Neither co-optin nor hatin.

August 16, 2008 8:41 AM

Looking for a commuting bike for San Francisco. I have about $1000 to spend and am considering a single speed. Details on that, plus my commute, inside. (And yes, I have seen this and this.

I usually commute 3-4 miles each way (Mission to Embarcadero) and often take longer rides to get to appointments in the Avenues. My rides are mostly flat (viva The Wiggle!) and I usually ride in the highest/hardest gear. Like a good 90% of the time.

I want a new bike that is lighter (my budget Lexa 1000 gets pretty heavy when carrying in and out of BART and the bus terminal), and I'm attracted to the ease-of-maintenance for the single-speed. I'm thinking about getting a Bianchi San Jose. (The 2009s have straight handlebars!) Is that ridiculous, to want a single-speed in San Francisco? What if I do end up riding hills? Will I hate it, or do I just need to develop the skill? What if I decide I want to start joining some group rides?

I'm also considering a road bike like the Surly Long Haul Trucker.

Other suggestions--for single-speed or geared bikes that are great for an SF commute?

posted by liketitanic to travel & transportation (24 comments total)

It sounds like you are bringing it on buses and trains. How about a folding bicycle?
posted by crios at 9:11 AM on August 16, 2008

I'm a single speed devotee, but I ride on Chicago's flat streets. Even though your regular route maybe mostly flat, I would worry that a single gear may limit your freedom to go wherever in the city that you wanted.

So I would lean more toward a geared bike.

I do like the San Jose for the sole reason that it's about the only single speed specific frame out there with canti brake bosses. Whether you set it up with canti or v-brakes it makes for a good commuter - the brakes have incredible stopping power, and allow for fat tires and all sorts of fenders and racks.

I also really like the Long Haul Trucker, but if you want the flexibility to build up a single speed or a geared bike, check out Surly's Cross Check. It's a versatile frame with horizontal dropouts.

Seriously though, you need more than one bike.
posted by wfrgms at 9:13 AM on August 16, 2008

I would NOT have a fixie as my main bike if I lived in the SF area. First, because I'm old and lazy. But mainly because I would want to use the same bike for commuting, for riding anywhere in SF proper, and for some nice weekend rambles in Marin and wine country.

So, the Surly, or equivalent might be a good overall choice. I share Surly's endorsement of steel frames - they are a great combination of strength, responsiveness and economy. If weight is paramount, though, you might have to go to aluminum.

Another option, and something I like doing, is to buy the best USED bikes I can find. A 5 or 10 year-old good bike may go for 15 to 40 % of a new bike, yet still be a great ride. For your $1000 budget, I bet you could buy, all used:
- a decent geared road bike
- a mountain bike for Mt Tam
- AND a fixie (or another road bike to convert to a fixie)
posted by Artful Codger at 9:18 AM on August 16, 2008

Oh yeah, if you absolutely want one of the lightest bike out there, check out Trek's T1. I just test rode one and I have to say the thing is light as a feather - maybe 16lbs or so. Felt's Tk2 is supposedly lighter, but I haven't seen one yet.

Both bikes are bling-bling and would need to be secured heavily wherever you take them. Also, they both have really high gear ratios, so you'd probably want to swap cogs and rings around a bit to make them street worthy.
posted by wfrgms at 9:37 AM on August 16, 2008

Count me in as a fixie opposer as well. You said that you'll be riding mostly flat and a fixie is just fine for that but those times you go on hills you're really gonna want gears. I've never really understood the whole fixie craze, yea it's easier to maintain but next time you're pedaling up a hill that's not gonna matter. I guess I'm kinda turned off to it b/c all the hipsters in my town ride fixies (and also wear really tight black pants). And definetly don't spend 1000 on one bike, especially if it's going to be a fixie.
posted by BrnP84 at 9:39 AM on August 16, 2008

You could totally build yourself up a fixie for <$100 using local resources such as a community bike shop, or smart craigslist shopping!
posted by SirStan at 9:49 AM on August 16, 2008

I see plenty of fixed-gear riders in SF, but personally I like gears. I like the freedom of going up the ste-e-e-e-pest hills when I want (Market to North Beach, the hard way). My bike of choice is a Trek 7500FX - it's a hybrid, which means it has road components but more of a city/touring geometry.
posted by zippy at 9:55 AM on August 16, 2008

Seconding the Surly Crosscheck. I ride one that I've built up over the years, and it's an amazing, flexible, and bomb-proof bicycle.

Oh, and I'm faster on it than anyone else on the roads in Boston -- or at least, I feel that way. :)
posted by ellF at 10:24 AM on August 16, 2008

Well, I was just nearly run over by three guys on fixies as I was walking back from getting bacon donuts, so I oppose them.

Seriously: a geared bike will give you more flexibility in routes. (I'm trying to figure out how you get out to the Aves without climbing (a) hill(s).) It will also still let you ride to work or wherever even if you're really tired, hungover, or, say, have sore knees - you can take some of the pressure off by riding in an easier gear. There are certainly plenty of people riding fixies in this city - and I see some of them walking their bikes up hills that they wouldn't have to walk up if they had a geared bike.
posted by rtha at 10:36 AM on August 16, 2008

Do you bring your bike inside during the day? If not, I would recommend getting the cheapest good bike you can.

I ride your same commute and while that would be perfect, I can't imagine doing the wiggle on a fixie without cursing or killing my knees.
posted by bottlebrushtree at 10:42 AM on August 16, 2008

You could totally build yourself up a fixie for <>

The money you save building a sub-$100 fixed gear bike will be quickly lost to your health insurance co-pay when you strip your converted hub back-peddling before flying over your "flipped and chopped" road bars after you lock down your single front brake trying to avoid a surprise pot-hole. Don't be that guy.

Also, don't listen to anyone who uses the word "fixie" unless you're asking where the nearest vintage clothing store is.

Hipsters die every day on their ratty thrift-store conversions. Spend the money on a real bike.
posted by wfrgms at 10:48 AM on August 16, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

wfrgms and Artful Codger: I'll have a couple bikes after I buy: the nice one and a beater or two. Can't do much more--not much space here. Plus I won the money in a writing contest and so wouldn't mind splashing out.

rtha: Have you done the Wiggle? Ride it up to the Panhandle and through the park, then into the Avenues. The grades are really fine--I rode out to 46th and Judah on my highest gear.
posted by liketitanic at 11:13 AM on August 16, 2008

I have a Surly Cross Check set up as a fixed gear utility bike, with racks, fenders and a bell. It's a good ride and a great bargain for the price. It rides fast when I want it to ride fast, and riding with panniers loaded full of groceries -- even when only on one side -- is totally controllable and easy. Climbing hills, you probably realize by now, is easier on a fixed gear than on a single speed or even many multigear bikes.

My caveat is that even if you can push high gears easily, you'll be punishing your knees. It'll catch up to you eventually. If you're going to ride singlespeed or fixed, try setting up a low gear like 42-17.

I'm currently in the process of setting up a Kogswell as a fixed gear and decommissioning the Cross Check -- some time over the winter the XC will be rebuilt as a conventional go-faster multigear bike.

And oh yeah, put a front brake on that fixie. Or two if it's single-speed.
posted by ardgedee at 12:30 PM on August 16, 2008

The primary advantage of the XC over the LHT, as I understand it, is the XC is a bit lighter and has quicker steering. The XC sounds more appropriate to your riding style and situation, although I doubt you'll suffer in the slightest with an LHT.
posted by ardgedee at 12:33 PM on August 16, 2008

I haven't done the Wiggle, though looking at the link, I realize that I do know what it is. Pretty flat, yeah.

(I'm probably the worst person to give advice on bikes, since I wrecked my knees but good years ago and biking is pretty much out for me. But back when I did ride pretty much everywhere on various types of bikes, I learned to appreciate the range of options that were available to me when I was on a multiple-gear bike that didn't weigh six tons. YMMV.)
posted by rtha at 12:33 PM on August 16, 2008

Or even better than trying to find a single gear ratio that's perfect, use a Surly Dingle to give yourself a cruising gear and a climbing gear.
posted by ardgedee at 12:39 PM on August 16, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I love some fixed gear bikes, but San Francisco and environs are so beautiful that it would be a shame to be struggling uphill when you could be spinning away. Surly LHT, Cross-Check or even Cassaroll. I have no problem going on group rides on my fixed gear bikes but there are times (terrain, distance) when shifting is just way more fun. Also, I never have a problem climbing hills in 42x16 or 42x17, and we have some short but very steep hills in Southeastern PA. Spinning your ass off on a long downhill, not so much fun.
posted by fixedgear at 1:24 PM on August 16, 2008

it worries me that you're riding in your highest gear all the time. unless it's much lower than your average bike's top gear, you're pedalling way to slow and possibly damaging your knees. having lived through crunchy, frequently-locking (from overuse, but not cycling) knees in my teens (they're fine now), i beg you not to underestimate the misery that a pair of crappy knees will cause you, nor how easy it is to get them. i was lucky that i got them so early and was able to recover completely, but i suspect that if the same happened again, i'd be done for.

go with gears and spin.
posted by klanawa at 4:33 PM on August 16, 2008

klanawa, I spin on flats if it's not geared up. I don't ride in high gear to test myself--it's the most efficient and fastest for that bike.
posted by liketitanic at 5:03 PM on August 16, 2008

If you're traveling between the Embarcadero, the Mission, and occasionally the Avenues, a single-speed sounds fine. There are bike lanes on Market, Howard, and Folsom, and Mission itself has recently been repaved with buttery-smooth asphalt for an easy ride. The Wiggle as you know is a breeze. So no, I don't think it's crazy to get one - when I switched to a single-speed two years ago I spent a few months riding my mountain bike on a single gear to see how it felt, and it was never a problem.

The two things that make that one gear doable are clips/cages on your pedals for hill-climbing, and the fact that your legs will start getting stronger within a month or two. SF is only a hilly city if you need to go to places that have hills, and a lot of the time that's manageable by getting off and walking for a block or two. It's no fun being that goofball spinning your pedals around on a steep incline, just get off and walk.

I liked the Bianchi when I test-drove it. Here are the other ones I tried, here's what I went with, and here's what I spend a bunch of time on now. The nice thing about that last one, a 1980's Univega road bike converted to a fixed-gear, is that it can take a rack on the back for shopping and carrying things, and the stripped-down steel frame is still reasonably light.

The main thing that really makes a bike feel manageable around SF is that you can comfortably sling it over your shoulder, regardless of weight. A light-but-awkward bike is going to present you with a lot more trouble than a heavy one that you can easily tote. I see people on BART all the time with those folding Dahon bikes, and although it's great that they let them on the trains during rush hour they seem to struggle with them a bit on the stairs.
posted by migurski at 5:44 PM on August 17, 2008

I usually ride in the highest/hardest gear. Like a good 90% of the time.

Here is a detailed discussion about Cadence, but the take away message is spin faster than 90rpm, and save your knees.
(you'll soon be able to go a lot faster too)

Everything else I know about buying a bike was just posted here (aimed at inexpensive bikes, so it won't be too useful for a $1000 budget).
posted by Chuckles at 8:32 PM on August 17, 2008

Just a quick note to say that single speed does not necessarily mean fixed gear.
posted by electroboy at 6:33 AM on August 18, 2008

Just a quick note to say that single speed does not necessarily mean fixed gear.

Thanks, eb. The Bianchi San Jose is NOT a fixed gear bike. I didn't say I wanted one. I also appreciate, but did not ask for, advice about how I cycle.
posted by liketitanic at 8:43 AM on August 18, 2008

I think a single-speed is definitely doable in the city, but having switched from an enormously heavy three-speed bike that might as well have been single-speed because of its uselessness on hills to a used ten-speed road bike I really appreciate the flexibility I have with planning my route. Some cool places in SF are just plain on top of a hill, and it's nice to know you can get to them without getting off your bike and walking. You can always leave your bike in one gear to get the single-speed experience, too - unless I'm biking up a steep hill I rarely end up shifting.

As a last bit of advice, if you do wind up with an expensive bike it would not be a bad idea to uglify it. One thing that make me really reluctant to spend over $500 on a (used) bike is my constant paranoia about theft. Most of my friends who live in SF have had at least one bike stolen during their residency here.
posted by whir at 1:45 PM on August 19, 2008