Anyone know of some bikes that would be good for a college kid

>>1088360
A walmart bike

>>1088360
if you want a good bike with more than one speed its gonna be at least 400

>>1088360
>Anyone know of some bikes that would be good for a college kid to use frequently, about 15 miles per day/five days a week, that doesn't cost a fucking fortune?
90s rigid mtb from craigslist

>>1088366
My realistic limit is maybe like 500, like the one in the picture above is like 490, but I'm talking about great bikes that don't cost a shit ton (e.g 750, 1,200, 2,000)

>>1088375
Did it cross your fucking mind why you are riding 15 miles a day? It's for some sort of economic advantage. Mostly likely because you're a poorfag.
If not being a poorfag was easy and bikes were available to every schmuck on the road, do you think they cost that much?

If you want a good bike and you don't want to be a faggot, consider a cost benefit analysis. You will be saving at least 10 dollars a day in gas and car maintenance by riding your bike instead. That, over a year, is 250 bucks in expenditure that you won't have anything physical to show for it.

Spend some money on a decent, frugal bike and you'll at least have a physical asset to pass on later.

I got a belt driven three speed internal hub because I went for the muh no maintenance for $200 used. It's cool but in hindsight I never realized how much I hated having a coaster brake and I bought too much into not getting grease on my leg by going for a belt. I vote for old mountain bike with road tires.

>>1088360
And remember than any bike chain needs regular lube

And with at least a front brake.

>>1088428
>muh no maintenance
Until enough dirt gets stuck.

>internal hub
Is it at least a Rohloff?

> a coaster brake
Can't you install a front brake?

>>1088411
If not mistaken, avg. US. annual cost of car is $9k. Borne by owner, society is the one who pays the majority. $4k is on the frugal/smart end. Insurance would be $1400/yr alone for me, 23 y.o. male.

There are generally better uses for $4k/yr, but let us not forget that this generation is pretty poor and the $4k often isn't there to begin with.

Summary: even a $2000 bike is pretty cheap relative to alternatives. Operating cost is peanuts. Used bike is a good way to go. $150 for bike and $250 for parts (perhaps not all at once) will take you a very long way.

>>1088360
>Anyone know of some bikes that would be good for a college kid to use frequently, about 15 miles per day/five days a week, that doesn't cost a fucking fortune?

Go around checking yard sales for a cheap used bike, you moron? How about you give us basic info like what state/country you're in and your budget?

>>1088428
>coaster brake
I'll vouch for them here. At first it seemed ineffective and dangerous compared to normal braking. But once you apply the pedals in the position it is quite powerful and not much less effective than a front brake. You can control it too with a decent coaster brake, it's not 100% guaranteed to lock the wheel unless you totally slam it. It is much better than what fixie riders do. Wet weather and dirt are never a problem and your rims will last longer. Also the hubs are SILENT unlike noisy freewheel hubs.

>>1088641
coasters are the best breaks except for mountain biking. for mountain biking you need disks. the coasters are not good for prolonged breaking they will overheat and cook the grease. but they are pretty much zero maintenance and very reliable and sturdy for city use.

>>1088439
Nope, Shimano nexus 3. I already installed a front brake, but I still find it annoying that I cant set my crank position at a stop. It hasn't quite become habit to do so while moving before a stop.

>>1088641
Well from what I understand the coaster brake is pretty much only useful on flat terrain and you can cook it on downhills...which there are plenty of in San Francisco, so I didn't quite think that one through if that does happen to be true.

>>1088641
>not much less effective than a front brake.
Ah, so the laws of physics are somehow unraveled. Anon, you fucking turbotard.

File: sassy.jpg (48KB, 500x662px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x662px

>>1088641
>not much less effective than a front brake

the shit you read on 4chan

>>1088667
>>1088663
You can still stop within an adequate distance with a rear brake despite the weight transfer to the front wheel. BMX/dirt jumper bikes have only rear disc/canti brakes and somehow they are desirable and ok for extreme speeds, but everyone acts like rear coaster brakes are useless and deadly to ride at like 10 mph on flat ground. Meanwhile fixie retards ride with no actual brakes but at least their hipster cred saves them.

>>1088719

This is entirely wrong in every way.

>>1088719
>brake with even less control and modulation
>i-i-its ok because bmx autists d-don't have front brakes for their e-e-xtreme speeds!

please get a tripcode so we can more easily identify your fucking hilarious stupidity

>>1088719
>has obviously never ridden a DJ

>>1088719
>You can still stop within an adequate distance with a rear brake despite the weight transfer to the front wheel.
Were you dropped as a baby or did you come out this way?
>BMX/dirt jumper
And speedway riders don't have brakes at all. I guess the moral of the story is that what often works on a closed track/course isn't at all comparable to traffic conditions. Brakeless fixie riders need to go die in a fire too, but at least they don't pretend that their stoppie brakes are 'not much less effective than a front brake'. That's you.
There is only one person so ignorant, delusional and down-right retarded at to make that claim. We're all looking at you. With disgust.

>>1088663
hmm i think you are mixing up shit.
when you use both brakes 75% of the braking power comes from the front break and only 25% from the rear break.

but when you only use the rear break 100% of the breaking power comes from the rear break. it will be of course only 50% of the breaking power of two breaks total since you only have one wheel you apply it to unless you know you have a more grippy and wide rear wheel with bigger contact patch than the guy with the two breaks in which case you might even exceed his breaking power.

i had these weird bastard """bmx""" imitation bikes with the big knobby baloney tires and coaster breaks as a kid. i could stop faster with them than any fagget with any other bike. basically in 2 meters from full speed the tire got chewed up fast sure but i didn't care back then.

>>1088785
oh and one more thing. traction is finite. it will be divided by different vectors. if you have to steer the bike while you break this causes some problems. and to further complicate things there is suspension. a front suspension will totally change the game traction wise. while you would be better advised to lean back use the rear break and steer with the front wheel without a suspension fork with a suspension fork it's better if you put weight on the front wheel use it to break and steer (preferably either at one time) as it will have better traction on uneven ground on a hardtail. full sus may change this again but i never ridden one.

>>1088785
>but when you only use the rear break 100%
> it will be of course only 50% of the breaking power of two breaks
25% at most.

A rear tire loses traction far quicker than a front tire during braking.

>>1088360
Just ask any heroin or amphetamine addict.

>>1088798
>A rear tire loses traction far quicker than a front tire during braking.

Why?

>>1088801
Because mass is sluggish.

The bike may be going slower but my body is still travelling at the same speed, since I have my hands on the handlebar my body basically presses forwards putting more weight on the front tires.
Since friction is directly proportional with weight the front tire will have a lot more traction than my rear tire.

During braking there's a lot less weight on the rear tire than the front tire.
So the rear tire loses traction faster.

>>1088783
Do some actual real world testing. (You) are looking at me with disgust. Get a grip.
>>1088798
This is true. However it is not usually as dangerous to lose control of the rear end. Most small children that can balance without training wheels manage it just fine. In very low traction conditions the rear brake is safer.

It is also true that the modulation is far worse than a hand brake, but you usually stop without skidding. For long downhill slopes they are pretty tough to manage and may overheat.

>>1088801
he is an idiot don't listen to him. it all depends on where your mass is placed if you push out your ass like you should most of the breaking power will come from the rear wheel if you lean forward most will come from the front wheel.
like i said here >>1088789
, suspension changes things it only applies to rigids.

>>1088806
>During braking there's a lot less weight on the rear tire than the front tire.
my opinion you are doing it wrong. but at least you do seem to understand basic physics. you just suck at breaking. ride a bike that only has a rear break for a while you will learn fast.

File: cyclist-cycling-road-bicycle-silhouette-one-white-background-41472555.jpg (136KB, 1300x1064px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1300x1064px

>>1088808
And you still can't stop as fast as when you had a front or front+rear brake.

>>1088810
>where your mass is placed
And your own mass is still going to move forwards putting extra weight on the front tires.

>most of the breaking power will come from the rear wheel

This goes against any conventional wisdom.

>>1088812
Do you have a 4 foot dildo sticking out of your ass with a weight attached on the end?

Or are you sitting on the luggage rack of a granny bike?

Tell me in pic related how far his ass has to stick out before there's going to be more weight on the back wheel than on the front wheel during braking.

Or are you just trying to troll people into getting an accident when they lose traction and front end a lorry?

>>1088806
So on a bike with upright position and coaster brake, those Holland style ones, the rear brake should provide good stopping power since most of your weight lies on the rear wheel?

File: ass-out-back.jpg (90KB, 520x720px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 520x720px

>>1088814
>And you still can't stop as fast as when you had a front or front+rear brake.
i did a lot of emergency stops with a coaster, you turn momentum into angular momentum like with skates. fastest way to stop a bike really.
>And your own mass is still going to move forwards putting extra weight on the front tires.
no your mass is moving backwards before you even go heavy on the breaks and stays back.
>This goes against any conventional wisdom.
it really isn't most people are just ignorant. but it's true suspension changes the bike geometry when braking thus changing the rules. and yes there are situations when you have to go heavy on the front break altho i always find my rear disk overheating more when i rip down. the faggots in the factory put a smaller disk back because they slurped up the cool-aid like you.

>>1088815
yeah, but there is truth in that as you break your weight will transfer through your hands to the front wheel more. it never hurts to change position before hard breaking push your ass out back go flat on the bike arms extended.

>>1088815
If you're going slow.

If you're going fast and brake quickly then most weight will still be on the front.
Although from experience in Holland, most are really slow on those oma bikes, but I've already been front ended by a Paki once because he had to come to a stop quickly and his rear wheel lost traction.

Faster deceleration = more weight on the front wheel.
If the deceleration is slower the extra weight on the front wheel is much less pronounced.

>>1088816
You want most of your mass backwards during those (mtb) descents because if you lock up your front wheel you risk flipping forwards which is more dangerous than losing traction of your rear wheel.
The front wheel still offers more powerful braking but in this case it can be dangerous because flipping over or slipping with the front is more dangerous.

If you honestly believe you can brake as fast with just a rear brake as with your front under normal (road) conditions you're simply retarded.

>no your mass is moving backwards before you even go heavy on the breaks and stays back.
And when you brake hard your body still wants to keep moving forwards putting weight on the handle bars/front wheel.

Go to any forum for road cyclists, and tell them you can stop just as fast with your coaster brake as with your front by pulling your ass backwards.
inb4 "ad populum"

>>1088824
Speed is probably a big factor, but I use my bike mainly for transportation in the city and never had a problem of stopping quick with a coaster brake. As a speed freak or MTB rider this probably applies stronger.

>>1088824
>Go to any forum for road cyclists
Show me a road bike with coaster brakes. They don't make them. I've only seen one anon here even post one, and he was Russian. It's basically impossible to find a bike with drop bars and coaster brakes. They do not work well from an aero position. If they worked on road bikes, they would have killed the fixie long ago (over 100 years ago). For flat commuting and even mild off roading they are fine.

>>1088826
Then tell them your rear brake is just as good as your front brake for quick stops

A normal rear brake offers far better modulation than a coaster anyway

>>1088808
>Do some actual real world testing.
I have. I do own rear brakes as well, don't you know. You're simply too retarded to spend time on. Please do us all a favour and take a crash course in basic physics, do some rear world testing, and read up on the mass of knowledge out there on this subject. A rear brake can never brake anywhere near as hard as the front. It skids.

Now, get a trip so we can all ignore you with greater ease.

>>1088830
Again if you put your weight backwards you can break harder.

It isn't rocket science.

>>1088834
>were reaching boardman-kun levels of autism
Lets assume that's a valid proposition: It would apply not only equally, but to a greater extent to the front brake. So no. Normal people have this reflex where they come to the realisation that they might be wrong, and either shut the fuck up or at least do a double take on their stance. Not you. You're special, in the special sense. McFucking kill yourself, autistmo,

>No one has mentioned the coaster brakes lose effectiveness in the summer heat after only a short amount of use.

>>1088830
>A rear brake can never brake anywhere near as hard as the front. It skids.

Please point out where I said it was the same power as a front brake. It got lost in your autistic straw man argument. I said it was adequate and "not much less" effective. Even 25% of the power of a front brake is enough to stop reliably with a negligible increase in distance. Bike brakes are horrendously powerful, especially with modern disc brake setups. Think of how much faster a bike brakes compared to a car. You are also replying to another guy and claiming he is me. I never made that claim about leaning back either. On an anonymous image board you should not take two people and use their separate arguments interchangeably.

>>1088875
This is total, complete, BS unless you are buying wal-mart bikes and using them for downhill runs.

>>1088875
bollocks, if that was true i would have died a hundred times already. +-10C doesn't matter much to breaks +-100C does.

>>1088824
>If you honestly believe you can brake as fast with just a rear brake as with your front under normal (road) conditions you're simply retarded.
>and tell them you can stop just as fast with your coaster brake as with your front
faster actually. i have explained why.

now if i want to stop as fast as possible without abusing my tires i need both breaks and lock the front fork.

>>1088829
>A normal rear brake offers far better modulation than a coaster anyway
have you ever used a coaster? the control over the breaking power is not an issue at all. the only difference i can see is maybe moving your feet is slightly slower than releasing your finger. like a 100 milliseconds.

>>1088840
>It would apply not only equally, but to a greater extent to the front brake.
that's true but also fucking dangerous. unless you like flying.

>>1088906
>>1088908
Even John Polly acknowledges it's a thing, and he's riding a $5000 Speedvagen

>theradavist.com/2015/09/when-this-hubs-a-cookin/

>>1088916
>he thinks skidding for 20 feet counts as "stopping"

>>1088925
>20 feet
stopping within 20 feet from 30km/h would be excellent emergency breaking performance for a bike even in dry weather.

>>1088925
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luY8tB1xk4I
watch from 0:55 to 0:58 that's how you turn momentum into angular momentum altho i have done it better and sharper i can't find many vids about it. fixie fags do skids but in a babby tier way.

>>1088923
>theradavist.com/2015/09/when-this-hubs-a-cookin/

I have a hard time believing that anyway. The two-speed ones are more complicated internally. It mostly depends on the type of grease used. Slightly decreased performance from the grease gumming up is probably a thing, but total failure from a 30 degrees F difference is ridiculous. The cooking from downhill runs is from EXTREME heat over 500 degrees F.

>>1088935
and yes coaster breaks don't actually cheat physics you stop faster with them by putting down your sole (and putting your weight on it) which is about 5 times the surface of your tires contact patch.

>>1088906
Are you secretly sieg?

>>1088940
i have been thinking about this the initial temperature plays nothing into it that's obvious altho some metal on the sun can heat well above ambient temperature it can even feel like burn your hand.

but the issue might be how much more efficient the cooling is when the same airspeed brings in colder air. that's the only realistic explanation.

>>1088921
I take it you thought I meant putting the weighter over the front? No, as long as your centre of gravity is above the point of contact you always want to move it as far back as possible. Yes, you can (marginally) delay skidding by hanging your ass out back. But if you're hanging your ass out your can brake even harder with the front brake without toppling over.
>>1088941
>contact patch
Since front wheels don't skid on hard surfaces that's irrelevant, bub. You get thrown off the bike for not being able to hold on long before that's an issue.

>>1088957
>Since front wheels don't skid on hard surfaces that's irrelevant, bub.
wait you actually think you can't skid the front tire?

>>1088370
It is impossible to go wrong with a 90's rigid mountain bike off craigslist

>>1088958
well okay you won't likely stay on the bike if you skid your front tire, forget that but it has happened to me before. weight back high speed sudden pull on the front brake... it's gonna lock up. have fun trying to stay on top without steering tho. interestingly it's very easy to stay on a bike if the rear wheel locks up. one could say child's play.

>>1088958
No. No, you can't other than under *insert very specific circumstance*, you contrarian douche. Let me see a video of you riding a reasonably straight line at speed on a hard surface such as asphalt and applying the front brake as hard as you can. We'll see what happens first - a skid or you taking a flight lesson.

>>1088961
most likely first a skid then as the front suspension compresses and traction increases with losing speed then flying. assuming i could stay on long enough for it to happen with little to no steering and no gyroscopic stabilization.

so pass.

>>1088958
what do you think a nose wheelie/stoppie is you dolt

>>1088961
>you contrarian douche
i actually giggled at this, we call coaster brakes "contras" i guess i'm a contrarian since i like coasters a lot and consider them the most superior brakes for city use.

>>1088963
>most likely first a skid
Oh no. It's retarded.

>>1088972
it's physics. the higher the speed and more sudden the lock the easier to skid wheels as there is less friction. at one point tho the friction will start to increase tho but the real problem really is you can't fucking steer a bike on asphalt with a locked front wheel. you can somewhat steer in lose earth or gravel or mud by setting the wheel at an angle but on asphalt it will not have any effect.

>>1088972
will you pay for my front tire if i prove you wrong with a vid? they are brand new and fairly expensive i'm reluctant to fuck them up over a retarded argument, but if you pay for it first i can show you how to lock the front wheel. it's not even remotely hard as i remember. it's hard not to fall after. my first tire is a conti mountain king II 29" 2.2. and i'm extremely fond of it it's almost brand new barely 100km in it.

>>1088980
come to think of it i could just buy a cheap set of tires to fuck up. so maybe we can do it cheaper. hm... i could even make a youtube channel about the stuff i argued in this thread with demonstrations. that would be fun maybe.

File: sbtdQOT.jpg (19KB, 480x361px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x361px

>>1088984
Oh, please dear God yes. I need to see your brain splattered on the ground so badly.

>>1088988
yeah that will not happen i wear a helmet when biking nowadays.

send 0.02 btc to this address that will buy me a set of entry level schwalbe tires. and i will honestly get on this project.
1NqrZvtTM2zjWXD5ysbP4tnQcwM2HcQb7f

i got a puch hands up which is great and relatively cheap

>>1088998
are you a grandma?