer. Its an (i guess) ~20 year old ugly bike with rear brake. But most important: it is a sort of decent brand (batavus). Most of the stuff fell off, lights broke etc. Front fender is partially broken but rear fender still ok. Except for some oil on the rusty chain and a few flat tires no maintainance at all. Its outside 24/7 for the last four years now. Will serve me fine for another few years but i need tires. Also the frontfender should be fixed. I might buy me a "new" one somewhere in 2017...
It is very comfortable to ride! I use it to cycle to my parents which live 12km away from where i live! faster than public transport :)
I got one of these at a local bike shop for $450, which I think is a lot more bike for the money than the IKEA bike. Sure, no belt drive, but the internal 8-speed hub is really nice. I've been riding it for 3 years, rain and shine every day, and it's holding up great.
http://www.breezerbikes.com/bikes/details/downtown-8
Selling the wrong bike to the wrong person. A casual cyclist should have something that is simple, comfortable and reliable.
High-tensile steal will equate a rough ride. 18 gears and a transmission has a hugely larger number of points of failure, that's just math. And requires regular maintenance, which casual cyclists don't/won't do.
IMO most riders would be best served by Dutch style built-like-a-tank cruisers (which the IKEA is) or lightweight, ultra minimal single speed "hipster" street bikes. But the typical new rider gets a mountain bike for the road, or something designed to look like a racing bike that will be rattling and rusty after one winter.
I'm not sure what you mean by regular maintenance. For 10 years I've been casually using an $800 Kona flat-bar bike, 24 speeds, and I didn't need to change anything on it. It was pretty much maintenance free. I did last year took it in for checks, just to be on the safe side, but they said that it is fine and nothing needs fixing.
Walmart and other big-box store bicycles are infamous in the cycling community for their poor quality and assembly, often to the point of being completely unsafe to ride at any speed (Nader reference intended).
They often use the cheapest high-tensile steel they can find, off-brand rims, mix-and-match groupsets, low-quality brakes, and so forth. The bike you linked exemplifies that - mixed Shimano/SRAM components and "alloy wheels" are in its description. Box-store bikes are also never put together correctly - flipped forks, pinched inner tubes, and sheared screws/bolts abound when they come in for repairs.
Comparing these two bicycles directly, the big things that stand out as pros are the Sladda's aluminum frame and disc brakes. An internal gear hub is also a nice low-maintenance touch. It remains to be be seen how well the Sladda holds up, but $400-500 isn't too unreasonable for a aluminum city-cruiser that's been ruggedized.
Boy would you love the Netherlands. Here, almost everyone rides a used bike that's had many owners, each of which changed it in some "improper" way. Wheels the wrong size for the bike, duct tape holding the bike together, half of the spokes broken, etc., etc.
But you know what? That's what the whole country uses for transportation, every day, and it works fine. It turns out that, in your day-to-day usage of a bike (and this is for a country of people who ride their bikes as their main mode of transportation) it doesn't matter what ridiculous new type of Chinesium your wheels are made out of, as long as they stay vaguely circular. Brakes don't work? Here, put this duct tape on the brake pads, now they work. Chain keeps falling off? Oh, just don't put it into that gear then. And when it completely falls apart one day, or when it gets stolen, then another one costs $50.
When I'm in the US, I ride an $1100 bike. It's ridiculous, the thing is this gleaming sparkly shade of white, fancy carbon fiber parts that are 150% more aerodynamic than everyone else's carbon fiber parts, a frame that is so light you can carry it with one finger, etc., etc. It goes really fast, and is so smooth I forget I'm biking. But when I'm in the Netherlands? I ride a $20 bike that has spokes sticking out and broken, rust covering everything, and sometimes the front falls off. I'm serious, the front actually falls off. Yes, the handlebars and front fork and the whole shebang, in one go.
Somewhat uniquely, American bike enthusiasts are insane about safety. "You could DIE with an improperly maintained bike!", "Not wearing a helmet is like not wearing a seatbelt!" and "Walmart bikes are death traps" are things I've heard recently. But somehow, when the front of my $20 bike falls off (which has happened twice now) all I get is a minor scrape to my hands.
The difference is that cheap Dutch bikes are super simple: no gears and a coaster brake. The Walmart bikes aren't. They've often got 21 speeds, shocks, etc etc, all of which is pure crap and fails after minimal use.
There's also the infrastructure to consider. If your bike fails in NL, you curse and coast to a stop on the bikeway. If it fails in the US, you may be in the middle of trying to cross a 6 lane road with no bike infrastructure whatsoever, putting your life in danger. I rode a crappy bike in NL (3 month stay in Rotterdam), but I wouldn't want to ride that same bike here in the US.
I'm not sure anyone would dispute that there's some incremental danger to allowing right turn on red. After all, it wasn't the norm for a long time in the US. (It became widespread in the 1970s as a fuel-saving measure.)
Similarly, we'd certainly be safer with lower speed limits.
But we collectively make tradeoffs which may even be informed by some level of data.
I think the most impactful difference (visavis safety in NL) aren't the segregated bikepaths - those are common, but not pervasive. Even more important are the car drivers, which are accustomed to bikes, and not as easily surprised when some cyclist makes a sudden appearance in their path.
Of course, bikepaths are great in busier parts, but even where they're absent serious traffic injuries aren't common. And that's despite some unnecessary risks (such as lack of lights in the dark) that are taken a little too commonly.
Interestingly enough, at least where I live in the Netherlands I find that most cheap bikes have handbrakes, and a lot of bikes have 3 speeds.
I agree that the infrastructure is a big thing too, though. If there's a chance of you failing on a snowy hill on the side of a highway, you're going to pay a bit more for something that won't fail as often.
I've ridden for years with the Dutch mindset - I kept a '60s steel roadbike rolling with a bent frame after a car hit it while locked on the sidewalk (ugh). Frankenbikes can be great, and the performance limitations give them some personality, especially if you're already a comfortable cyclist and understand (or implemented) the quirks.
But there's a big difference between the 'keep it rolling' mindset and dealing with new-from-factory plastic that walmart et al try to pass off as metal. I've seen axles split in half while coasting down a steep hill, dropping the bottom bracket straight to the ground (and the rider along with it). Derailleurs pulled into spinning spokes, causing an explosion of twisted metal that was thrust into my friend's calf.
I think a lot of the safety insanity you refer to comes from most American cycling experience being on bikes that seem designed to fail spectacularly.
Also those shitty American bikes are designed to look like extreme speedsters. Nobody would get on a Dutch bike and expect to do more than hobble around the countryside or neighborhood and show off your new elbow patches.
Folks get on those Walmart deathtraps and they explode on an off-road boulder or disintegrate while someone speeds around the wheels of a dump truck.
> Brakes don't work? Here, put this duct tape on the brake pads, now they work.
That's something which I have not seen. Not duct tape but brakes. I must be one of the few who don't have coaster brakes. Then again, expats don't really count.
> Somewhat uniquely, American bike enthusiasts are insane about safety. "You could DIE with an improperly maintained bike!", "Not wearing a helmet is like not wearing a seatbelt!" and "Walmart bikes are death traps" are things I've heard recently. But somehow, when the front of my $20 bike falls off (which has happened twice now) all I get is a minor scrape to my hands.
I think this applies to lots of things in the US comparatively. I can't imagine anywhere in the US having Canals and no guard rails; Jaywalking like you born to; Firecrackers in the middle of street for NYE. I think the US has too much of a "fear" attitude that's probably due to frivolous lawsuits, whereas in Amsterdam at least, it's more laissez faire. That translates to $1000 cycles for recreation vs $20 cycles for transport.
I find the bikes in Amsterdam are actually somewhat well maintained compared to the rest of the country. I live in Delft, a town with 25,000 students of a population of 95,000. Here, the bike combinations are particularly creative, which I really enjoy.
> I can't imagine anywhere in the US having Canals and no guard rails; Jaywalking like you born to; Firecrackers in the middle of street for NYE.
Just speaking from my experience growing up in NYC: I've seen and done all of these things. Of course, that's definitely not the average American experience.
I think a large part of the US's penchant for regulating cycling comes from a tendency to look at bicycles as a toy, rather than a tool. When we think of cycling foremost as a diversion for children, we're less likely to stress the importance of learning to maintain one's own bike and are more likely to stress replace-ability and a misguided sense of safety ("it's just a toy, we'll get you another one!").
As an American who almost exclusively bikes for transportation, I think it comes down to a difference in cycling conditions.
Most people I know grew up riding ~$100 Walmart bikes, just as described - steel, heavy, poorly assembled and usually the wrong size.
It's quite harrowing to be riding a slow and breakdown-prone bike on 65kph auto-centric roads, when your chain falls off or brakes fail.
If there was more segregated cycling infrastructure and denser cities, I think it would be much different.
Adding in the fact that most people I know don't know how to change a tire, much less fix or maintain a bike, I'm not surprised they are turned off of cycling entirely by the time they become adults.
After riding department store bikes most of my life, I bought a entry level aluminium hybrid bike with quality components for $400 new (vs ~$200 for a department store steel bike). It was life changing to be able to be able to accelerate and maneuver in traffic, and made cycling much more attractive. I could also ride long distances without worrying about breaking down - and if I do, the parts are standard and I can fix it myself.
To be honest, I love our slapped-together bikes. I love it when someone takes a completely rust-covered bike out of a canal and somehow manages to ride it. I love it when the front falls off, and I love it when the spokes stick out. Because every $20 Dutch bike that's a mess of barely functioning parts is a slap across the face to the bike snobs of the world.
For every snob with the custom carbon fiber frame and the wind-tunnel-tested wheels there's a man in Rotterdam with the front half of a toddler's training bike welded to a Fatboy. For every idiot that says their unlubricated chain is literally unrideable there's a man in the Hague who combined two different-size chains into one and rode on it.
Isn't the difference that in the Netherlands you ride at 15 mph on a dedicated bike street, while in the US you ride with the cars? This explains a lot about the desire for speed, emphasis on safety and maintenance, etc in the US.
Weren't those Dutch bikes changing hands for €50 once decent, €350+ bikes? I think they are, that's why they're still working.
I was given an £80 bike once, to cycle to work and back every day. It was ruined within 6 months -- the bearings in the hub and bottom bracket were worn out, the brakes wouldn't line up properly, the wheel rims were almost worn through, the gears didn't change properly. People in the Netherlands simply don't buy these bicycles, they'd rather spend €90 on a second hand one.
However, the £80 bike is OK for a British adult to cycle 10km round a nature reserve, once or twice per year.
The US has something like 10x the number of cycling fatalities per mile. It is more dangerous here, though I grant you that the main hazard is not the fronts falling off our bikes.
I ride a Franken bike that my dad picked out of the trash. It's in good working condition, but in my defense, I simply enjoy tinkering with mechanics as a hobby.
It still seems expensive compared to what I can get at a local bike shop. I got a Trek 7.2 from a bike shop for that price and it was assembled and came with some free tune-ups. Similarly, one can get a Fortified Bike 1-speed for $399. Both seem like better bicycles than the Sladda.
I agree that big-box stores often sell crappy bikes. But one can get a really nice bike from a bike shop for $400-500. If IKEA were selling this at $200 and it were a good bicycle, it might be notable. It just doesn't seem like a great bicycle for the price. It says nothing about puncture resistant tires. It's 33lbs which seems heavy (over 40% heavier than the Fortified). You have to assemble it at that price and there's no included adjustments and tune-ups vs. buying form a bike shop where you can you get something well-assembled and cared for.
IKEA is cheap for certain items and simply not a good deal for others. I'm not arguing that this is a downright crappy bike like many big-box bicycles. It just seems bad for the money given that I can get a significantly better bicycle for the same price and it would come pre-assembled better than I would assemble it with tune-ups and adjustments. What's the selling point of this bicycle? A $400-500 impulse buy when dropping a grand or two at IKEA? Are bicycles significantly more expensive in a lot of Europe and so it seems like a deal in a lot of IKEA markets?
It just seems like there's a wealth of bicycles at my local bike shop that they'll sell me for the same money that are better bikes.
I know quite a few people who own a Trek 7.2 as a commuting bicycle. It's a great hybrid at MSRP.
You can indeed get a nice bike from a bike shop for $400-500. What you often can't get is a nice city cruiser at that price - the ones I see at my LBSes are often either substantially more expensive ($600+) or cheaper-made without a belt drive or disc brake. I think what's really attractive about this bike is the decreased maintenance requirements (provided it's assembled correctly, which I admit is a big if) and warranty.
Part of it is probably the belt drive, which is for the moment still a premium feature. It was a $100 bump on my belt bike. So if you were to compare this bike to $300 traditional chain-drive bike shop bikes... well, I'm not sure what those would be, as you don't see much at that price point at most shops, but it doesn't seem too crazy.
Disc brake --- the rear brake is a back-pedal job, unfortunately, which makes it a write-off from my perspective; years of cycling ordinary bicycles mean that I tend to automatically move the pedals backwards while coasting to a comfortable position, and doing this with a back-pedal brake leads to unhappy experiences.
I'm impressed by the add-on bicycle trailer, obvious being sold as a first-class citizen. A lot of IKEA stuff is modular and eminently hackable --- like, literally today I have assembled 40kg of random furniture into a workbench/desk for my study by bolting together bits of office with bits of bedroom. I'm sure there's interesting things to do with it. It looks like you can restow the towbar to make a convenient handle for pulling it.
Coaster brakes are somewhat common on city cruisers, but it is a little odd that they've chosen to go with the combination of the two.
I reset my pedals when I'm coasting as well, and it's probably fair to say that we're not the target market. My guess is that it'll be popular among (shorter-distance) city commuters and college students who would've bought a Huffy or something equally shoddy instead.
I've seen the combination of a coaster brake and a front brake on some kids' bikes. I believe the thinking is that a coaster brake is friendly to novices, those with weak hands, and those who knock their front brake out of adjustment and don't know how to fix it. While a front brake gives riders who can actually get above 12 mph some actual stopping power for safety.
Reliance on a single coaster brake is dangerous. When a coaster brake fails, it can fail in two ways that are both very dangerous: full lock-up or full brake failure. They also have the tendency to catch at strange points in the pedal movement, like the vertical noon/6 position, which are difficult to establish the needed force to slow the bike.
I have a Shimano Nexus 3 speed with a coaster (and hand brakes) that is my daily driver, and where the coaster brake catches is pretty random. I can sometimes make several, as in 3 - 5, full backwards pedal rotations before it catches, other times it catches immediately. I am now in the habit of catching the brake before I descend any large hill. Since I live in Nobb Hill SF, that's every day.
You should get your coaster brake fixed, since it is apparently dangerous for you.
I have never had a coaster brake failure. Nor have I experienced a problem with engaging the coaster brake as you describe. I have always found the single coaster brake to be more than adequate and to be more reliable than any (set of) handbrake(s). I like the fact that I can skid the rear tire if I apply enough force. I live in a non-hilly area, so YMMV.
Haven't had a coaster brake since the Schwinn Typhoon I had as a kid in the 1970s but the coaster brake was flawless. I think it was Bendix. Never failed to engage and was very controllable.
Of course Schwinn today is not the same as they were then.
Some countries such as Germany mandate that you have two independent braking systems on a bicycle, so the coaster brake is probably here as a cheap backup.
Of course everything depends on your riding conditions. It's hard to get sufficient stopping power from the rear brake when going downhill, especially if it's wet out. I had a situation once, where I slid into traffic, because I applied the coaster brake on a very steep grade. That day, I installed a front brake.
"we did have a few niggles about how it had been assembled which much to our amusement on our first test ride the handlebars went one way while the bike carried on going straight"
This is enough reason not to buy a bike from a non-bike store, unless you have the skill to reassemble it yourself.
You can only do that while moving; once you've stopped (e.g. at traffic lights) the pedals are stuck where you left them, unless you lift the rear wheel off the ground.
When I moved to Copenhagen from London, it took me several weeks to get used to a coaster brake rather than disc brakes -- I'd often stop with the pedals in the wrong place.
I can attest this is not the case. All I,and everyone who are not cyclists,have ever rode are cheap Wal-Mart bikes. Even when I used to do stupid stuff like jump them and fly down hills, I've never had a structural failure occur.
I'm obviously exaggerating. One of the things I recommend when a friend or acquaintance buys a box-store bike (after ignoring my initial recommendation not to buy one) is to immediately take it to a bike shop to be reassembled and re-tuned. With a proper tuning and assembly, they become substantially safer.
That being said, your experience is a fortunate one. It takes only half a turn in either direction on the headset washers to result in a failure that can break your collarbone. I've seen it firsthand.
It depends on which components get mixed with which. For example, one brand's shifters sometimes aren't compatible with the other's derailleurs. Also watch out for chain widths relative to cassette gear spacing (more a concern since 2x10-speeds hit the market).
But for the most part, we're talking about mechanical (not hydraulic) devices that can be tuned/adjusted to work with each other.
It's not a problem if the parts have been intentionally selected and tuned to operate with each other. It's all springs and wire tension internally, and a good bike mechanic can make just about any (modern) groupset components work together.
However, box-store bikes are usually just built with whatever individual components are cheapest in bulk at that price bracket. More often that not, that means mixing and matching for no good reason other than to save the retailer a few cents.
I love the Walmart bikes as they are my designated beater bikes. I've purchased a handful of them over the years - since they are so cheap, when parts do get stolen you can simply just replace the entire bike and use the old one for parts. I live in NYC and my goal was to get around quickly (without bringing my bike in and out of my apartment everytime I wanted to ride). So, I've learnt to lockdown my bike, and generally make it look unappealing to thieves (gorilla glue on bolts and screws, duct tape,dremel "Property of..." into the paint job) - while greasing regularly and ensuring the brakes are tuned. Another trick is to always use 2 U-Locks, one for each tire. Granted, I agree that the materials and build-quality are terrible, but not to the point where I've felt unsafe riding around at a good pace.
I grew up with a slew of craptastic second hand, thrift store and K-Mart level bikes since it was all we could afford (and as I grew, the bikes grew). We used to beat the living snot out of those bikes and I don't remember any of them costing more than $150 new and they either never broke or were easy to repair. I would expect to pay no more than around $300 for a similar quality of bike these days.
The last time I walked into a bike shop I turned right around and walked out. Since when did bikes get so unbelievably expensive? I just wanted one for tooting around the neighborhood and maybe popping a curb or two, and the cheapest I could find was around $500. Most were easily in the $1000-$3000 range.
I think younger people have been trained that bikes need to be expensive but unless you're doing some very very intensive mountain biking or road racing you probably will never encounter a problem with a Walmart-class bike.
Every year Costco sells some bikes for around $300-$400 and they're in the class that I care about. Probably "better" than Walmart, but not these outrageous prices in bike stores.
IKEA quality is also often very questionable, the "Family" price seems closer to reasonable. $400 otherwise? No way.
I really just want a Hyundai Elantra bike, not a BMW M3 or a Ferrari.
"Since when did bikes get so unbelievably expensive?"
Quality bikes have always been expensive. You can still go buy a cheap bike at Walmart as the parent post points out.
"unless you're doing some very very intensive mountain biking or road racing you probably will never encounter a problem with a Walmart-class bike."
Nonsense, riding a quality bike is a much better experience in every single aspect. They're lighter, they have better brakes, shifting is smoother and more consistent, they're more comfortable. You can get the exact size you need instead of a one size fits all approach. Also, one of the most important factors in a bike's reliability is how well it's assembled, and you can be sure that places like Walmart will do a terrible job.
I find that most US bike shops fall into two categories - either a general bike shop with a lot of models, or the racing/road oriented that focus on carbon fiber, racing etc.
If you want a general around town bike, I usually recommend the Trek FX series or Giant Escape hybrids. They're a light aluminium, but sturdy, use standard, durable, entry level components, have wider 700c tires good for handling potholes and curbs, mounts for racks - and worlds better ride quality then your run of the mill department store bike.
They're also common enough that you can find them used for under $300, or new starting around $380 or so. Models climb in price as they start adding higher level components but the entry level is usually good enough.
In 1997, I would agree with you 100%. Times have changed, and things get cheaper and more terrible.
I bought a cheapo WalMart bike on vacation when mine was damaged in transit in a minor car accident. I was riding on a bike path, swerved to avoid something and went off a high curb. The impact cracked a frame weld.
It's a weird market. There's a market for cheap stuff that doesn't get used, and outrageous stuff for fanatics. No ,idle ground.
I ran a volunteer bike repair shop for a while. The big box store bikes, like Walmart, Target, etc. have terrible parts. Brakes that fail. Wheels that bend. A girl at my school was killed because she rode in front of a garbage truck. Bystanders said it looked like she was trying to break and couldn't. Sometimes this is because the big box store employees put the brakes on backwards, with the pads facing away from the wheel. I've seen it.
If you want a cheap bike, buy a good one used. Craigslist is an excellent resource. A quality frame lasts forever (unless misused or left in the rain) and decent replacement parts aren't crazy expensive.
I used to work in Halfords in the UK and they sold adult bikes in the apollo range for £75. They do still have one for £80 on their website.
The apollo outrider (as it was then called) was always pretty shoddy, but mostly just for the look and feel of the components, a bit heavy etc. We didn't get that many of them back in for repair.
> We didn't get that many of them back in for repair.
But you don't know if they're actually used.
My mum and sister have cheap bikes from Halfords. They see less than 50km of use per year.
I used something similar (maybe Asda or Tesco's version?) and it was ruined with 1000km or so of use -- every bearing worn out, the wheel rims worn ... it was miserable to ride it.
For the record, I'm probably a slow beginner leisure rider on beginner trails, I probably wouldn't be doing even half of the things in the video so I wouldn't be very alarmed.
He has some other tests of the bikes and what kind of realistic destruction these kinds of bikes can endure.
Me and my friends used to buy the cheapest bikes we could out in rural Australia, as low as $50 AUD. We would flog them in the ground for a month or so, when they finally gave out left them right where they broke, and went bought another one.
No one wanted a good bike because a good bike was too good not to fix, and no one had the money to fix a good bike.
It was also the kind of town where if you had a good bike, it would get stolen for sure.
The cheap bikes are much cheaper today (in terms of build quality, though there are some that are, inflation-adjusted, lower priced than the cheapest bikes when I was a kid).
I mostly had cheap bikes as a kid, and they held up really well. The quality was lower than that of a "good" bike, but not remarkably so. My first two bikes, a Huffy (from K Mart) and a Ross Piranha (from Toys R Us) had Chromoly frames and forks, and held up to years of intense abuse (ramps, dirt jumping, lots of falling and running into things). When I started earning my own money, I bought a General RL Osborne, which was a significant upgrade...but, not orders of magnitude better.
The quality of what is sold at Walmart today, at least in the general case, is really low. I wouldn't trust the linked bike to be safe on day one, much less to hold up to years of service. I tried to fix up a friend's low end Schwinn, that was less than ten years old, but it would have been cheaper to buy an all new bike than to fix everything that was wrong with it (shifters didn't work, derailleur was broken, brakes were soggy and couldn't be adjusted to work well, the fork had shocks and would bottom out when applying brakes even lightly). The frame was definitely not chromoly (might have been aluminum, as it was pretty light weight, but could have been thin steel, too I guess). On the other hand, I have a mid-range Giant mountain bike that I bought in 1994 for about $480 that has often been my primary mode of transportation. It's needed new shifters one time, a couple of new cassettes, one new set of brake and shift cables, a new seat, one new rim (I ran into a fire hydrant at a pretty decent clip), and tubes and tires. It's taken a beating over the years.
I dunno what I'm trying to say, exactly, but I think the overall quality of bike-to-dollar has gone down, especially at the low end of the market. The mid range of the market still seems pretty good, when inflation adjusted, though I will note that finding an all chromoly frame and fork (or other high quality material) bike is much harder than it used to be, and it is impossible in the low end, where it used to be very easy.
Maybe that's it? Maybe the shitty bikes I remember from my youth were actually just better than the equivalently priced bikes of today?
I sold my last bike for $50 after a decade of really hard city and trail riding, even taking a couple dives off the edge of a 20 foot fall and getting in a minor car accident.
That owner kept it for another decade and outside of normal part wear and repair, used it well for some pretty hardcore trail biking. It's now on at least it's 3rd owner and last I heard was going strong.
I bought that bike new in the late '80s for no more than $200 IIR, but the story of the bike sounds more like what I hear from modern $2k-$3k bikes...except without most of the fuss.
I feel like the market has really bifurcated into two segments:
a) what I'm willing to pay, but not made well
b) more than I'm willing to pay, and offers more performance than I'd ever conceivably use
I, and I'm sure many consumers, really would like some kind of middle ground.
I agree; $500-$750 will buy a pretty good mid-range bike, today (probably comparable to a $300-$400 bike of 15 years ago). But, there's no such thing as a "pretty good $200 bike" that I've been able to find. Anything in the very low end is effectively disposable; made too cheaply to be worth repairing, and will need major repair to stay on the road within a few years.
If the frame and fork were decent quality, you could upgrade over time (which was common in my day, when solidly constructed Chromoly frame and forks were available on <$150 bikes), but they're just not. Even the $500 bikes of today will have lower cost aluminum or steel forks, even if the frame is a high quality material (like a better quality of aluminum of chromoly).
I don't understand the flight of American manufacturing well enough to know what was causative and what is merely correlation, but nearly all of the bikes when I was a kid were made in the US. As manufacturing has gone overseas, the quality has gone way down. I know that Chinese factories can make high quality bikes (because they make most of the high end brands, as well as the cheap ones); but, a lot of brands that used to mean "decent cheap bike" like Huffy and Schwinn and Mongoose mostly only mean "cheap", today (Schwinn still has some decent bikes in their higher end).
I've clearly got a lot of grumpiness about bikes! I may love bikes too much.
My first bike (the Chromoly Huffy I mentioned a couple of posts back) cost a little less than $100 in about 1983. That same $100 is $242 today. $242 will actually buy an all Chromoly BMX bike today ( http://a.co/5vAYzBc ). So, I guess we're keeping pace with inflation, and I need to tie an onion to my belt, as was the fashion at the time. We just need to re-arrange our expectations to match current reality.
It feels quite obvious that a specialized bike store would focus on the more hard core end of the spectrum, since otherwise they would need to compete with wallmart and costco.
Like others said, the frame material is a huge part of the cost/value difference. But I'll also point out the fact that the IKEA bike is powder coated, has a belt drive, a coaster break, a disk break, and an internal gear hub. That combination of components makes this bike basically maintenance free. If this bike was left on a bike rack outside a college dorm for a school year it would be perfectly fine; the same can't be said about the Walmart bike. Glace at any bike rack at a college campus and you'll know what I mean.
"Fancier-looking" in the same way that a dell laptop covered in blue leds looks fancier than a MacBook...
Taste aside, those walmart bikes are the biking equivalent of a Ford Pinto. Plenty of folks bought them and did just fine, plenty of others had engine fires.
The Sladda is a little expensive, but there is real value to the convenience of just walking in and buying "bicycle" without having to deal with the salespeople and misanthropes who staff most bike shops.
Or computer stores, to circle back... between the pared down selection, and paying a bit of a premium for a great warranty and a familiar name, and quibbles from industry types about superior specs from companies civvies have never heard of with, this feels very Apple Store. Not for me, but I'd suggest one to my parents with no hesitation.
Belt drive - I can't see much advantage to that.
Aluminium frame - probably the Wallmart ones are as well.
Disk brakes - cheap V brakes would be fine for the sort of cycling you will do on that thing. (This seems to have the cheaper cable pull disk brakes, rather than more powerful hydraulic ones).
2 gear system - hardly worth having only two gears in my opinion.
Maybe it's just because I am a bit of a bike snob with a fairly decent mountain bike, but I thought this looked pretty expensive for the type of riding it would be used for.
I bought one of those cheap bikes for Burning Man with the expectation it would get trashed. The steering screws came apart every day and I had to carry a screw driver with me to routinely fix it. It was fine for burning man, but I would not have driven that thing on a road.
I bought a bike from Target over the summer for $100.
It has:
broken one chain
suffered multiple rear brake failures
unfastened the handle bars so they dangle from the fork
All of these things happened while miles from home, and required tools for repair.
When one thing was fixed, another thing broke. The brakes failed repeatedly, and warranted full replacement.
The handle bars are especially treacherous, because putting weight on them risks failure, and then steering becomes impossible.
Accessories and repairs now outweigh the original cost of the bike, meaning I'm looking at over $300 all-in. Meanwhile, this thing feels like it will eventually cost me some teeth.
Anything from Walmart/Target or anything that is not a real bike shop is going to be incredibly low quality.
Best off going on Craigslist and buying something (probably japanese) from the mid to late 1980s that was at one point a good quality bike. Get something with chromoly steel. It will be a lot more reliable and bike mechanics and you will be better able to fix it. It'll have all ISO standard parts.
Wow, you know, this is probably the most accurate conclusion. I've probably put about 20 or 30 ten mile trips on it, and the frequency of failure cropped up maybe every 5 trips.
I chalked it up to poor assembly by a new guy on a Monday morning.
Considering this model of assessment, I realize that department store bikes aren't measured with the same sort of warranty ratings as perhaps cars. Too bad bikes don't use the same sort of 100,000 mile power train warranty as a mark of quality or durability.
Fancy looking? The IKEA one has an Al frame with 25y warranty. A belt drive (more expensive than chain), front disk brake and internal rear gear hub (more expensive than cheap external derailleur).
If you look closer the IKEA bike looks much fancier. It's not hard to make a bike at $250, it's hard to make a good bike at $400.
To me, it seems like a marketing and branding exercise.
Mainstream bikes are generic. You send a list of frame dimensions, colors, and components, to a factory in China, and they make some bikes for you. It's like getting circuit boards made.
It may seem expensive unless the value of the Ikea brand is considered. In fact, this would be just another of many "city" bikes to emerge on the market, and is only newsworthy because it's Ikea. They may be able to tap into a market for people who wouldn't go into a bike shop, but who would look through the Ikea catalog. I remember LL Bean selling bikes many years ago.
I am actually a fan of sub $100 bikes but I can also mess and tinker with them. I think here's a big part of the difference:
"It’s a belt driven automatic 2 speed integrated into the rear hub. The belt drive eliminates need for chain maintenance meaning it’s open to people who know little about bikes or people who do not have the time to do so. Amazingly the belt itself is guaranteed for 10 years which is exceptional length of time to offer in our opinion! Along with a 25 year guarantee on the frame itself it speaks volumes about how this bike was built to last!"
I have been riding bikes since I was a kid and still do. Seen one case of frame failure (or a fairly expensive enduro mountain bike that was used for downhill).
It is incredibly cheap for a belt drive. I've no idea if things have changed in the last couple of years, but I think cheapest I found in 2014 was around 1000€ in Europe.
Yeah, as a person who grew up riding fixies, because nothing else was available and then having finally tried riding a proper multi-geared 24 speed bike, I'm never going back to anything less than 8 speeds.
The flexibility it gives is amazing. You can basically ride on 30%+ inclines by shifting speeds (albeit slowly). I don't see myself being able to do that on a heavy 15kg 2 speeder, and if I have to get off a bike, then by definition it failed its purpose.
I saw this in the store on the weekend. The bike is very very heavy. All well and good if you live in Holland but if you don't, this is an expensive sea anchor. (I commute every day on a bike worth less than fifty bucks and ride 5k a year on my road bike).
The chain wears out muuccchhh faster than gears when properly maintained. If you let your chain stretch too much, then you'll wear out gears quickly. This isn't them wearing out at the same rate, it's a worn out chain ruining your cassette and chainrings.
As a rule of thumb, one should replace the chain every 1000 to 5000 km, depending on the force you exert when cycling. Since the chain otherwise tends to stretch, it will eventually be misaligned with the chain wheels and start to wear those down. As the latter are more expensive to replace, it’s a good idea to replace the chain first.
Not really. All the parts that would be damaged by that are designed to be replaced. My girlfriend did the same to her bike not too long ago. I spent about $80 and an afternoon to get it back in shape.
I've never tried to find parts for a bike that old before, so that might be the challenge. I did have a late 70's Schwinn that I converted to a fixie and had no issues there, but that was a much more invasive job. At the end of the day, I'd replaced almost everything on that frame, so I had less compatibility concerns.
Take it in to your local bike shop if you are really worried. The biggest factor in your chain's health (assuming you have kept it in a nice dry place over the years) is how much you ride it. It's a mechanical part, so it shouldn't simply go bad in an inert state. If you are riding it regularly though take it to your local shop and have it looked over. A new chain w/ installation should only run you about 20 or so bucks for a low end chain.
Simply spraying some lubricant (like Teflon spray for example) onto the chain, running through all the gear combinations, and wiping the excess lubricant off the chain every couple months goes a long way. It helps your bike make less noise, extends the life of your chain, and helps keep your chain from turning totally black with grease. (Which means you're less likely to get grease stains on your pants when you ride.)
The chains stretch over time, and teeth of the cassette get worn. The more you ride the quicker this happens. If you take it to a shop, they can quickly measure the chain to make sure you're good. Chains are pretty common to replace and shouldn't be too expensive. Cassettes as well, they're often changed at the same time as the chain. Otherwise, regular cleaning and lubing will help extend the life.
Like all their other stuff, this is useless to me unless the local store happens to choose to stock it. Ikea's distribution/delivery system is super annoying.
90% of your braking 'power' comes from the front brake. Under hard braking in ideal conditions, this is closer to 100%. You can safely remove the rear brake from most bikes. This is a common misconception [1]. The same is true for motorcycles.
You want to cover the non-ideal circumstances too. Wet leaves, gravel, snow/ice will make the front wheel slip out from under you if you only have a front brake.
(This bike does have a rear brake too, so it's fine)
Edit: About winter biking, cables tend to freeze in the winter if you're not meticulous about maintenance. So automatic gears and coaster rear brake are good for this reason too.
Breaking at similar speed on the rear brakes will cause a fishtail and slide rather than brake. I'd rather endo (flip over my handlebars) than ride in front of a car.
Never had that happen to me in over 35 years of riding bikes. I do go over the handlebars occasionally. I have had the front wheel slide from under me a few times as well (my least favorite way of falling). I even ride with a low tread back tyre so I can slide the back wheel around a bit on trails.
Maybe you instinctively apply appropriate pressure using the front brake.
If you slam on the rear brake only or simply much harder than the front brake, the rear wheel locks up before coming to a stop. The bike will continue forward with the front wheel rolling and the rear wheel sliding. If there's slight braking on the front wheel, the rear starts sliding around the front, twisting the cyclist.
That is not a misconception at all, at least not for bicycles, and it's highly dangerous to suggest so.
Have you ever tried braking while going down a steep hill? (e.g. San Fran hills?) You know, to stay at a safe speed? Front brake will flip you over in an instant, I know because I've done it, even at slow speeds, when my rear brake cable snapped. After a couple tries I walked home, since bicycling without a rear brake was clearly suicidal.
And your linked article just talks about the rider flying over the handlebars because the rider isn't "bracing themselves against deceleration" -- whatever that means. I'm talking about the bike itself flipping.
> Front brake will flip you over in an instant, I know because I've done it, even at slow speeds
That's because you simply do not know how to ride a bicycle. In such a situation you need to get your weight back behind the saddle and modulate the application of the brake.
O.P. is one hundred percent correct that you do not need a rear brake -- and I speak as someone that rode for several years in without one including in SF.
I "simply don't know how to ride a bicycle?" That's a big assumption you're making there, buddy.
I don't know how your particular weight is distributed on your particular bicycle or what, but you're spreading dangerously wrong ideas.
If you're going downhill and a child runs out in the street from between cars and you need to stop, and you're a normal person on a normal bike, you need a rear brake, end of story.
If you modulate your front brake to not lock up, that simply means you stop far too slowly, and hit the kid. Even at what seems like otherwise a safe speed, things (like children, or soccer balls) can run out in front of you at the last second and you need to stop suddenly.
You absolutely need a rear brake for safety. Just because you could get by without one in most situations doesn't mean you can get by without one in all situations.
If you're going down a hill and you need to do an emergency stop, the back wheel won't do you any good. The rule of thumb I was taught was that the back wheel will only provide 1G of deceleration, under ideal circumstances. If the road is wet, or there are leaves, assume less.
If anything, the rear brake can be used to slightly pump up the front fork, which allows the front wheel to find its own way through mud/leaves/snow. Basically, apply a touch of rear brake when you go through a slippery curve, squeeze the frame between your thighs, and let the bike find its own path.
If you take into account that during braking, and even more so during an emergency brake, all the inertial weight lies on the front wheel, it makes a lot of sense that the rear brake is so useless.
In France, bikers call their passengers "SDS," which stands for "sac de sable" (sandbag). Very useful to increase grip of the back wheel when accelerating strongly. Not when braking.
While I'm sure you've ridden lots, if you experiment a bit and try different braking techniques you'll learn how much more effective the front brake is. In fact the famous "fear of endo" is actually just a symptom of this: when the bike stops suddenly rather than slowly, some riders find they don't have their COG positioned far enough back to stay over the stopped bike. One never gets that with a rear brake, because as soon as the COG starts moving forward as it must when the bike slows, the rear tire rises off the ground and the rear brake no longer helps. On steeps, I often have my stomach rather than my butt on the saddle, because I want to be able to stop quickly without flipping.
I've actually faced the "child jumping out from behind a parked car" before, and I passed that test. When I jammed hard on both the front and rear, both tires locked, the rear tire swung around the side until even with the front (at that point it was no longer behind the COG so it rotated down instead of up), and I twisted my back foot to unclip and stomp. I looked at her, she looked at me, then she ran on across the street. Glad I wasn't driving a car!
Since you seem to be unable to see that the issue has not been "decided" as you think it is, especially as there are different bicycle types and different body types, I'll leave these quotes here from [1] and [2] so that other people can be safely warned:
"You should always apply the rear brake, and slightly in advance of the front brake, so that a slight skid at the rear will warn you if you get close to the hazard point at which the bike may tip."
"Flat asphalt is one thing, 30 degrees sloped rocky road is another. My hold is that in the second case the back brake is MORE important than the front brake."
"I myself got into the accident once. It happens so fast that you never have time to lean your body backwards and provide more tractions for the rear wheel like other have stated."
"Depending on where your center of mass "hovers" over your bike, you may need a different strategy."
"Having had more than a few over-the-handlebar incidents back in the day, there is no situation in which I would ever even consider using only the front brake again."
"On the road bike you are alot lower and therefore don't go over the front quite as quickly."
"If you learn to move your weight back (ideally behind your saddle) during strong braking then going over the handle bars is nearly impossible (except under very steep hills)." (Note the "steep hills" part, which is my whole point about safety.)
"On mountain bike, the momentum partly transferred to seat and pedal as a result from a more up-right pedalling position. Remember that your body is about 3-5 times the weight of the bicycle, and they are on top of the bike. So the higher you are from the ground, the easier for you to toppled up."
None of those quotes demonstrate anything other than the simple point that someone who has experience in riding a bicycle knows to get their weight back and low so that (per your own quote) it is _nearly impossible_ even on steep hills to endo.
It would be refreshing if you were able to demonstrate a capacity for admitting that perhaps you have something to learn. I would advise taking a mountain bike class and coupling it with something like the U.K.'s Bikeability or the U.S.A.'s League of American Bicyclists equivalent.
I fear, instead, that you will spend your time hectoring internet strangers about the dangers of bicycle riding based on your own incapacities and incapabilities.
You need a rear brake for two reasons. One is redundancy: if the front brake fails, you want another option, even if it's not quite as good. The other is spreading the braking heat over twice as much surface area on long fast descents. (Some tandems have a third brake for that reason.)
The redundancy point is true. The tandem drum brakes are less to do about heat dissipation than stopping your hands cramp up on a long descent. Often you just actuate the rear drum to provide constant drag on a descent.
For anyone interested, specialist tandem outfitters used to shave off the heat dissipation fins on old-style Arai drum brakes. The point of said brakes was not to dissipate heat, but to stop the tandem. It is true that very old tandems with rim brakes had heat-dissipation problems.
Brakes are not digital - they can be modulated. Front flips happen only to people that are not used to their brake or fully pull the brake lever out of some shock reaction.
I'm riding downhill with my bikes, and I can safely do that with front brake only as long as that thing doesn't overhead. Even things like front-only braking on steep stairs is no problem with the correct body position (not over the front wheel) and brake force applied.
Yup. Same principle for older pre-anti lock brakes on cars, if you lived in a place with regular snowfall, learning not to lock the brakes was considered a basic part of learning to drive.
I have been riding for 15 years without a rear brake and have never come close to going over the front. Not that I would recommend it to other folks, the redundancy argument is valid, but it is not unsafe at all.
People get flipped by the front brake because it is more powerful, they are not used to the stopping power. You have to brace against the handlebars.
It is more powerful because as the bike rocks forward the wheel is pushed into the ground and has more friction with the surface. The rear brake will loose grip under braking because it rises up from the ground. Aggressive braking in the rear is more dangerous because the wheel can lock up and skid, which can send you over the handlebars. The back brake tends to be setup to be more relaxed to stop people doing this. Maybe that is why people think it is safer.
With a bit of practice you can get much better braking force from a front brake. Try it out on some grass, and see how far you take it before the back wheel starts to rise. You will find that you can stop much faster, which will make you safer. Just try it and see.
My personal strategy for front-wheel braking is to apply as little as possible, and "pump" the brakes like you have to do in a pre-ABS car. You're much less likely to flip.
Sounds like your brakes had no modulation or you weren't using them safely. Modern disc brakes eliminate the modulation issue.
Bike brakes aren't a binary system. You can adjust your touch on the brake levers to apply varying levels of friction against the braking surface to shave off speed.
Maybe I just don't know what modulation means, but I figure it's when you pump the brakes to prevent skidding. How do disk brakes eliminate the need for it?
HN wouldn't let me reply yesterday so I edited my response into the parent comment.
Bike brakes aren't a binary system. You can adjust your touch on the brake levers to apply varying levels of friction against the braking surface to shave off speed. Hope this helps!
It’s a consequence of the geometry of a pushbike: The centre of gravity of bike + rider is above the point about which the bike will rotate when braking (The front axle). This means that any braking load will put a torque on the bike that pushes down on the front wheel & lifts the back wheel up. This places a limit on how hard you can brake with the rear brake, i.e. the point at which the upward torque reduces the friction between the rear wheel and the road so that no greater braking force can be applied - at this point the wheel locks & just skids along the road surface.
When you use the front brake, you can brake harder because this torque is pushing the front wheel into the ground. Instead, the limit on front wheel braking is the torque required to toss the rider over the handlebars. This is a function of their weight & how far back behind the saddle they can get their backsides:)
(This second limit means that a car can significantly outbrake a cyclist. Bicycles need more stopping distance than cars do if they need to carry out an emergency stop.)
Ikea's primary brand tenant is their ability to ship and store all of their goods very efficiently because they break down to pack into very flat boxes with little wasted space. For example, a big bookshelf is sold in only flat pieces so the package you leave the store with is the size of a box of cereal. This is how Ikea makes money over their competitors and is able to warehouse huge inventory at their retail locations. Customers also love it because it means you can buy a couch and load it into the back of your small car since it isn't assembled.
In this case I assume it means the bike is disassembled in key places to maintain an extremely low profile and densely packed box.
> This bicycle is powered by a belt drive, which is a rustproof, durable and maintenance-free alternative to a regular chain.
Seems like it's a similar but different system to produce the same outcome. It also says to not oil it, just wash with water. The bike also has no gear cables so it looks like it's designed to minimise maintenance as much as possible and that's a part of it.
It's two gear, so it's not great for inclines, and the belt and frame are less durable. I'm not sure it's worth the money once you learn bicycle maintenance (but you could say that about a lot of IKEA furniture and woodworking/metalworking)
If the belt is like standard belt drives (I need to look further into this, not sure if Ikea cheaped out or not), it should actually stand up to time better than a chain would. Belts are simply carbon cord embedded in a molded casing of nylon and polyurethane, and, more importantly, do not have any moving parts or linkages. It's just a belt! So you don't have to worry about the metal pitting over time or road salt settling in and destroying your drivetrain like you would with a traditional metal chain. This is more important to the European market where bicycle riders my not have cars, but owning a bike that you aren't afraid of taking out in the rain is another benefit of the belt.
My biggest concern though is that like all parts, the belt will fail eventually. A quick look online shows that new belts cost around $250, over half of the retail price of this bike!
Someone mentioned it is a "conti-drive system". Which iirc is one of Continental's belts. Continental is well regarded in the cycling community for making high quality quality kevlar-core tires that withstand a lot of abuse (gator skins) so I'd imagine their belts are fairly good as well.
Nice, good looking out. I assume Ikea isn't about to staff a mechanic for a low-occurance problem for a single product, so I wonder how they will handle warranty for the labor of replacing it.
For a city bike, you could get a chain drive fixie which barely wears at all and only requires some oil every few months, can be repaired easily and is very cheap. Belts last about as long or less as a fixie chain drive with regular oiling.
Belt with two internal gears lasts much longer than a mountain bike 18 speed chain drive, but then you're comparing apples and oranges.
This is a bike designed for the Apple user, basically, except that it seems inexpensive, which is nice. If you never want to think about how a bike works, this seems fine. But my original point was to learn how to maintain a bike.
It says that the frame is powder coated. Powder coating tends to last a lot longer and survive more abuse than paint does. Also its a aluminum frame so it is not going to be rusting either.
Because aluminum is literally less durable than steel alloys, and steel chains are way more durable than belts, with a single speed bike.
If you leave your bike out in the elements and don't maintain it, any parts that do not survive prolonged exposure to heat cycle, water, oxidation, salt, etc will deteriorate. But that isn't even metal durability, that's just plain weather. Any bike will deteriorate outside.
Another downside is aluminum is stiffer than steel, making for a rougher ride unless you add suspension, get softer tires or significantly change geometry.
- Belt drives are great. They're sturdier than chains, cleaner, and something I love, quieter. The angle of the belt doesn't change, the way a chain does, which means you can add a chain guard, as this bike does. Which keeps it yet cleaner. You can ride to work without worrying about grease on your pants.
- Whatever people ride in the Netherlands, a half-decent bike is a lot more pleasant than something slapped together. The gears don't grind, the brakes work, they weigh less--which hardly affects speed, but makes them easier to lug around, take up stairs, etc. Fancy carbon is unnecessary for commuting or about-town, but $500 for a quality bike that will be easy to maintain is reasonable. I speak as someone who has three frankenbikes in the garage--slapping something together is fun, but it's like getting an $800 car. Likely to be a headache.
- That said, bike shops tend to be snobby, and try to get you to buy more than you need. Regular people don't need carbon, or 30 gears, or to spend >$1k.
- It's nice that this is an integrated system. Fenders are great (again, keep you clean), and are often a pain to get on without them rubbing or making noise. Having them built in is a big plus, and makes the price more reasonable. Likewise, the trailer, racks, and bags that are made for this are all reasonably priced, and presumably work together well.
- If there are hills near you, 2 speeds suck--I live in SF and I'd be pushing this thing up hills all day. I'm also not a fan of coaster brakes. But this is a geo/personal thing, ymmv.
- If you're going to order a bike online and want something cheaper, two people in my office bought a Schwinn Discover on Amazon for about $270, and they're great bikes. They came in good shape, partially assembled, but benefitted from my doing a quick tune-up. Even if you paid a shop to do that for $50, still a lot cheaper than the Ikea bike, which itself could probably use some fine-tuning.