The Chainlink

Lets pool all of our knowledge together for one singular goal...WORLD DOMINATION! Oops! Wrong thread. Please post all of you tips and tricks/do and don'ts of locking your bike and theft prevention. Please be as specific as possible. Around the middle of January I will compile all of the information, research said information (to the best of my ability), and create an official how to for all cyclist. If for some reason you have volumes of information you can email me at 2poler@gmail.com, if you feel the urge to help with this task also feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Joe

Views: 9721

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is less that it is a horrible lock up and more that they are using the better of the two locks to secure parts to the bike when the easier to cut lock is securing the bike.

The Abus locks are much harder to defeat; I got to spend a night cutting and breaking locks from different manufacturers and, in my opinion, Abus makes a much harder to defeat lock in both the chain and u-lock variety.  It takes longer to cut an Abus of about the same size as it does a either a On-guard or Kryptonite with an angle grinder; I know this because we cut them all.  Their chains are also harder to cut with a bolt cutter and with a grinder compared to equal sized On-guard chains; we did not have a Kryptonite chain to test.  The shackle on the u-lock is more resistant to torsion compared to any lock of comparable size, the only one that even comes close in general is the Kryptonite NY lock.  You also cannot force them open with only a single cut which is something you can do on the On-guard locks and most Kryptonite locks.

James BlackHeron said:

It looks like an OnGuard Bulldog.  It's the lowest-level OnGuard U-lock and most have only a double-bolt locking system although some of the newer Bulldogs have the Quatro locking system now.

I wouldn't exactly call it a "poor" lock compared to many others out there although the PitBull or Brute would be a better choice as they don't cost much more although the weight penalty starts to go up.

I think Doug over-values the eficacy of the Abus compared to even the light-duty Bulldog U-lock.  The expense of the Abus locks is mainly for their convenience but I don't think they are any more secure as the low-end double-bolted U-locks like the Bulldog and nowhere near as hard to defeat as the Brute or PitBull IMHO.

Even a top of the line U-lock is cheese when it meets a grinder or a good hydraulic rebar cutter. 


notoriousDUG said:

So here is a prime example of a bad lock up that somebody thinks is a good one.

On the surface it looks good but it's actually at risk.  The higher quality Abus chain is locked through the rear wheel and crank to the frame and the front wheel and frame are locked to the rack via a not so great On-guard lock.  Seems secure but in all reality that u-lock can be defeated with a bolt cutter and the lock body cuts very easily and defeating that lock means somebody can walk off with the bike cutting one lock.

Gone in 30 seconds:

And what does that have to do with u-locks or chains?  The Bordo has a poorly designed link in that it can be cut easily in one direction but it's a trade off for the way the lock works. It is also much easier to cut a lock on the ground with your foot on it than it is to cut one hanging on the bike; that would not have happened as quick on a locked bike.

Several u-locks can be cut in the same amount of time it took to cut that Bordo.

If you want to post up videos and claim you know the good, the bad, the in and the out on locks but I'm the one who has actually cut and defeated the locks to see which ones are tougher.

James BlackHeron said:

Gone in 30 seconds:

Important point. 2 "strong" locks is a great solution, but unless you use both to lock the bike to something sturdy you're losing much of the benefit of the second lock.

Put that on the list of things to broadcast into all cyclists' heads when we get that transmitter up and running.

notoriousDUG said:

It is less that it is a horrible lock up and more that they are using the better of the two locks to secure parts to the bike when the easier to cut lock is securing the bike.

The Abus locks are much harder to defeat; I got to spend a night cutting and breaking locks from different manufacturers and, in my opinion, Abus makes a much harder to defeat lock in both the chain and u-lock variety.  It takes longer to cut an Abus of about the same size as it does a either a On-guard or Kryptonite with an angle grinder; I know this because we cut them all.  Their chains are also harder to cut with a bolt cutter and with a grinder compared to equal sized On-guard chains; we did not have a Kryptonite chain to test.  The shackle on the u-lock is more resistant to torsion compared to any lock of comparable size, the only one that even comes close in general is the Kryptonite NY lock.  You also cannot force them open with only a single cut which is something you can do on the On-guard locks and most Kryptonite locks.

James BlackHeron said:

It looks like an OnGuard Bulldog.  It's the lowest-level OnGuard U-lock and most have only a double-bolt locking system although some of the newer Bulldogs have the Quatro locking system now.

I wouldn't exactly call it a "poor" lock compared to many others out there although the PitBull or Brute would be a better choice as they don't cost much more although the weight penalty starts to go up.

I think Doug over-values the eficacy of the Abus compared to even the light-duty Bulldog U-lock.  The expense of the Abus locks is mainly for their convenience but I don't think they are any more secure as the low-end double-bolted U-locks like the Bulldog and nowhere near as hard to defeat as the Brute or PitBull IMHO.

Even a top of the line U-lock is cheese when it meets a grinder or a good hydraulic rebar cutter. 


notoriousDUG said:

So here is a prime example of a bad lock up that somebody thinks is a good one.

On the surface it looks good but it's actually at risk.  The higher quality Abus chain is locked through the rear wheel and crank to the frame and the front wheel and frame are locked to the rack via a not so great On-guard lock.  Seems secure but in all reality that u-lock can be defeated with a bolt cutter and the lock body cuts very easily and defeating that lock means somebody can walk off with the bike cutting one lock.

Locks  (u-locks, chains, or even the abus) are easier to cut on the bike than flopping around on the ground.  You just put your foot into it and the bike frame becomes your vise.  

My point is that your assertion that the folding Abus (any of the versions) are no better than the low-end OnGuard.  

An angle grinder would eat through both quickly if the thief wants your bike.   The Abus is a very convenient lock because of its folding nature and the ability to easily go through both the frame and the wheel and a bike rack.  But it is a bit costly. 

I disagree that the picture you posted is of "a prime example of a bad lock up" as you stated.  Yes, it could be better but it is still better than at least 80% of the bikes locked up even if you discount those "locked" with bike floss or doggie-chains that can be cut with a pair of 8" linesmans pliers. 


It is understood that you spent a night cutting a few different locks.  The pro thieves have been cutting locks for years.  They know all the tricks.  If the bike is worth it they'll get through any lock in <2 minutes -many in much less time than that.  I agree that putting two locks that must be cut to free the bikes is going to slow them down even more and hopefully it'll be enough of a discouragement to move onto a more-poorly locked bike.  That's about all you can hope for.

In this city I wouldn't leave any bike I cared about locked-up overnight or all day long at a high-crime area like an L-station.  Two good locks are a good idea and you are right that the bike in this picture would have been better off if was positioned so that both locks went around the bike rack so a thief needed to cut them both -or just the rack once.  I cut stuff for a living (back before the banksters destroyed the economy)  and know that steel is really not that tough when you have the right tool.

No lock is "safe"  -some are just more un-safe than others.

Moar vid-E-ohz

If I were a POS bike thief I'd have me one of these.

The Bordo is not the Abus I think is a better lock...

It's not a bad lock up it is just a false sense of security, the chain is doing next to nothing when it comes to combating theft of the entire bike.



James BlackHeron said:

Locks  (u-locks, chains, or even the abus) are easier to cut on the bike than flopping around on the ground.  You just put your foot into it and the bike frame becomes your vise.  

My point is that your assertion that the folding Abus (any of the versions) are no better than the low-end OnGuard.  

An angle grinder would eat through both quickly if the thief wants your bike.   The Abus is a very convenient lock because of its folding nature and the ability to easily go through both the frame and the wheel and a bike rack.  But it is a bit costly. 

I disagree that the picture you posted is of "a prime example of a bad lock up" as you stated.  Yes, it could be better but it is still better than at least 80% of the bikes locked up even if you discount those "locked" with bike floss or doggie-chains that can be cut with a pair of 8" linesmans pliers. 


It is understood that you spent a night cutting a few different locks.  The pro thieves have been cutting locks for years.  They know all the tricks.  If the bike is worth it they'll get through any lock in <2 minutes -many in much less time than that.  I agree that putting two locks that must be cut to free the bikes is going to slow them down even more and hopefully it'll be enough of a discouragement to move onto a more-poorly locked bike.  That's about all you can hope for.

In this city I wouldn't leave any bike I cared about locked-up overnight or all day long at a high-crime area like an L-station.  Two good locks are a good idea and you are right that the bike in this picture would have been better off if was positioned so that both locks went around the bike rack so a thief needed to cut them both -or just the rack once.  I cut stuff for a living (back before the banksters destroyed the economy)  and know that steel is really not that tough when you have the right tool.

No lock is "safe"  -some are just more un-safe than others.

It's keeping the rear wheel from being stolen -but that's about it.  It can be removed with ease later once a thief cuts the U-lock and removes the entire bike to a safe-secure place to work on it at his leisure. 

 

But wheel theft is not a small problem here in Chicago.  Walk by any L station and 20% or more of the bikes are missing at least one wheel -more if you walk by the Logan Blue-line stop (the bike rack of broken dreams.)

 

But still it would be better if both locks were around the bike rack.  This is why I prefer U-racks to the stupid S racks.  It's much easier to get two U-locks around two wheels, the frame and the bike rack.

 

But still, one cut on the rack and kicking it to offset the cut will free the bike in under a minute.

 

There is no safety from bike thieves unless you have the bike inside your locked house and are home guarding it actively with a shotgun.  Even then, if a thief wants it badly enough they're going to get it.  Regardless of Miller Decision the city of Chicago is still a criminal-protection job-safety zone tm

ABUS 14KS compared to a pencil in my apartment....happily impressed...

THE ANSWER TO ALL YOUR LOCK PROBLEMS:

Have more / better locks than the bike next to you.  Thats it, I call it "competitive deterrence".  Park next to a nice bike with fewer locks and you ride will be fine.  A thief doesn't necessarily want "YOUR BIKE", they want "A BIKE" and if the one near by is an easier steal than thats all the security you need.

H

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service