356
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
356 points (97.6% liked)
Fuck Cars
9803 readers
87 users here now
This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.
This community exists for the following reasons:
- to raise awareness around the dangers, inefficiencies and injustice that can come from car dependence.
- to allow a place to discuss and promote more healthy transport methods and ways of living.
You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.
Rules
-
Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.
-
No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.
-
Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.
-
No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.
-
No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.
-
No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.
-
No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.
Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
UCI compliance only dominates the very narrow range of racing road bikes and gravel bikes. It has no bearing on utility cycling, because bikes made for utility are not made to UCI standards.
And since we were talking about aero...it also has little bearing on bikes made for time trialling, since although there are UCI rules for TT bikes, the majority of bikes made for time trialling are sold to triathletes, who are not governed by the UCI.
I didn't mean that all bikes sold were UCI compliant as directly as that. The market has focused on pursuing a fairly narrow definition of performance for a bike in part because of the narrow definitions of racing cycling. That's had knock on effects for the type of components that have been focussed on and developed. The near ubiquity of diamond frames over recumbents which prioritise comfortably for example.
I think we have seen that effect lesson over the last decade or so (e.g. belt drives for example). Ebikes help as they have very different markets, need different properties and have by definition no need to overlap with UCI compliance at all.
Of course its quite hard to unpick the other factors that have led the market to be cater so strongly to leisure market over the utility market but the UCI I think is up there in setting a cultural standard for what a bike is at the cost to alternatives.
The thing is, recumbents are available. Both for casual riding and for racing. I see them around from time to time. And other frame designs have been tried, too. Look at triathlon bikes, where designs have been tried removing the top tube, the seat tube, the seat stay, the down tube, or some combination of those.
I don't think recumbents have taken off because they actually aren't very good to ride. They're great if your goal is to go as fast as possible with as little energy, on relatively flat and straight courses. But they're awkward going up hill, don't go around corners as nicely, are a little more difficult in situations where you need to stop-start a lot, and are less visible in traffic. Recumbent trikes might help with that stop-start issue, but probably make it worse with steering through narrow entries and around tight corners.
The variant TT designs just don't provide any real advantage for normal people, and even the supposed advantage to professional triathletes is marginal at best.
The diamond frame just happens to be a really, really good design. That's why variants on it are used on everything from TT bikes (well, the majority of them) to the Dutch step-through bike.
Being available in a niche market isn't the same as being affordable because its a mass product. There's more use-cases then you outline: they are particularly good for those with certain types of disabilities. You are right that mixing with traffic is another key reason why they arent as popular. There's a reason you see them most commonly in areas with decent segregated infrastructure. Personally I have a DF for some of the reasons you outline. My point wasn't all about the frame though that was just an example, its also true of the focus at component level where R&D has not prioritised low-cost low-maintance options because the high-cost high-performance market was more lucrative and that stems from in part from the direction performance cycling took.