U-lock info

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Hi,

Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?

ty

Steveo

There's a lock test in the latest Cycling Plus...

"Steve Sharman" <SSharman@Intercast.com.au> wrote in message
news:40738533.BFD289D9@Intercast.com.au...
> Hi,
>
> Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 04:36:06 GMT, Steve Sharman
<SSharman@Intercast.com.au> may have said:

>Hi,
>
>Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?

Solely my opinion, based on apparent resistance to methods commonly
applied to defeat it: the Kryptonite New York 3000, or the similar
models that are sold in Europe.

http://www.kryptonitelock.com/inetisscripts/abtinetis.exe/PublicArticleDetails@public?artid=3035&atf=products_item&pgrp=20

or

http://tinyurl.com/st3h

Cost will vary according to where you buy it.



--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:28:47 GMT, robrac <rob@pleasenospam.robrac.com>
may have said:

>I always figure that if one product is clearly superior to all others,
>then everyone will buy the superior one, and the others will cease to
>be in business.
>
>Then again, your milage may vary.

If you have a $50 bike, it probably seems ludicrous to spend $75 on a
lock...but even a $50 bike needs a lock in most places.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:anc8705scl9l0fceii7am0p8ertuoq1ba3@4ax.com...
> If you have a $50 bike, it probably seems ludicrous to spend $75 on a
> lock...but even a $50 bike needs a lock in most places.

Not to me ... I'm paying so I don't have to walk home (c:

C.Q.C.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:54:49 GMT, Werehatrack
<rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:28:47 GMT, robrac <rob@pleasenospam.robrac.com>
>may have said:
>
>>I always figure that if one product is clearly superior to all others,
>>then everyone will buy the superior one, and the others will cease to
>>be in business.
>>
>>Then again, your milage may vary.
>
>If you have a $50 bike, it probably seems ludicrous to spend $75 on a
>lock...but even a $50 bike needs a lock in most places.

In which case, the $75 lock is not clearly superior for the
conditions. If lock price to bike price ratio is the issue, then the
quality of the lock becomes immaterial.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:41:37 -0700, skuke <skuke89@oohay.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:28:47 GMT, robrac wrote:
>
>> I always figure that if one product is clearly superior to all others,
>> then everyone will buy the superior one, and the others will cease to
>> be in business.
>>
>> Then again, your milage may vary.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
>
>What if the clearly superior lock is 5x more expensive than any other and
>all you're doing is locking up a relatively inexpensive commuter bike?
>...that's why the "others" would stay in business.

<SNIP>


Because there is no one lock which is clearly superior for all
conditions, and it is an incredibly personal decision of how much
money to spend for how much protection, and not a question of what is
the "best" lock to purchase, but what is the best lock to purchase
taking into consideration how much the lock cost, how much the bike
cost, how much the lock weighs, how convienent is it to carry the
lock, is it easy enough to use in the middle of a rain storm, and so
many other variables that my mind is glazing over.

As my daughter likes to say, everyone has a solution to the problem,
but nobody has a solution that works for everyone.

So, my next suggestion is to find someone using a lock that you think
will do whatever it is that you want, look at it, do not steal it, go
to the lbs and purchase a similar lock.

Rob

On 07 Apr 2004 18:47:23 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
<damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> may have said:

>robrac <rob@pleasenospam.robrac.com> wrote:
>>I always figure that if one product is clearly superior to all others,
>>then everyone will buy the superior one, and the others will cease to
>>be in business.
>
>Never mind that this is manifest nonsense even where one product is
>clearly superior (I know it's also an article of faith amongst economists,
>but that doesn't make it true); it makes even less sense here where
>different people have different desires. Not everyone will regard the
>toughest lock as superior irrespective of cost and weight.

Very true. The old saying that "one man's treasure is another's
trash" readily applies. If the same item was the best for all
applications, then there would be little need for choices...but the
world is full of choices because one size almost never fits all.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 02:10:55 GMT, Rob <none@none.com> may have said:

>On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:54:49 GMT, Werehatrack
><rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>>If you have a $50 bike, it probably seems ludicrous to spend $75 on a
>>lock...but even a $50 bike needs a lock in most places.
>
>In which case, the $75 lock is not clearly superior for the
>conditions. If lock price to bike price ratio is the issue, then the
>quality of the lock becomes immaterial.

Well, not commetely immaterial, but the price/benefit ratio may rule
out the more expensive units. Of course, there can be instances in
which it makes sense to have a $100 lock for a $50 bike. If the bike
is in use by a NYC messenger as his backup, for instance, then the
price of the bike is less relevant than the reasonable certainty that
it will still be present when the rider returns for it. I'm told that
they favor massive chains and WMD-resistant padlocks over U-locks,
though.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Steve Sharman <SSharman@Intercast.com.au> wrote in message news:<40738533.BFD289D9@Intercast.com.au>...
> Hi,
>
> Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?
>
> ty
>
> Steveo

see no 3 of FAQ:
<http://www.nybma.com/>

bc_cletta@yahoo.com (B.C. Cletta) wrote in message news:<add863d6.0404091816.4cb8fd70@posting.google.com>...
> Steve Sharman <SSharman@Intercast.com.au> wrote in message news:<40738533.BFD289D9@Intercast.com.au>...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?
> >
> > ty
> >
> > Steveo
>
> see no 3 of FAQ:
> <http://www.nybma.com/>

I have to say that I totally agree with the thoughts on a quad chain,
seeing as I live in Chicago. The thing that I have been curious about
with my quad chain is this, with the weight of this thing will it
eventually lead my wheelset gettting out of true? I mean every time I
slip that thing through my rear wheel I think about that. These things
are heavy!

I have seen enough bike carcasses to know that I want my rear wheel!
Front wheels are much cheaper to replace:)

And they are right about that mini U-lock that comes on it. toss it! I
stopped using mine once I could feel the key was starting to come
apart, but darn that thing lost a lot of weight with that bit gone!

David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3hw*Q+qhq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
> robrac <rob@pleasenospam.robrac.com> wrote:
> ><rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
> >><SSharman@Intercast.com.au> may have said:
> >>>Whats the best U-Lock on the market and whats the cost of it?
> >>Solely my opinion, based on apparent resistance to methods commonly
> >>applied to defeat it: the Kryptonite New York 3000, or the similar
> >>models that are sold in Europe.
> >I always figure that if one product is clearly superior to all others,
> >then everyone will buy the superior one, and the others will cease to
> >be in business.
>

one principle that works against this assertion is:
the point of diminishing returns.

consider a case where the "best" was objectively only 1% better
than the "next best" - but it cost 2% more.

would you still buy the "best"?

probably.

what if the cost were 20% more?

maybe.

200%?

the point [of diminishing returns] is where it;s not worth it to you.

and it;s different for everyone.

this is why the "best" doesn;t just beat everything else out.

sometimes it doesn;t even survive.

and of course in most examples, the criteria are subjective so you
really can;t even say what is "best".

or maybe one thing can be measured objectively [weight] but
others can;t be ["this one feels better", "the color is prettier",
"you can;t see the combination numbers in the dark"]

or one person;s feature is another person;s nightmare.
["power windows - cool!" vs "i hate power windows because they
are unreliable"]

etc etc etc

wle.

wle <wle@mailinator.com> wrote:
>David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3hw*Q+qhq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...
[no text quoted from me]

Watch that - don't include attribution lines that don't have corresponding
text.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!

David Damerell wrote:
> wle <wle@mailinator.com> wrote:
>> David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<3hw*Q+qhq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>... [no text quoted from
>> me]
>
> Watch that - don't include attribution lines that don't have
> corresponding text.

TRY TELLING THAT TO BILL ZAUMEN*!!!

Bill "over it, really" S.

* rec.misc thing