Why don't modern bikes need less maintenance?

[tyred]

My 1951 Rudge:

Rudge Roadster by braveheart1979, on Flickr

Note the fully enclosed chain, the fully enclosed gear system, the oil ports on the hubs/bb, the fully enclosed dynamo lighting system and the sensible width, low pressure tyres for riding on real world road surfaces. A low maintenance and highly practical bicycle suitable for commuting, utility riding and even lightweight touring, suitable for pretty much anything except racing, but how many cyclists actually race?

Unfortunately nobody sells bikes like this in this country nowadays as people are too obsessed with weight and fashion. A bike shop would struggle to sell a bike like my Rudge today due to the obsession with weight and fashion even though it is the most suitable type of bike for the majority of cyclists. It is heavy, but once you get a bike like this moving, it maintains momentum and isn't difficult to ride at all if the gear ratios are chosen correctly.

 

[nickyboy]

Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sort of half way house between the charming Rudge Roadster and the modern, fully exposed drivetrain bikes?
I do think that there is a shift in your typical bike customer taking place. More and more middle class, middle aged blokes (like me I suppose) who aren't used to fettling, cleaning, lubing every couple of rides in the winter. They're used to buying something, using it and that's it.
Interesting that the question now seems to be why is the take up in these low maintenance solutions so low? Does the public get what the public wants or the public want what the public gets? (thanks for that one Paul Weller)

 

[Cycleops]

They have got considerably heavier over the years.

Multi valve engines, abs systems, additional soundproofing, bigger wheels and tyres, bigger brakes, air bags, bigger seats.....this list goes on and on. The difference between a Mk1 and Mk7 Golf is about 200kg.

In you hadn't noticed it is a physically much bigger car. It is simply not in the interest of manufacturers to make them heavier in the quest for much improved fuel consumption.

 

[400bhp]

yup
http://www.thyssenkrupp.com/en/bildstrecke/3/

But more generally, cars, washing machines, televisions, watches, whatever....all are becoming much more reliable, requiring less maintenance. I'm not sure that's happening with bikes. Perhaps the fundamentals of bike design had already been perfected years ago and this is as good as it's going to get?

I'm not sure why you have posted that link.

Cars have got heavier with stuff around the chassis, not necessarily the chassis itself.

 

[Linford]

In you hadn't noticed it is a physically much bigger car. It is simply not in the interest of manufacturers to make them heavier in the quest for much improved fuel consumption.

It needs to be bigger to put all the kit in it, and conform to the EuroNcap standards

I forgot to mention, side impact beams, roof pillars much stronger, bigger crumple zones, catalytic converters, more convoluted routing of exhaust pipes....alll takes more space.

 

[tyred]

The traditional roadster could be lightened considerably at the manufacturing stage without too much effort. Alloy rims, stem, bars and chainset, a light alloy, PVC or canvas chaincase, lighter plastic mudguards and light fittings and lighter gauge steel tubing (the frame on a 28" wheeled roadster is made form very heavy gauge tubing, few people need a bike that strong. This was a relic from the days of unsurfaced roads prior to WW1).

An interesting experiment is to take a lugged steel lightweight road frame and build it with alloy North Road bars, hub gear, wider rims/tyres and fit a hockey stick chainguard and effectively have something that looks like a real roadster but is considerably lighter and nicer to ride.

 

[400bhp]

It needs to be bigger to put all the kit in it, and conform to the EuroNcap standards

I forgot to mention, side impact beams, roof pillars much stronger, bigger crumple zones, catalytic converters, more convoluted routing of exhaust pipes....alll takes more space.

sound deadening, ICE, satnav, etc etc.....

And, although on the surface cars may seem like they need less maintenance, when they do it is more than likely they will need to be plugged into a £20k machine and require a mechanic to service.

The car industry, in my opinion, have purposefully (or at the least, not been interested in it) made cars more difficult to service and maintain.

 

[Licramite]

I think the crux of the matter is , the bicycle of today hasn't changed in its mechanism for over 100years - see the safety bike 1890? (earlier think) - were as the car has moved on a bit since the model T.

the whole drive mechanism could be hydralic and practicly friction less with very few working parts. , the whole frame could be one peice. it comes down to commercial drive to change. bikes are a bit iconic and realively cheep. - bsically theres not enough money in it to make it worth while.

 

[lulubel]

These things you mention are available throughout Europe, but they are not "cool" in the UK..
Blame it on the Armstrongs and Wiggins of this world, unfortunately our cycle industry, national press and opinion formers would have us believe that we should be following the examples set by the pros and be flying about the place at high speed ignoring the fact that pro sport cyclists have a back up team keeping their bikes in tip top condition regardless of expense, and the pros don't carry their work clothes in their panniers or tow a dog in a trailer behind them.

They're also less suited to the UK than to the flatter countries where they tend to be more popular. (The focus here in Spain, the second most mountainous country in Europe, is also on keeping weight down.)

There's also the difference that the majority of cyclists in the UK (and again, this is the same in Spain) use their bikes for fun and leisure rather than utility purposes. If I needed my bike for transport, rather than choosing to use it in preference to the alternatives, I'd probably look for something that needed less maintenance, and accept that it would be heavier. In countries where it's the cultural norm to use bikes for utility instead of/as well as leisure, it makes sense that people tend to choose lower maintenance options.

 

[palinurus]

If there was a commuter bike out there with a full chaincase- i'm thinking a structural chaincase such that the rear wheel can be attached from one side only for easy (although still rare- I'd have excellent tyres of course) puncture repair, really low maintenance brakes- hubs maybe, I suspect disks probably require a bit more work to keep them going, plus fitted dynamo lighting I'd have it. Burrows 2D was pretty close.

I don't mind working on bikes (I do cyclocross sometimes) but I really dislike having to tinker with my everyday bike on a fairly regular basis.

I am on the lookout for an old bike with a chaincase for local trips, I wouldn't commute on it because of puncture repair faff.

 

[lulubel]

My 1951 Rudge

That Rudge is a lovely bike. If I had the time and money to spend on them (and the space to keep and work on them) I'd be totally into classic bikes.

 

[snorri]

There's also the difference that the majority of cyclists in the UK (and again, this is the same in Spain) use their bikes for fun and leisure rather than utility purposes..

This is only because the government transport policy has been skewed towards private motoring and away from public transport and cycling for the last fifty years, including planning policies which require people to use cars to gain access to many facilities.

 

[tyred]

I am on the lookout for an old bike with a chaincase for local trips, I wouldn't commute on it because of puncture repair faff.

Puncture resistant tyres

You won't get too many punctures on the Raleigh branded roadster tyres anyway. They are very thick and heavy.

 

[Crankarm]

Lets not get onto an anti car rant. The car has been tremendously benficial and liberating to individuals to pursue opportunities and increase quality of life, for them and family, time saving as well. As much as bikes are a brilliant low cost and low impact means of transport they are only part of the many ways of getting around. I hate having to continually clean and lube what ever bike I am commuting on, but for the times I use my car which is daily I know I don't have to put in the same level of cleaning or maintenance that I do my bikes which currently have open to the elements transmissions. Even my Brompton needs regular cleaning an lubing despite being a hub gear. I would love a hub gear such as Rohloff with a full chain guard or with a belt drive and guard to keep off the crud. Also disc brakes but I already have these on my MTB/commuter which are so much more reliable and low maintenance than rim brakes, plus they work whatever the weather. There are proper commuting bikes low maintenance bikes but they are tend to be more pricey than the normal dross that can be bought. It depends whether cyclists will only be riding in summer or in all weathers through out the year 7 days a week. There are enough threads on here showing how unprepared many cyclists are for the conditions eg ice and snow. Strangely car drivers are no different refusing to purchase show or winter tyres and make do with summer tyres on their £30k Audi or BMW, preferring instead to spend £3k on a flat screen TV.

 

[tyred]

I think the biggest issue is the derailleur gearing. I live in a rural area and the roads are usually wet and muddy and I find I can't be bothered riding my derailleur equipped bikes anymore as I can't be bothered cleaning them. I haven't rode any of my geared road bikes since last August.

I built an old skip rescue gaspipe touring frame with a 3 speed hub and have covered about 1,500 miles on it over the winter and love it. When the chain looks dirty, I pull it off (traditional cir-clip type joining link, takea few seconds) and soak in diesel, dry and soak in warm engine oil and I do that about every 3 months and rarely do anything else with it, just like the cycle manuals of the 1920s recommended. No sign of any chain stretch so far.