My Bike Is My Car

When you buy a car, no matter how old or cheap, you can be sure it will come with front and rear lights, rear view and side mirrors, a horn, a trunk, windshield wipers, bumpers, and some kind of internal temperature control and ventilation system, if not air conditioning. You can expect that the car will also have a key that locks the doors, providing some protection from theft.

When you buy a bike, new or used, it is rare that it comes with lights, lock, rack, horn or bell, mirror, fenders, mud flap, and certainly not wipers. You’re guaranteed a nice ventilation system, however!

Of course, there are some good reasons why bikes are generally not offered with any of these added conveniences and accessories. But there are some bad reasons, too. Eventually, I’ll get around to discussing both kinds of reasons.

Bicycle manufacturers, distributors and dealers do market bikes that they call “commuter” or “commute bikes”. These bikes are generally not suitable, however, for someone interested in bicycling for transportation. First of all, most of these “commute bikes” are made with inferior components and are simply not very reliable for everyday use. Secondly, although these bikes may have some nice bells and whistles appropriate for bicycle transportation, such as a chain guard, rack, bell, in some cases even lights, the bikes are often not equipped in an ideal manner for more than occasional, 20 minute rides. Here are a few of the things I’ve noticed about the so-called “commuter bikes” on the market.

• they are often heavy and slow, when the frames are steel, or light in ways that don’t handle well the bumps of the road when the frame is aluminum
• the saddles are often big and padded, designed to appeal to the rider seeking “comfort”. However, most riders who intend to stay in the saddle for more than 20 minutes per ride, twice a day, will find that these bigger, fatter, padded saddles are in fact LESS comfortable than a slimmer, harder seat. Furthermore, I’ve noticed that some of the cushioned saddles soak up water like a sponge when it rains. Can you imagine hopping on to your bike to ride home from work in the afternoon and being unpleasantly reminded of the fact that it rained for 2 hours between 1 and 3 pm that day.
• The upright position of many of the bikes that get the label “commute” is generally a good thing, I think. Being more upright allows you to be more alert to what’s going on around you on the road: other cars, obstacles on the road in front of you , etc. It’s a less aerodynamic position, but it also seems to be more relaxing for many riders than the drop bars of a traditional road bike. Moreover, rarely have I seen urban commuters actually use the lower portion of their drop bars while riding for transportation. In part this is because the more upright position of flat bars and other types of bars (moustache, for example) often allows easier and quicker access to the brakes, absolutely essential when riding in an urban or suburban context. For this reason, I think, most commute bikers that I see with traditional drop bars have their brakes hiked up high on the bars and ride the brake pads on top of the bars, ready at any moment to hit the brakes. This is how I rode for many years.
• Although I like the idea of a chain guard and some of the other built-in amenities of the fancier “commute bikes”, it seems that the disadvantage often is that one does not have easy access for repairs. Sort of like the new cars with their built-in computer systems, home (or on-the-road) repairs can be more difficult with a chain guard, a built-in light system or some of fancy gear and brake system that come with some of these bikes. On the other hand, it may be true that less is likely to go wrong and therefore less maintenance and repairs are needed.
• I must go back, however, to my first point: many of these bikes are just not very quick. I and just about everyone I’ve talked to who uses a bike for transportation more than, say 8 miles a day, appreciates being able to get some speed, accelerate quickly, and move along at a good clip. Most transportation bikers, I gather, want the exercise and the speed. They are generally not stopping to smell the roses while riding home from work, hungry and tired on a dark, wet autumn evening or hustling to get to a class or appointment 35 minutes away with a little extra time to towel off or change clothes where they arrive. This is, I believe, one of the main reasons why most bikes labeled as “commuters” are not appropriate to actual commuters. Yes, having the rack is nice, if not essential, but it is always possible to put a rack on any other kind of bike, even a racing bike without eyelets on the frame to attach a rack (my Bianchi Alfana road bike does not have anywhere to attach a rack except the seat post. For four years I transported every day a great many books, laptop, extra clothes and lunch on panniers attached to Topeak rack attached only to my seat post. Although not ideal, it certainly can work.)

The problem becomes clearer when we consider the alternatives to these so-called “commute bikes”. Currently, the market offers mostly aluminum frame bikes (of all sorts) mixed in with some steel frames and a great many high-performance carbon frames. We have mountain bikes of all levels and kinds, hybrid bikes (often similar to the “commute” bikes), entry-level road bikes and super high performance road bikes. I’ve even seen Raleigh make an attempt now to meet the growing fashion of “fixie” bikes by offering something between the kind of typical fixed-gear bike one sees on the streets of San Francisco and a bike set up for moderate-to-light transportation use. There are bikes for serious sport riders, for trail riders, for Sunday-in-the-park-with-the-family riders, for occasional errands (the “commute” bikes) and short, weekend rides on bike paths (the hybrids). There are what Craigslist sellers call “campus bikes”, cheap wheels that will get you from your dorm to the gym while carrying a backpack. The cyclocross bikes are apparently designed to be used on trails like mountain bikes as well as asphalt like a road bike. Then there are the single speeds and fixed gears that are often used by serious transportation bikers as well as bike-crazy recreationists and even as a simple, clean minimalist townie bike. I don’t want to forget the touring bikes: frames that are ready to take lots of weight and carry it over long hauls, keeping the rider fairly comfortable in the saddle over long distances and loaded-down.

Lots of bikes for lots of uses. What I don’t see, however, is a group of bikes ideally set up for serious day-to-day, year-round transportation: the bike that can replace the car in American urban and suburban life. Where is the bike that is fast, compact and dynamic, yet ready to take the kinds of loads and abuse of a touring bike? Quick yet stable, softening the bumps of the road? Designed for comfort over a period of 15 to 1.5 hours in the saddle several times a day? Designed to take full-size of groceries home at night, but quickly? Not so expensive that you would shed a tear when the frame gets scraped while riding the train or bus? Not so expensive that its glitter catches the eye of thieves like the smell of carrion for hyenas? Not so cheap that everyday use will push your luck and soon you will find yourself on the side of the road in the rain because some ridiculously cheap Made-in-China component has failed? Where is the frame that has clearance for fenders AND toe clips; designed to hold a sturdy rack and heavy bags AND reach high velocity; takes fat commute tires without sacrificing speed and agility?

In other words, the question that keeps coming up is: Why haven’t bicycle manufacturers and dealers responded to the need for good transportation bikes? Why do they make it so difficult for someone to get the essentials together for safe, comfortable but fast and firm transportation?