[SBC] perspectives on bike rack designs
walker2468 at earthlink.net
walker2468 at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 29 18:22:57 EST 2006
FYI-
Here are some interesting perspectives on U-racks vs. post-and-ring bike racks.
Some links from the emails below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/237788063/
http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/postandring.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drdul/177248724/
The last link, above, has other photos relating to bicycle planning and design.
Overall, there seems to be a trend in thought away from the wave- or ribbon- type racks.
If you only read one of the emails below, please read the first, Michael Halle's, regarding installation feedback of bike racks in Cambridge by the DPW.
Hope these are helpful.
-Greg
-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: massbike group <noreply at googlegroups.com>
>Sent: Nov 29, 2006 4:01 AM
>To: massbike digest subscribers <massbike at googlegroups.com>
>Subject: 19 new messages in 3 topics - digest
>
>
>massbike
>http://groups.google.com/group/massbike
>
>massbike at googlegroups.com
>
>Today's topics:
>
>* bike racks - 12 messages, 8 authors
> http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/1f596f1fbe3b7477
>* Bike racks - 6 messages, 5 authors
> http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/fc530d164d75c930
>* Globe: Hub cyclists feel like fifth wheels - 1 messages, 1 author
> http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/ace466272a3fd4fb
>
>==============================================================================
>TOPIC: bike racks
>http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/1f596f1fbe3b7477
>==============================================================================
>
>== 1 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 6:15 am
>From: "Michael Halle"
>
>
>Dan Streeter wrote:
>> Looking for opinions as to the best style rack for bike
>> parking at a public beach access. Wave style racks and
>> vertical fence type racks seem to be widely used but u-racks
>> look more practical to me. Local non-profits are looking to
>> purchase racks for DPW installation.
>
>Dan,
>
>I would actually make a plug for the Cambridge-style post and ring
>racks, but for what is perhaps an unusual reason.
>
>For many years, I thought that rack choice was purely about how well a
>rack works for bicyclists. Of course, functionality and security are
>primary aspects of a bike rack, and they need to have high minimal
>standards. In my opinion, the post and ring as well as the types you've
>mentioned meet these criteria if installed correctly.
>
>There's one remaining aspect that is critically important for rack
>deployment: installer friendliness, and post and ring racks trump all
>others here.
>
>At a Cambridge Bike Committee meeting a couple years ago, one of the
>Traffic and Parking Engineers said that the Department of Public Works
>loves the post and ring for exactly one reason: "one hole".
>Installation costs time and money. DPW knows how to do parking meters
>and signs: drill hole, insert post. A post and ring rack is no
>different. Once it's sited, there's really no way to screw it up.
>
>Many "U" racks require two holes, so there's twice as much work, and if
>you're off in your measurement you've got to screw around with it. Not
>a big deal, but it's a little more work and a little more chance for
>error.
>
>Worse though, the City of Boston "U" racks from a few years ago are
>actually six bolts: three for each foot. That means two templates,
>getting the holes aligned, drilling six holes, and plenty of
>opportunity to waste time or screw up.
>
>These observations came from the people who do these installs as part
>of their job, so I trust the difference is significant to them. I
>would never have thought about these issues, but now that I know about
>them it's kind of obvious.
>
>It might not seem like rocket science, and it isn't. But making bike
>rack installation as dead-simple as possible makes a great deal of
>sense. The biggest problem I see about bike racks doesn't involve 5% or
>10% differences in functionality (heck, most of us would settle for a
>parking meter were it available). The big problem is not having enough
>bike parking right where you want it. Lots of easy-to-install,
>individual racks fix that problem best.
>
>The other advantage of post and ring is if you're installing enough of
>them, you can get them branded in the metal casting, and that may be an
>enticement for a local community or business district.
>
>I would recommend at least asking the local DPW if they have any
>installation preferences, given the different designs.
>
>Good luck!
>
>--Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>== 2 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 5:07 pm
>From: Tom Revay
>
>
>
>Michael Halle <mhalle at bwh.Harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> There's one remaining aspect that is critically important for rack
>
>> deployment: installer friendliness, and post and ring racks trump all
>
>> others here.
>
>
>
>[...]
>
>
>
>> Installation costs time and money. DPW knows how to do parking meters
>
>> and signs: drill hole, insert post. A post and ring rack is no
>
>> different. Once it's sited, there's really no way to screw it up.
>
>, yeah that's it, that's the ticket!
>
>> Worse though, the City of Boston "U" racks from a few years ago
>
>> are
>
>> actually six bolts: three for each foot. That means two templates,
>
>> getting the holes aligned, drilling six holes, and plenty of
>
>> opportunity to waste time or screw up.
>
>>
>
>> These observations came from the people who do these installs as part
>
>> of their job, so I trust the difference is significant to them.
>
>
>
>This is a *really* good point, Michael, and I thank you for making it. The perfect bicycle rack is the enemy of the good, and we'd be far better off with lots of easily-sited and simply installed racks like these than with fewer prettier or better-supporting racks.
>
>
>
>The great thing about a bicycle is that you can ride it door-to-door, from origination to destination. I'm convinced that one of the best ways to increase and improve bicycle transportation on-the-cheap is to provide better end-of-trip facilities. Safe, and weather protected bike parking at desirable destinations, in quantites large enough to accommodate lots of bikes at desirable times of the day, goes a long way toward that goal.
>
>
>
>Also, this kind of observation is what you get from an outfit like the Cambridge Bicycle Committee, and the City of Cambridge, who have been working for years to improve bicycling conditions, and who've gained a lot of insight about these things. We all know that I've objected strenuously to some of those -- ah, umm, er, let's be polite, Tom -- "improvements" (!), but the bicycle parking program is a gem, and Boston ought to borrow heavily from it.
>
>
>
>I don't know who spec'd the Boston bike racks. I do know that the entirely state-funded program that provided them was announced in May, 1998, by Mayor Menino at the Bicycle Festival on City Hall Plaza, when he said,
>
>
>
>"Boston is already a great walking city. We're going to make it a great bicycling city."
>
>
>
>And we await this glorious transformation, which will arrive ... ahh, real soon now, I'm sure ...
>
>
>
>.......................Tom
>
>
>
>
>== 3 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 8:30 am
>From: kob2 at maine.rr.com
>
>
>
>>
>> I would actually make a plug for the Cambridge-style post and ring
>> racks, but for what is perhaps an unusual reason.
>>
>...
>
>Certainly sounds reasonable.
>
>Certainly much, much better
>than the loose wheel slot style rack, thrown somewhere
>to push parking consolidation for no good reason, placed
>in a non-optimal or crappy spot.
>
>However, I would still encourage everybody to keep an eye on the
>assessments of superiority of the U style - versus one-time
>installation effort trade offs. Note that the U style seem to get
>installed
>fine many places already. If we eventually get enough people convinced
>a little extra one time effort is worth it, it would be a shame to
>accept
>a compromise and an inferior default standard going forward,
>that we didn't need to.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>== 4 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 1:59 pm
>From: Tim Pierce
>
>
>kob2 at maine.rr.com wrote:
>> However, I would still encourage everybody to keep an eye on the
>> assessments of superiority of the U style - versus one-time
>> installation effort trade offs. Note that the U style seem to get
>> installed
>> fine many places already. If we eventually get enough people convinced
>> a little extra one time effort is worth it, it would be a shame to
>> accept
>> a compromise and an inferior default standard going forward,
>> that we didn't need to.
>
>What is the advantage of the inverted U rack over the post-and-ring rack?
>
>--twp
>
>
>
>
>== 5 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 2:43 pm
>From: Richard Williamson
>
>
>Inverted-U racks provide two vertical supports that make it easier to
>keep the bike upright. A bike has to be carefully balanced against the
>single vertical support of a post-and-ring rack to keep the bike from
>falling. A lock through the ring can help keep the bike upright.
>
>It has been noted that conventional inverted-U racks are more difficult
>to install than post-and-ring racks. However here at work, we have
>installed a type of inverted-U rack that is easy to install. This type
>of rack has a number of inverted U's fastened to two metal beams that
>run horizontally. See http://www.bikeracks.com/ and look at Bike
>Multi-Arch or Bike Multi-Link. The racks we used have U-beams instead
>of the horizontal tubes shown in these examples. The racks can be
>merely set in place. If unintended movement is a problem, one or two
>bolts secure the rack to what is underneath (concrete, asphalt...).
>
>Dick
>
>Tim Pierce wrote:
>> kob2 at maine.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> However, I would still encourage everybody to keep an eye on the
>>> assessments of superiority of the U style - versus one-time
>>> installation effort trade offs. Note that the U style seem to get
>>> installed
>>> fine many places already. If we eventually get enough people convinced
>>> a little extra one time effort is worth it, it would be a shame to
>>> accept
>>> a compromise and an inferior default standard going forward,
>>> that we didn't need to.
>>>
>>
>> What is the advantage of the inverted U rack over the post-and-ring rack?
>>
>> --twp
>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>== 6 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 2:52 pm
>From: "kob2 at maine.rr.com"
>
>
>I'm not committing myself to say there is. It was just a warning
>in case usage and practice shows there is.
>
>However, from my imperfect memory of seeing what I think is being
>discussed,
>here are my suspicions:
>
>1) It is a less stable thing to lean the bicycle against.
>
>2) It would not accomodate two bikes as well.
>
>3) It would be easier to skimp on the design to make
>points 1) and 2) even worse then with existing designs.
>I suspect it would be harder to screw up/compromise the inverted
>U design.
>
>Like I said, though, much much better than the loose
>wheel slot style rack, tucked away in a far off corner.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>Original Message:
>-----------------
>From: Tim Pierce twp at unchi.org
>Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:59:18 -0500
>To: kob2 at maine.rr.com, massbike at googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: [massbike] Re: bike racks
>
>
>kob2 at maine.rr.com wrote:
>> However, I would still encourage everybody to keep an eye on the
>> assessments of superiority of the U style - versus one-time
>> installation effort trade offs. Note that the U style seem to get
>> installed
>> fine many places already. If we eventually get enough people convinced
>> a little extra one time effort is worth it, it would be a shame to
>> accept
>> a compromise and an inferior default standard going forward,
>> that we didn't need to.
>
>What is the advantage of the inverted U rack over the post-and-ring rack?
>
>--twp
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 7 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 1:05 pm
>From: David Wittenberg
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:30:26AM -0800, kob2 at maine.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I would actually make a plug for the Cambridge-style post and ring
>> > racks, but for what is perhaps an unusual reason.
>> >
>> ...
>>
>>
>> However, I would still encourage everybody to keep an eye on the
>> assessments of superiority of the U style - versus one-time
>> installation effort trade offs.
>
>Why is the U style superior to the post and ring style?
>
>--
>--David Wittenberg
>dkw at cs.brandeis.edu
>
>
>
>
>== 8 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 10:04 pm
>From: Tom Revay
>
>
>
>Tim Pierce asked:
>
>> What is the advantage of the inverted U rack over the post-and-ring
>
>> rack?
>
>
>
>If one bike is locked to it, it supports that bike in more than one point, so it's less likely to fall over. It can also easily accommodate two bikes, each supported at one point, which is harder to do with a post-and-ring type.
>
>
>
>The inverted U also offers more locking points than the post-and-ring. I have a hard time locking my Bike Friday sometimes because only the chainstays offer a closed loop, since the bike has a monostay frame. The chainstays are very low on a 20"-wheel bike, and sometimes it's difficult to get a u-lock around a post and thru a chainstay if there's a ring in the way.
>
>
>
>But I'll take a handy post-and-ring for a non-existant inverted U!
>
>
>
>..........................Tom
>
>
>
>
>== 9 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 6:47 pm
>From: Ross Trethewey
>
>
>
>Greetings from Canada:
>
>Toronto, Ontario is one of the leading cities for post and ring.
>
>http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/postandring.htm
>
>When you lock the frame and one wheel to the post it stabilizes the bike
>frame. If you just lock to the ring the bike slides downward along the
>ring.
>
>Ross
>
>
>
>
>== 10 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 9:19 pm
>From: "Dan Streeter"
>
>
>Thanks to you all for the insight about racks.
>
>While I can appreciate the benefits of racks dispersed
>around, the locations we are looking at need more
>concentrated parking facilities. These are the 2 primary
>public access points for the public beach at Plum Island. As
>part of renovations of the parking areas up to 2 auto
>parking spots may be made available for bike parking, maybe
>an area of 18 x 18. Not sure how the post/ring racks
>look/work in multiple.
>
>The hoop racks seem like they are they are most
>understandable to users and most likely to be used as
>intended. Our best option at this time might be to go with
>multiple hoops on rails. When the renovations are done they
>could be used individually, attached to concrete footings.
>The rails might be a problem long term collecting sand and
>moisture.
>
>There are also plans to add post/ring racks in a number of
>Newburyport locations.
>
>DS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 11 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 9:29 pm
>From: "Kenneth O'Brien"
>
>
>>The hoop racks seem like they are they are most
>>understandable to users and most likely to be used as
>>intended.
>
>What are hoop racks? What people have been calling
>inverted U?
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 12 of 12 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 9:41 pm
>From: Tim Pierce
>
>
>Dan Streeter wrote:
>> Thanks to you all for the insight about racks.
>>
>> While I can appreciate the benefits of racks dispersed
>> around, the locations we are looking at need more
>> concentrated parking facilities. These are the 2 primary
>> public access points for the public beach at Plum Island. As
>> part of renovations of the parking areas up to 2 auto
>> parking spots may be made available for bike parking, maybe
>> an area of 18 x 18. Not sure how the post/ring racks
>> look/work in multiple.
>
>Here's a picture:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/drdul/177248724/
>
>(there are actually a lot of relevant and interesting photographs of
>bike parking facilities on Flickr:
>http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bikeparking&s=rec)
>
>I was curious to find out how much space you should allocate for bicycle
>parking. Cambridge appears to require making room for a bicycle 6 feet
>long and 2 feet wide (in Article 6.49.1 of the Cambridge Zoning
>Ordinance, linked from
>http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/CDD/et/bike/bike_zone.html). So, if
>post/ring racks were chosen for your situation, they would have to be 4
>feet apart, and you could fit a total of eight racks (two rows of four
>each) in a 18x18 space. Neat!
>
>--twp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>==============================================================================
>TOPIC: Bike racks
>http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/fc530d164d75c930
>==============================================================================
>
>== 1 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 2:58 pm
>From: "William Hanson, Framingham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Comm"
>
>
> November 28, 2006
>
>Dear MASS Bikers,
> My favorite bicycle rack is located at the Framingham
>Public Library.
> http://users.rcn.com/wehanson/Bike_Rack.jpg
>It features individual steel brackets set into the concrete which
>cradle the wheel quite securely. The wide spacing provides lots
>of room between bikes and there is no contact with the bicycle
>frame. One drawback is that a u-lock won't work so a cable lock
>is required. I don't know who made this particular model but a
>similar style is sold by BikeUp as the "Executive".
> http://www.bikeup.com/horizontal/executive.cfm
>
>Regards,
>Bill Hanson
>Framingham Bicycle Committee
>
>
>
>
>== 2 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 3:39 pm
>From: "kob2 at maine.rr.com"
>
>
>
>It appears what you look for in a rack is the _exact_ opposite
>of what I look for.
>
>Bicycle wheels do not have a lot of strength in the lateral direction.
>I never want my bicycle held by the wheel.
>
>I _want_ the bike supported by leaning solid non-wheel portions
>of the bike against something solid. If that then has a solid
>thing so I can encircle the rear wheel, bike frame and fixed
>thing - all the better.
>
>I will not use a rack that holds my bike only by the wheel.
>
>Ken
>
>
>
>
>>It features individual steel brackets set into the concrete which
>>cradle the wheel quite securely. The wide spacing provides lots
>>of room between bikes and there is no contact with the bicycle
>>frame.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 3 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 4:18 pm
>From: "Peter J. Desnoyers"
>
>
>William Hanson, Framingham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Comm wrote:
>> My favorite bicycle rack is located at the Framingham
>> Public Library.
> ...
>> One drawback is that a u-lock won't work so a cable lock
>> is required.
>
>I would argue that any bike rack that won't accommodate a Kryptonite
>lock is either a display stand or a historical relic. In practice, most
>cyclists who are concerned about theft will be carrying a U-lock, and
>will have to forgo a rack like this and search for a signpost.
>
>I'll add my endorsement for pole-and-ring designs. I made a home-made
>one a while ago, and mounting it in earth was trivial - dig a post hole,
>insert rack, dump quickset concrete in, and fill the hole.
>
>http://lass.cs.umass.edu/~pjd/pole.jpg
>http://lass.cs.umass.edu/~pjd/polenbike.jpg
>
>--
>.....................................................................
> Peter Desnoyers (617) 661-1979 pjd at fred.cambridge.ma.us
> 162 Pleasant St.
> Cambridge, Mass. 02139
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 4 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 9:32 pm
>From: chesler at comcast.net (David Chesler )
>
>
>Ken writes:
>> Bicycle wheels do not have a lot of strength in the lateral direction.
>> I never want my bicycle held by the wheel.
>
> Doesn't that defeat the purpose of keeping the rubber side down?
>
> If it can support a rider going through a turn, it should be strong enough to support the bike.
>(A vandal can bend the wheel, but he could do that even if the bike were not secured by the wheel.)
>
> There is some minimum below which the bike is not locked -- for instance locking by a quick-release wheel. Otherwise, locks are for honest people -- recall how Kryptonite used to exclude New York City from its guarantee. As noted, the Framingham rack may make it impossible to lock if all you're carrying is a U-lock. That can be resolved by leaving heavy cables or chains permanently at those racks.
>
> In following the thread, the post-and-ring -- which does satisfy lots of bikes and locks -- does require only one big hole per bike, but if a ribbon-type holds 6 bikes, that's also one hole per bike. How often are either kind simply pulled from the pavement? With a ribbon-type, the thief then has a bike with a big piece of metal attached that he has to take home to saw (similarly to how a regular old parking meter can be pulled from the sidewalk, but you've got a metal head on one end and a cement block on the other.)
>
> Bad rack design: a schoolyard type in the bike cage at 55 Cambridge Parkway. The cage was so narrow that bikes had to be parked with the front wheel lifted over the rack -- which is better for U-locking to the frame, but impossible if there isn't enough clearance between the wheel and the frame for the relatively thick top pipe of the rack.
>
> My solution: cheap ugly bikes, and avoiding places where the phrase "asking to be stolen" enters the morality on the street. (Although this fall I learned that they still require locks, even in my own, posted, yard.)
>
> - David Chesler
>
>
>
>
>== 5 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 4:50 pm
>From: "kob2 at maine.rr.com"
>
>
>
>
>> If it can support a rider going through a turn, it should be strong
>>enough to support the bike.
>
>The problem is when force is applied sideways. It is very easy for
>all kinds of sideways bumps to exceed lateral force during dynamic
>turning.
>
>KOB
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>== 6 of 6 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 6:02 pm
>From: David Wittenberg
>
>
>On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:58:00PM -0500, William Hanson, Framingham Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Comm wrote:
>>
>> November 28, 2006
>>
>> Dear MASS Bikers,
>> My favorite bicycle rack is located at the Framingham
>> Public Library.
>> http://users.rcn.com/wehanson/Bike_Rack.jpg
>> It features individual steel brackets set into the concrete which
>> cradle the wheel quite securely.
>
>Remember that not all bikes are diamond frames. Some of us ride
>recumbents. A bike rack has to be very good for diamond frames (as
>they're by far the most common), but it should also be reasonably easy
>to lock a recumbent or a folder, or some other strange bike-like
>device to it.
>
>--
>--David Wittenberg
>dkw at cs.brandeis.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>==============================================================================
>TOPIC: Globe: Hub cyclists feel like fifth wheels
>http://groups.google.com/group/massbike/browse_thread/thread/ace466272a3fd4fb
>==============================================================================
>
>== 1 of 1 ==
>Date: Tues, Nov 28 2006 1:28 pm
>From: "Paul Schimek"
>
>
>Doug, your memory must be of the Cambridge regulation. It's very
>specific. Boston has nothing like it (at least nothing public). The
>state law just says this:
>
>"The operator shall park his bicycle upon a way or a sidewalk in such a
>manner as not to obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic."
>http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/85-11b.htm
>
>
>Here are the Cambridge rules, from
>http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/cdd/et/bike/bike_reg.html
>
>Section 12.9: BICYCLE PARKING ON THE PUBLIC WAY
>
>(a) Bicycles are permitted to park against a building, street sign
>pole, or on a bicycle rack or other facility specifically intended for
>that purpose.
>
>(b) Under no circumstances shall a bicycle obstruct the pedestrian path
>of travel or handicap access ramps. A parked bicycle must leave at
>least 36 inches of an obstruction free path of travel.
>
>(c) Bicycles are not permitted to be parked to: fire hydrants, hand
>railings, benches, trees, trash receptacles and parking meters.
>
>(d) Bicycles shall not be parked longer than 72 consecutive hours at
>the same location in any business district as defined in section 12.8.
>
>(e) Bicycles in violation of the above regulations shall be tagged and
>removed immediately if presenting a public safety hazard as noted in
>section 12.9 (b) and given a 72-hour notice to remove for violations in
>section 12.9 (c) and (d). Removed bicycles shall be held by the City of
>Cambridge Department of Public Works for a minimum of 30 days.
>
>(e) No motorized vehicles shall be parked on a bicycle rack or other
>facility specifically designed and intended for bicycle parking.
>Violators are subject to immediate removal from the City of Cambridge
>Department of Public Works or Police Department.
>
>ABANDONED BICYCLE
>
>A bicycle with one or more of the following defects that can be removed
>by the City of Cambridge Public Works Department for public safety and
>maintenance purposes:
>
>(a) No tires or wheels
>
>(b) Have warped wheels or frame
>
>(c) Missing, rusted or broken chain in such a state that renders the
>bicycle inoperative.
>(d) Missing or warped handle bars
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Sbc
mailing list