Here’s a video showing the output from Calhoun Cycle’s three most popular dynamo headlights.

Calhoun Cycle →

Let’s list some of the characteristics that define a good touring bicycle:

• It should be comfortable
• It should be reliable and tough
• It should be able to carry heavy loads
• It should have sufficiently wide range gearing
• It should have sufficient clearance for robust tires and fenders
• It should have numerous braze-ons for mounting racks, fenders, water bottles, and lights
• It should have long chainstays to prevent pedal-to-pannier conflicts
• It should be made from a frame material that is both strong and compliant (as opposed to fragile and rigid)

Perhaps I’ve left a thing or two off of the list, but any bike that meets the above criteria would make a nice touring bike. And guess what? That’s exactly the same list I’d compile for a good commuting/utility bike.

It’s wonderful that we’re seeing more-and-more commuter-specific bikes coming to the market. It’s an indication that bicycling for transportation is growing and that the bicycle industry has taken notice. Certainly, the more and better commuter/utility bikes we have available, the more likely it is that newcomers will give bike commuting a serious look.

There is also an entire range of bicycles labeled as “touring bikes” that are extremely well-appointed for commuting and utility bicycling. These bikes are the beneficiaries of a long lineage going back to the 1980’s and beyond. In some cases, they represent the most refined cargo hauling bikes on the market.

Following are just a few touring bikes that double quite well as commuting/utility bikes:

• Surly Long Haul Trucker
• Salsa Casseroll
• Rivendell Atlantis
• Velo Orange Rando
• Soma Saga
• Raleigh Sojurn
• Co-Motion Americano

Of course, if touring bikes make good commuting/utility bikes, it follows that at least some commuting bikes function well as touring bikes. For example, I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment to use my commuter for light touring.

The take away is that touring and commuting bikes are essentially cut from the same cloth. There’s a tremendous amount of crossover among these two categories and, in fact, some of the best commuting/utility bikes on the market don’t have the words “commute” or “cargo” in either their name or their description.

California vehicle code mandates that any bike operated in darkness is required to have a front headlight that emits a white beam visible from 300 feet and a red rear reflector that’s visible from 500 feet when illuminated by motor vehicle high beams. The law also mandates reflectors on both pedals or the rider’s ankles, and side reflectors or tires with reflective sidewalls. The headlight can be attached to either the bicycle or the rider. Check the vehicle code for the jurisdiction in which you ride to be sure you’re meeting at least the minimum requirements.

Battery-Powered Lights
The simplest and least expensive lighting set-up is a white LED headlight on the front, and a red blinking LED on the back. Small, but surprisingly powerful, AA- and AAA-powered lights are available for under $50 each. Mount the headlight on your handlebar and the red blinkie on your seat post (or rack), and you’re good to go. I also highly recommend rechargeable batteries and a battery charger as part of any battery-powered lighting system. View my post on minimalist lighting systems for more on battery-powered lights.

Dynamo-Powered Lights
For those who regularly ride in the dark, a dynamo lighting system provides reliable, battery-free lighting that’s always available at the flip of a switch. Power is provided by either a bottle or hub dynamo. Bottle dynamos mount on the bicycle frame and have a small roller that rotates against the tire to generate current. Hub dynamos (aka generator hubs) have the generator built right into the hub. In recent years, hub dynamos have far surpassed bottle dynamos in efficiency and popularity. Dynamo lighting systems are more expensive than small battery-powered systems, and unless they come pre-installed from the factory, they also require a more involved installation process. That said, they provide the benefit of always-available lighting, a real advantage for everyday, year-around commuting and utility use.

After using mostly battery-powered lights for the past couple of years, I’ve recently returned to running a dynamo system. Despite the above mentioned drawbacks, I’m quite pleased to be battery-free again; it’s hard to overstate the convenience and confidence that comes with always-available, high-quality lighting.

My current favorite dynamo headlight is the E3 Pro from Supernova. The beam provides an excellent compromise between coverage and intensity, and the housing, emitter, and wires are exceptionally high-quality. Combined with any decent dynamo hub (I’m running a Shimano Alfine), it makes for a high performing and reliable set-up. You can read more about the E3 Pro and its matching tail light in my review from a couple of months ago.

I receive a surprising number of emails from people who are having technical difficulties with their new bikes. Among others, the issues include squealing brakes, mis-shifting drivetrains, wobbly wheels, loose bearings, and even parts that simply fall off of their bikes. Often, these bikes are less than 6 months old and the owners are perplexed and frustrated, questioning their purchase and blaming the designers/manufacturers for their woes.

Every new bike I’ve purchased has had issues within the first couple of months of use. And in almost every case, the problems were a result of new parts settling in and causing things to go out of adjustment. Regardless of whether we’re talking about a $100 bike from Wal-Mart or a $10,000 Trek Madone, nuts, bolts, bearings, and cables will settle-in within the first few months causing parts to come loose and shifters and brakes to go out of adjustment. This is all a normal part of the break-in process.

Most reputable dealers offer a one-time free tune-up to customers who purchase bikes at their shops. They’re typically offered within the first three months of purchase, with some shops even offering multiple free tune-ups spread over the entire first year. When shopping for a new bike, be sure to ask about your shop’s free tune-up policy, and after making your purchase, take full advantage. It’s good business on their part, and it can be a real benefit to you. By keeping everything tight and properly adjusted, your bike will ride more smoothly and safely, and you’ll avoid any potentially more serious (and expensive) issues in the future.

Track Crank

Single Speed / Fixed Gear Drivetrain
I think the main attraction of single speed and fixed gear drivetrains is that they’re simple and bullet-proof. There’s an appeal to stripping a bike down to its bare essentials, eliminating the need for shifting and fussing with derailleur trim, etc. Eliminating a geared drivetrain is a weight savings as well. The obvious downside to single speed drivetrains is that you’re stuck with only one gain ratio, which may not work for people who live in hilly areas or for those who have physical limitations such as bad knees (which includes many of us over 40 who played sports or rode bikes their entire lives).

1×9 Derailleur Drivetrain
A 1×9 derailleur drivetrain uses a single, track-style crank up front and 9-speed cassette in the rear. I really enjoyed the 1×9 on my old Surly. It was clean and simple, and the linear shifting was similar to the internal gear hubs on my other bikes. Certainly, if a person needs a wider range of gears, a double or triple makes more sense, but for city riding in relatively flat areas, the 1×9 is a good compromise that offers at least some of the advantages of single speed and IGH drivetrains.

Touring Triple

Touring Triple Drivetrain
For versatility it’s hard to beat a touring triple drivetrain. A triple provides the widest range of gears while still remaining relatively lightweight and simple to set-up and repair. With three chainrings up front and 7-10 sprockets in the rear, there is great potential for customization within the range of the system. Disadvantages include the need for relatively high maintenance (due to exposure to the elements); a steep learning curve for beginners due to the complexity of overlapping ratios and multiple shifters, etc.; susceptibility to damage in public bike racks; and incompatibility with most chain guards.

Alfine 8

Shimano Alfine 8-speed IGH
It’s no secret that I very much like the Alfine internal gear hubs. A number of commuting bikes that I tested over the past two years were spec’d with the Alfine 8 including the Breezer Finesse, the Raleigh Alley Way, and a pair of Civias. At this point the Alfine IGH is a mature product with low failure rates and superb performance when used for its intended purpose (commuting). When combined with the Rapid-Fire shifter, shifts are clean, quick, and accurate. One major advantage of this and other high-quality internal gear hubs is that they can be shifted while stopped, coasting, or under power. Disadvantages include a limited gear range when compared to a touring triple; the need for either horizontal dropouts, an eccentric bottom bracket, or a chain tensioner to tension the chain; and added weight when compared to single speed or derailleur drivetrains.

SRAM i-Motion 9-speed IGH
The i-Motion 9 is an internal gear hub from SRAM that competes directly with the Shimano Alfine 8. I’ve enjoyed using this hub on my Civia Loring. Besides the obvious advantage of having one extra gear, the i-Motion also covers a wider range and has more evenly spaced ratios than the Alfine 8. The smaller, more even steps between gears are a real advantage over the Alfine’s somewhat inconsistent spacing. The i-Motion is also easier to remove and re-install in the event of a roadside flat. Disadvantages include shifting performance that is not quite as smooth as the Alfine’s, and a limited selection of shifters, all of which are twist-type.

Alfine 11 / Gates CenterTrack Belt

Belt-driven Shimano Alfine 11-speed IGH
The only difference between a belt-driven and chain-driven Alfine IGH is the sprocket; the internal parts and shifting performance are identical. The new Alfine 11 IGH is a major step up from the 8-speed in performance (and unfortunately, cost); it’s smoother, quieter, and the gear ratios are more evenly spaced over a wider range. The 11-speed runs in an oil bath which makes it easier to service and should result in longer life and fewer failures when compared to the grease-lubed 8-speed. When combined with Gates’ new CenterTrack belt drive, the result is buttery smooth and nearly silent, almost like riding a well-oiled single speed drivetrain. If you’re already on-board with internal gear hubs, this is the next step that really completes the package. Disadvantages include those mentioned above, as well as the need for a frame specifically designed to allow installation of a one-piece drive belt.

*I’m currently evaluating a NuVinci N360 CVP; I’ll provide a detailed report on that hub at a later date.

While I prefer the aesthetics of a delicate, high profile cantilever or a classic, dual-pivot caliper, I have to admit that nothing quite beats the overall performance of a high-quality, cable-actuated disc brake (also known as “mechanical” disc brakes) for year-round commuting. Drum/roller brakes are heavy and generally provide only mediocre braking performance, and most every other type of performance brake uses the rim wall for a braking surface, a fact that guarantees your rims will be toast long before your hubs go. Rim brakes can sometimes be poor performers in wet conditions, they make a mess in the rain, and the caliper variety rarely provide sufficient clearance for robust tires and fenders. Hydraulic discs are typically more powerful than mechanical discs, but arguably, the difficulties associated with cutting fluid lines and bleeding brake systems are not a fair trade for their slightly better performance over their easier to set-up and maintain cousins. A high-quality mechanical disc brake such as the Avid BB7 combines the simplicity and user-friendliness of cable actuation, with excellent all-weather performance and long-term, wheel-friendly reliability. Setting aside aesthetic considerations and tradition, cable-actuated discs are hard to beat from the standpoint of pure functionality.

Avid Cable-Actuated Disc Brakes →

We receive a surprising number of inquiries regarding chain waxing, so we pulled together the links to our articles to (hopefully) clear up any lingering questions on the subject.

• Chain Maintenance for Clean Freaks
• For the Non-Believers in the Crowd (Chain Waxing Revisited)
• A Follow-Up: Sourcing Wax

We’ve all experienced annoying little clicks and creaks on our bikes. You know, like the kind that happen each time the crank comes over the top at 2 o’clock. I often hear people talk about tightening crank arms and checking bottom brackets when this happens, but odds are it’s a pedal. See, many of the pedals we commuters use, particularly those such as the low-end models from Shimano or the touring pedals from MKS, contain the cheapest bearings on our bikes. They’re the most likely to run rough, and they’re also the most likely to click and creak. If you find one of your pedals making noise, it’s usually a simple matter of disassembling the pedal, cleaning, and re-packing with Phil (be careful to make note of how it came apart and don’t lose any ball bearings). The MKS pedals are particularly simple to overhaul, one among many reasons I prefer them over Shimano pedals, some of which require special tools to adjust.

Chris over at Velo Orange recommends sizing* a bike based upon pubic bone height. His recommendations are not unlike Grant Petersen’s recommendations outlined on the Rivendell site. Their guidelines are both what I’d characterize as “traditional”; using either of their methods will put you on a frame slightly to dramatically larger than if you were sized at a racing-oriented shop.

Here’s Chris at V/O:

And here’s Rivendell’s Grant Petersen on the same subject:

One of our past polls showed that a whopping 72% of the respondents prefer their handlebars either at or slightly above the height of the saddle. One way of making sure this is possible is by riding a sufficiently large frame as recommended above. Shops using “modern” sizing methods will disagree with these traditional methods and the resulting size recommendations, but some variation of this approach has worked well for many people, for many decades.

*”Sizing” should not be confused with “fitting”. Sizing methods are used to determine the frame size that will work best for an individual. This is only a starting point after which the more precise process of fitting takes place. Fitting is the process of adjusting the rider’s position through component selection and adjustment.

Velo Orange on sizing →
Rivendell on sizing →
More Rivendell on sizing →

It’s been 45 days since I installed the Gates CenterTrack drivetrain on my commuter, so I figured it was time for some maintenance. Here’s the process:

1. Roll the bike outside
2. Hose off the belt
3. Wipe off the water with a towel
4. Roll the bike inside

Grand total time invested: approximately 5 minutes. A properly set-up belt drive is truly a low- to no-maintenance commuter drivetrain. Good stuff.

[As a follow-up to yesterday's post on rack stiffness, here are a few thoughts on geometry and weight distribution. —ed.]

Like so many production bikes on the market, my commuter has high trail geometry optimized for carrying a rear load (more on trail here). The assumption seems to be that a person will throw a rack and a pair of panniers on the back and call it good, which is probably true in most cases. Up to a point, my Civia handles well when loaded in this way, with the steering livening up as some weight is placed on the rear. But beyond a certain amount of weight, the front end starts feeling a little light and squirrelly, an issue that may be exacerbated by the fact that the internal gear hub also shifts the weight bias rearward.

To provide greater carrying capacity, while also mitigating for the unbalanced feeling of overloading the rear of the bike, I run a Pass & Stow porteur rack and Freight Baggage bag on the front fork. This is the rack/bag combo I’ve been running on various bikes for the past couple of years. With this set-up I’m able to balance large loads between the front and rear of the bike. Though carrying weight on the front slows down the steering and increases wheel flop, the bike feels more steady and planted on the road when cargo is split fore-and-aft in this way.

Very few production bikes have low trail geometry optimized for carrying a front load. But, in my experience, for commuting and utility riding where trips are not often more than 15-20 miles tops, front loading a high trail bike is not as much of an issue as it is for randonneuring or touring where trips can be hundreds of miles at a stretch, sometimes when the rider is tired and sleep-deprived. In other words, for short hops and city riding, I’ve had little issue with porteur racks on high trail bikes, particularly when the racks are stiff and the loads are carefully balanced between the front and rear of the bike.

Rack rigidity and load securing are closely linked to bike stability and predictable handling. Far more than where a load is carried, a stiff rack with zero flex and a completely secure load are the biggest contributors to stable and controlled handling when carrying cargo.

A number of people have complained to me about loaded bikes handling poorly. In almost every case, the culprit was a weak, flexible rack, or a loosely secured load, both of which allow the load to sway, taking control away from the rider. This problem is particularly acute when loads are carried on the front fork. I know quite a few people who don’t like to carry a load on the front of the bike. I’m guessing that in a majority of cases, the underlying issue is a sub-par rack or mounting method, and that a sufficiently stiff front rack with a high quality bag would change their minds.

On my Civia Bryant (shown above), I run a Tubus Cargo in the rear, and a Pass & Stow up front. Both are made from tubular steel and act as rigid extensions of the frame. I can comfortably carry 75-100 lbs. on that bike with no issues whatsoever. I attribute this excellent performance more to the racks than to the bike itself.

[This article on crank length from last year dovetails nicely with our saddle height post from earlier this week. —ed.]

Crank length is an often overlooked aspect of bike fit. A majority of production road-oriented bikes come outfitted with either 170mm or 175mm cranks. You do occasionally see 165mm cranks spec’d on the very smallest frame sizes, and some manufacturers offer 172.5mm cranks on their mid-sized frames, but it’s a rare occasion to encounter a crank under 165mm or over 175mm on a bike primarily intended for road riding.

There are a number of methods for determining proper crank length. Peter White recommends 18.5% of the distance from the top of the femur to the floor in bare feet. Leonard Zinn recommends 21% of inseam measured in bare feet. Bill Boston recommends measuring femur length from the center of the hip joint to the end of the bone in inches, then using this measurement as crank length in centimeters (for example, if your femur measures 17 inches, you would use a 17cm [170mm] crank).

Let’s use Peter White’s method as an example. For simplicity, let’s assume a rider with a top of the femur to the floor measurement of 919mm (36 1/16″). Multiply by Peter’s 18.5% (919mm x .185 = 170mm) and you end up with a recommendation for 170mm cranks. That’s convenient for someone with a 36″ floor to femur measurement, but it gets more complicated for individuals outside the “normal” range. Shorten the floor to femur measurement by three inches (33″) and the recommendation quickly drops down to 155mm (838.2mm x .185 = 155mm). Lengthen the floor to femur measurement by three inches (39″) and the recommendation jumps up to 183mm (990.6mm x .185 = 183.25mm). Both fall outside the normal range of sizes typically offered in road cranks.

I believe there’s quite a bit of room for personal preference in these formulas. I also think the human body is amazingly adaptable and we can probably get used to just about any crank length currently being manufactured, regardless of our leg length. That said, it’s only reasonable to assume that crank length should vary based upon an individual’s physiology. As Lennard Zinn said, “If you accept that muscles and joints work most effectively when operating in a certain range of motion, then it only makes sense that muscles, bones and tendons work that way for everyone. Short riders should not be required to force their muscles through a greater range of motion than the person with an 80cm inseam riding a 172.5mm crank. And on the other end, 7-foot basketball players do not bend their legs any less when they jump than shorter players. So why should they use minimal knee bend and operate their muscles only through a tiny part of their range when they ride a bike?”

Assuming Mr. Zinn is correct, taking a closer look at crank length should be particularly advantageous for those who are significantly taller or shorter than average. On the outer edges of the bell curve, it’s very unlikely people are riding cranks that are close to their ideal length.

While it’s not easy to find unusually short or long cranks, they’re out there. The Specialites TA Carmina is a beautiful, if expensive, production crank that has interchangeable arms available from 155mm up to 185mm. Lennard Zinn offers oversized cranks, and da Vinci Designs offers custom cranks in almost any size within reason.

Those who aren’t involved in the recumbent community probably don’t realize that recumbent riders have been experimenting with ultra-short cranks for some time now (see the links below). Some of their findings are quite interesting and may possibly be applicable to upright bikes. Short crank advocates claim reduced knee strain and higher crank RPMs among their advantages.

Ultra-long cranks may introduce more knee strain, and they will definitely reduce cornering clearance, so both of these facts should be taken into account if you’re considering retrofitting a longer crank on your existing bike.

And finally, whether you’re going up or down in length, keep in mind that a major change in crank length will very likely require a change in saddle height, which, of course, will affect overall bike fit.

Related Reading

• Sheldon Brown on Cranks
• Peter White on Fitting
• Bill Boston on Cranks
• Lennard Zinn Cranks
• Specialites TA Carmina Cranks
• da Vinci Designs Cranks
• Greenspeed on Ultra Short Cranks

As you may know, I’m a big fan of Selle An-Atomica saddles. I ride one on my primary commuting bike and have done so for a couple of years now (for the record, I was riding these saddles long before S-A became a sponsor of this site). I find them the most comfortable among all of the saddles I’ve ridden. They’re unique in that they flex and move more than other leather saddles, conforming to your physique like a hammock (some people describe them as “hammock-like”). Like any saddle, Selles aren’t for everyone, but they work exceptionally well for me.

Because they’re designed to move and flex more than other saddles, S-As can sometimes squeak. If you have a squeaky Selle, you can contact the manufacturer via their website and they’ll send you a nylon gasket at no charge that should solve the problem.

Selle An-Atomica Contact Page →
How to Install the Gasket →

Here’s a simple and reasonably accurate method for determining proper saddle height (SH). Depending upon how you prefer to do the math, it’s known as either the “Rivendell Method” or the “LeMond Method”. Regardless of what you call it, the results are essentially the same.

First you’ll need to determine your pubic bone height (PBH). You’ll need a wooden dowel* (something like a broom handle will do), a metric tape measure, and a helper. In bare feet, stand with your feet flat on the floor, 10″ apart. Place the dowel between your legs, and while pulling it upward with a force that approximates sitting on a saddle, have your helper measure the distance from the floor to the top of the dowel in centimeters. This measurement is your pubic bone height. To be sure you get an accurate reading, repeat the process a few times while making sure to keep the dowel level. Once you’re sure you have a good number, write it down or send it to yourself in an email so you have it for your next bike purchase.

Once you have your PBH, it’s simple to calculate your saddle height. Here’s the Rivendell math:

PBH – 10 to 10.5cm = SH

And the LeMond math:

PBH x .883 = SH

Let’s use my 88.5cm PBH as an example.

Rivendell: 88.5 – 10 to 10.5cm = 78.5cm-78.0cm.
LeMond: 88.5 x .883 = 78.15cm

I like the Rivendell math for its simplicity, but I like the LeMond math because it scales at the extremes. Either are accurate enough and will place you in a range that will give you plenty of power while sparing your knees.

Once you have your SH number, adjust your saddle to the proper height by measuring along the seat tube from the center of the bottom bracket (where the cranks bolt on) to the top of the saddle. Note that Rivendell recommends adjusting the math slightly for extreme crank lengths, but for the large majority of people riding either 170mm or 175mm cranks, these numbers are good.

There are number of other ways to determine saddle height, but I’ve gotten consistently good results using this simple, straightforward method. Enjoy!

Rivendell on PBH →

*A wooden ruler or relatively thin hardbound book can be used in place of a dowel.