Bicycles
Bicycles are great. They don't use expensive fuel, they don't get stuck in traffic jams, they are
quicker around town than driving, and you can park them right outside the door of your destination.
Or even take them inside for greater security. They are extremely useful. Only trouble is they're
all made in such a fucking shitey way.
We start with the simple things. Nuts and bolts. Simple, basic fasteners that come in a range of
standard sizes, covering pretty well all the requirements for holding simple machines together,
all interchangeable due to standardisation, requiring a small and predictable range of spanner
sizes to do them up.
Bloody bicycle designers can't even get this right. Why the fuck don't they use a standard thread?
Why the fuck don't they use nuts that take standard spanner sizes? You end up with two separate
collections of spare nuts and bolts: one for bicycles, and one for everything else. Try and use an
ordinary nut on a bicycle and it won't fit. Same for spanners. Stupid sizes like 14mm, 15mm, 16mm
which are vanishingly rare on any other kind of machine. And even those sizes are not a proper fit,
as the sizes are in fact some freaked-out imperial measurement that has to be quoted in thirty-seconds
of an inch (and therefore does not occur in an imperial spanner set either).
And not only are the fasteners not standard sizes, they're not even correctly sized. They are too
small, and probably made of cheese to boot. The margin of error on tightening a wheel spindle nut,
between "tight enough to stay put" and "tight enough to strip the thread", is minuscule. There
isn't even the excuse of being threaded into ally - both nut and spindle are made of steel. Well,
it's magnetic, so it's probably supposed to be steel. Perhaps it is cheese with a steel jacket.
Before you jump to conclusions, I'm not abusing them. Threads on machines other than bicycles do
not give this problem. I don't strip threads on my motorbike. Indeed, I pull down head gaskets by
feel if they're on an engine I know, and they do not fail. I'm not incompetent at tightening things.
Speaking of wheel spindles leads on to another piece of spanner-related idiocy - the cone
adjusters for the bearings. Not only are the flats on these of the usual freaked out bicycle
dimensions that require spanners useless on any other machine, they are too bloody thin to get a
spanner on to them! So not only do you need a weird ass spanner size, you need a second weird ass
spanner size and a grinder with which you remove most of the thickness of the spanner so you can
actually get it on - which naturally makes it weak as weak and not really up to the job of holding
the adjuster thing still while you tighten a locknut onto it.
And what is it with these cone bearings anyway? Talk about a pile of crap. There is no weather
protection at all. There is a gap round the edge through which all manner of dirt and grit can
get in, which mixes with the lubricant to form grinding paste. That's assuming that the lubricant
hasn't all been washed out by water getting in round the edge - which also makes things rust.
Keeping lubricant in there is a joke. If you're lucky there will be an oil hole through which you
can squirt oil into the middle of the axle. More often there is not, and you just have to dribble
oil around the outside and hope for the best. It all runs out down the spokes anyway, since there
is no form of seal to stop it. Motorcycle wheels use proper grease-packed ball races with rubber
seals. Bicycle wheels should use these too. But that wouldn't be a shitty enough design to pass
muster for a bicycle.
The pedal crank bearings are another piece of crap. No seals and no decent lubrication facilities.
All you can do is dribble oil over the point where the shaft goes inside and hope some of the oil
goes in too. The temptation is to pour oil down the saddle tube to flood them and assure good
lubrication. Very good idea - except some twat has decreed that there should be a hole in the
bottom of the bearing holding bit, so all the oil pisses out on the floor as fast as you pour it
in and never gets near the bearings.
The fixing of the pedals on to the crank is another area of crapness. Cotter pins, made of cheese,
that work loose and have to be continually re-tightened... and wear the shaft in the process...
Ever heard of splines? No, I thought not.
Another area where bicycles seem determined to use the shittiest design possible is in the brakes.
Pressing rubber blocks onto the wheel rim, using an arrangement which fails to return properly to
its ill-defined resting position. So you get one brake block rubbing on the rim and slowing you
down when it's dry, and fuck all braking when it rains.
Oh, there are these miraculous brake blocks that are supposed to work in the wet. I remember
seeing them tested on Tomorrow's World when they
first came out. In the studio, they worked fine,
and I went and got a set as soon as I could. Tried them in the wet - yes, they did work fine. For
the first couple of miles. Then the magic surface absorbed sufficient greasy crap off the road
that they didn't work any better than standard rubber blocks. They did make the most horrendous
screeching noise though. Their only good point is that the magic surface is a lot more resistant
to wear than rubber, so they last for ever - so you end up making a horrendous screech every time
you stop for years and years.
Look at the brakes on a motorcycle. They work in the wet. Bicycles need brakes that work in the
wet too. None of this "oh, it's only a bicycle so we're OK to fit it with cheap shit brakes that
don't work" attitude. Having to rely on putting your feet down is just not good enough. It's not
safe and it fucks your shoes.
The brakes aren't even well mounted to the frame. They're hung on this long spindly bolt about a
quarter of an inch in diameter. When you put the brakes on what happens? Yes, it bends. And the
wobbliness in the mounting causes the brakes to judder and grab. If they must use such a
fundamentally crap mounting system, they could at least use a 15mm diameter steel rod instead of
a poxy 5mm or so bolt (with threads all the way along).
One of the most stupendously moronic pieces of stupid design on a bicycle concerns the tubes that
extend from the saddle mounting downwards and backwards to the rear wheel spindle. They are ALL
attached BEHIND the spindle - so you need to split the chain to get it on and off. All that
fucking about with split links, or worse, punching rivets out - and in again. Totally unnecessary.
If the aforesaid tube joined the frame a few inches AHEAD of the rear wheel spindle there would be
no need for them to interfere with the chain; you could just use a continuous loop with no weak
points or awkward pain in the arse riveting operations. Funnily enough, most motorcycles are
designed in such a way as to allow the use of a continuous chain. But the bicycle once again is
a shining example of how not to do it - without even the excuse of cheapness, as it would be
just as easy to manufacture it to a sensible design.
They can't even get things right on such a simple matter as getting the air into the tyres. Not
only are there three different valve fittings, when cars and motorcycles manage fine all using the
same fitting - the little flexible adaptors that connect the pump to the valve are universally
complete and utter shite. To be specific, the ferrules that hold the end fittings on to the
flexible tube are persuaded to stay in place by showing them the crimping machine and saying "now
don't come off will you?" The result is that it doesn't take very long before the end fittings
are really loose, leak out more air than goes into the tyre, and eventually fly off altogether at
the most inconvenient moment. All because some twat can't be arsed to set up the crimping machine
properly. They manage to crimp things properly on car tyre pumps. A bicycle pump will be inflating
tyres at about three times the pressure of car tyres, so it should be crimped better, not worse.
Then there is the matter of lights. This is one area where things are not always shite - if you are
lucky enough to get a bicycle with a Sturmey-Archer hub dynamo. These are much more efficient than
most bicycle dynamos as they have no drive losses, and they begin generating at below walking pace.
Unfortunately, they're not made any more. The choice is now between a bottle dynamo, with its
associated horrendous drive losses, or a Japanese hub dynamo, where the stupid bastards have used
a gear train to speed up its rotation. This is not necessary, as is demonstrated by the ability
of the Sturmey-Archer design to generate at very low speeds. Clever magnetic design beats brute
force and ignorance any day. And it avoids drive losses.
Don't even think of mentioning battery lights. Batteries run out. Batteries run out at the most
inconvenient moments. Batteries cost a fucking fortune. Rechargeable batteries, depending on the
technology used, either can't be given a top-up charge (NiCd) or self-discharge at an infuriating
rate so they're always flat when you want to use them. Or both. Not to mention how hard it is to
find a charger that's sufficiently well designed not to fuck the batteries within 10 cycles.
As for the twats who sell lights with "krypton bulbs" so that people are persuaded into buying
them by subconscious memories of Superman and Kryptonite, without realising that the bulbs have
a quoted lifetime of 10 hours and cost as much as ten full-size household light bulbs - having the
world's supply of ultra-short-lifetime bulbs smashed into shards and stuffed up their arses is a
fate too good for them.
There is another sad tale regarding the products of Messrs. Sturmey and Archer. The three-speed
gear. No longer manufactured. What do we have instead? The vilest abuse of a chain and sprocket
ever to excrete itself from the festering mess of some so-called designer's brain. The derailleur.
Oh yes, you can sell them, because people are stupid and are impressed by large numbers of
possible ratios. Never mind that no fucker needs 21 ratios, never mind that you can't actually
use them all because the mistreatment of chain and sprocket gets too gross at the extremes. Never
mind that the spread of ratios is not actually all that wide, just very finely spaced, which makes
them even more useless. Never
mind that you can't change gear when stationary so if you have to make an unexpected stop you're
stuck in totally the wrong gear to pull away again. Never mind that if you try and rectify that
situation by pedalling backwards the fucking chain comes off. Or if you bounce too hard over the
potholes that infest the roads the fucking chain comes off. Or the losses in the chain going
round the derailleur mechanism. Or the fiddly adjustments to make it all sort of work right. Or
the sheer engineering grossness of running the chain at angles way off the plane of the sprocket
and making it jump gears under load. Or the sheer stupidity of putting the gear change levers
on the crossbar or the down tube or something equally moronic (one of the few things mountain
bikes do get right). Give me a three-speed any day.
Then there is the way the practicality of the bicycle is compromised by the lack of certain
features which are universal on better-designed vehicles: A Parking Brake and a Centre Stand.
Ever tried loading up a bicycle with luggage when the fucking thing falls over every time you
touch it? The designers obviously haven't. For fuck's sake, it's a vehicle. It's supposed to
transport stuff. Journeys tend to involve taking stuff somewhere, or bringing it back... if
you're not carrying anything with you you needn't have gone, could have done whatever it is over
the phone or by letter or by email or whatever. So a machine for making journeys
needs facilities for loading, carrying and unloading. And I haven't mentioned the feeble spindly
excuses for carrier racks that bicycles have.
Practicality is also compromised by the saddle design. Why is it so hard to find a comfortable
saddle? What fuckwit thought it would be a good idea to support almost your entire weight by
supporting a sensitive part of the body on a rock hard ridge? More to the point, perhaps, what
kind of fuckwits buy these instruments of torture again and again and again? Presumably they are
not much good at sex. If you're going to support your body weight on the perineum - and it would
be rather hard to pedal with any other method of support, unfortunately - the support needs to be
soft and well-padded. As should be blindingly obvious to any human being with anything
approaching normal sensory function. Presumably this is why I see so many young lads riding around
standing on the pedals all the time, though I would have thought padding the saddle would be a
far less tiring solution.
And finally, Mountain Bikes... just as shite as ordinary bicycles but the shite parts are all
made in Japan, cost a bloody fortune, aren't interchangeable with ordinary parts, tend to be
made of monkey metal... plus the bike is more attractive to thieves. They are just a bloody
rip-off, a waste of money. Oh yes, and they ALL have derailleur gears, and the big chunky tyres,
as well as being expensive, have a much higher rolling resistance, so a lot more of the rider's
precious energy output goes into heating up the tyres.
Oh, but that's OK because it's good exercise? Bollocks. I don't ride a bicycle for exercise. I
ride it because, among other things, it enables me to get from A to B with considerably less
expenditure of physical effort than walking it. I pump the tyres up rock hard and cycle along
yellow lines to reduce the rolling resistance. I slow down
when afflicted by headwinds or adverse
gradients. I freewheel when the gradient is in my favour. I don't go very fast on the flat. I
use lots of oil. I have no desire to charge about puffing and panting and sweating like a cunt.
Crap tyres with high rolling resistance are a complete no-no. Same goes for inefficient dynamos.
Then when mountain bikes try to go "high tech" what do we get? They abandon one of the things the
traditional bicycle design does manage to get right - the triangulated frame with sleeved brazed
joints - and weld a bunch
of beams together in a cross. Then they repeat the same tired old mistakes of motorcycle
suspension design - telescopic front forks and a rear suspension unit positioned such that the
geometry gives a falling rate. I mean for fuck's sake. What are they on? They've read all the
books on "How Not To Do It" and thought "fuck it, it's a bicycle, none of this applies"? Chicken's
tits. At least give it a triangulated frame, a leading link front end and rear suspension units
mounted from the rear wheel spindle to the crossbar/saddle tube joint.
Back to Crap Stuff
Back to Pigeon's Nest
Be kind to pigeons