Dazed and Confused

On 28/4/05 11:34 am, in article , "Peter
Clinch" wrote:

Basically, wot 'e said..

This got me thinking on how do I choose a bike?


1. What do I want it for? Does it have the appropriate braze ons for
mudguards, racks, bottles etc. that may be required?

2. What is the frame made of? Cheap steel is a no no for a 'good bike'. I
have never had an alu bike (though that might change). A good quality frame
(good material and design, well finished) is a key component to assembling a
good bike.

3. Does it ride well?

Then we come to the compromise between:

4. How adjustable/upgradeable are the bits to the spec I would like?

5. How much does it cost?

I have specific upgrade requirements, such as shorter cranks, appropriate
handlebars, saddle etc. Other upgrades can come in time, but if I have the
money I'd buy higher quality components now as failing to do so is IME a
false economy.

So far I have bought very few new bikes because I seem to have got it close
to right. My 8 yo MTB/commuter has few original parts. Only the frame, forks
and handlebars are original.

My road bike has the original frame and forks. It is 16 years old. the
original gear mechs still work fine (Shimano Sante) and the other components
of similar grade are also in good condition.

Maybe it is because I look at a bike as a long term investment, and focus on
the core parts first. Everything else can be relatively easily changed.

...d

Paul D wrote:

: But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
: distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
: other components.

Because you are looking for certainty that doesn't exist.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

Paul D wrote:

Knowing the bad experiences I've had with bike shops, and the complete =
rubbish
I've been told in Camera, Computer and Hi-Fi shops on occasion, I don't=
intend
to shell out the best part of =A3500 unless *I* know what's going on.

If you require complete objective certainty over every aspect of the=20
design and construction then you will know more than just about /anyone/ =

including professional cycle designers.
The same would apply to cameras, computers and hi-fi: you tell me what=20
hi-fi you bought and I'll give you a a handful of reasons why something=20
else may heave been better.

OTOH, you can be reassured that, say, a =A3350 bike with no overt frills =

(like disc brakes and full suspension) from a reputable manufacturer=20
will almost certainly be a sound bit of kit that will get you about and=20
not fall to bits.

Pete.
--=20
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul D wrote:

That isn't really a good analogy, though, is it?

It's not trying to be down to micrometric detail, but it gives you a
fair idea.

In the case of a BMW v Ford comparison, virtually everything about the BMW is
better than the Ford.

I don't think that's fair. If you buy a bottom of the range beemer and
a mid-range Ford at comparable costs then there will be things about the
Ford which are probably nicer. For example, you might get air
conditioning rather than just a standard hot/cold air blower. And if
you spend a lot of time driving in places where A/C makes a tangible
comfort difference and you're not so bothered about other aspects then
the Ford may be the better buy.

In the case of the Ridgeback v Canondale, what people are saying is that the
Canondale has a 'nicer' frame, but with lesser components for the same price.

Rather more akin to saying that for the same price, a BMW will have a better
body, but the engine, gearbox and breaks will not be as nice.

No, see above.

But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
other components.

Transmission is out of the equation if you're not pedalling, so handling
while freewheeling will mainly be down to the frame and the wheels.

But you're still obsessing over individual things where what you're
actually buying is a *whole package*. Different people have different
preferences for their packages, so there's not really much point in
trying to infer what you want from what other people think, when it is
/far/ more informative to just get on bikes and ride them. Furthermore,
any of the packages that have been pointed out /will/ do what /you/ want
and for many years.

Every time you get more detailed information from here or wherever it
just upsets you, so I don't see you're helping yourself by digging up
even more.

I can give you plenty of reasons why an Alpha 9 CD would have been
"better" than my naim cd3. But I like the way my cd3 sounds, and I'm
happy with it, so how are those reasons in any way relevant or useful to
me? They're not. On current form, assuming you do acquire complete
knowledge of the possibilities (which you /won't/, btw, I certainly
don't have it and I'm a gear junkie that's loved bikes for years) then
you'll still be bloody miserable after you buy the Perfect Bike because
of nagging doubts that something might be better. Just get on with it
and enjoy the bike: every hour you spend obsessing about detail which,
basically, isn't going to affect your projected usage in much of a
tangible fashion, is an hour when you could have been enjoying yourself
riding on something that if not perfect is at least reasonably good and
well up to the job you have for it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:57:08 GMT, (Paul D) wrote:

But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
other components.

Generally speaking a "nicer" frame would be likely to offer some (or
perhaps all) of the following benefits:

It will be lighter.

It's construction (welding, brazing, lugwork, whatever is appropriate
to that frame type and material) will be of better quality than the
typical production line, machine made equivalent.

The paint finish may be superior (in terms of aesthetics and
longevity).

It may have a better warranty (lifetime frame guarantees are available
from several manufacturers).

It's design, geometry and stiffness will be tuned far more finely to
suit the bikes intended function, be this as a touring machine, a TT
bike, a cross country hardtail, whatever.

Whether or not any of these things matter to you at all, or to what
degree, is of course up to you, but those are some of the qualities
I'd be looking for to distinguish a high end frame from a middle of
the road example.


--

"Bob"



Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:02:22 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

OTOH, you can be reassured that, say, a =A3350 bike with no overt frills =

(like disc brakes and full suspension) from a reputable manufacturer=20
will almost certainly be a sound bit of kit that will get you about and=20
not fall to bits.

Quite honestly, I think that just about sums up that I need to know.

If I could just find a couple of bike shops that each had a couple of the right
types of bike, in the right price range, in my size, and would adjust them and
let me ride them, I might actually be getting somewhere.

Paul D wrote:

If I could just find a couple of bike shops that each had a couple of the right
types of bike, in the right price range, in my size, and would adjust them and
let me ride them, I might actually be getting somewhere.

So where are you, and see if anyone can come up with something not a
million miles away?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

in message , Paul D
') wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:48:59 +0100, Simon Brooke
wrote:

That's my prejudice, yes. I could be wrong. I mean, compare it to a
Cannondale Adventure 400 which you should be able to pick up for about
the same price (05 models a bit more expensive, 04 models a bit
cheaper if you can still find them).
URL:http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/ce/model-4AS4.html
You'll find the frame on the Cannondale is much nicer, and the kit
generally not quite as good.

This just gets worse and worse.

Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?

Prefer the colour?

Don't care about the colour (yes I do. A gentleman's bicycle is _always_
black).

Done a metalurgical analysis?

Wouldn't know a metalurgical analysis if it fell on me out of a tree.

Spent time riding them?

That's the one. Bikes are meant to be used. It doesn't matter how good
they are on paper, it's what they feel like that counts.

Done calculatations on the geometry?

If the Canondale is so 'nice', why don't Ridgeback make theirs more
like it?

Because the degree of care in the welding and finish of welds which goes
into a Cannondale frame is very expensive. It's highly skilled hand
work that robots can't yet do. Mind you, whether the beautiful welds
make any difference to the ride quality I don't know, I think that has
more to do with the internal shaping of the tubes.

What superiority would I notice, as a rider, about the 'nicer'
canondale frame.

The bike is less harsh and more responsive to ride.

What inferiority would I notice about the generally
less good 'kit' ?

For urban commuting use, probably very little. It will be marginally
heavier, which is never a good thing, and over time gear selection may
be slightly less precise. Components will wear out sooner, but can be
replaced over time with better ones.

What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

Likely to be slightly harsher in ride. The frame is likely to be quite a
bit heavier, which will probably outweigh the savings in weight made on
the components.

There are three LBS's that I can get to very easily. They're all
stuffed full of bikes.

Half the rest are tourers, leaving 6.

So thats 6 bikes ranging in price from about £100 to £1000, and with
frame sizes s, m, l, xl.

And, guess what. Not one of the three shops had a bike of the basic
type I wanted, in my price range, with the correct frame size.

Well, bugger them, then. It really isn't any good expecting someone to
choose a bike off a piece of paper - you might just as well buy one of
the Internet, which is exactly what LBSs should be trying to persuade
you not to do. You have to ride a bike to feel whether it's right. If
they aren't prepared to get the model you want in the size you want in
for you to try, take your money elsewhere. It isn't as if you were
wanting something terribly exotic or terribly expensive - they'll sell
the bike whether or not you buy it.

In each shop, decide which of the range they stock is likely to suit you
best, and ask them to get one in for you to ride. If they won't do
that, walk away. Of course they'll try to sell you something they've
actually got in stock - it's more profitable and less work - but if
they aren't prepared to let you try what you want, then they really
aren't people you want to do business with.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'

in message , Paul D
') wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:57:44 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote:

What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

It isn't as good as a Cannondale frame.

Yes, but what would I notice?

Would it rattle?

No.

Would it flex?

Yes, of course, all frames flex to a degree.

Would it fail to flex?

This is the key. Lower quality aluminium frames tend to be very stiff
and to transmit a lot of vibration from the road to the rider.

Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in
weight?

This too, although it is probably less important to you.

Would it break?

Unlikely. Lower quality frames with thicker walled tubes are probably
stronger than better quality frames (very low quality steel frames do
tend to break at the welds, but that's a different matter and mostly
affects sub-£60 bikes).

What should I be looking out for.

On aluminium frames, straight aluminium seat stays are often a bad
thing, because of transmission of vibration. Slightly S shaped seat
stays, or seat-stays with carbon inserts, are often better and evidence
of more thoughtful design. But the main thing which makes a difference
is something which you cannot see from the outside, which is the wall
thickness of the tubes, and particularly how the thickness profile
changes along the length. Around the welds the tubes need thick walls,
but in the middle of the length of the tube the wall can be much
thinner, and if the tube wall is internally shaped this gives a
lighter, less stiff frame which is generally better to ride. A tube
which is thinner walled in the middle than at the ends is called double
(or triple) butted - but you'll have to take this on faith because
without taking the bike completely apart there's no way of checking.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

in message , David Martin
') wrote:

On 28/4/05 11:34 am, in article , "Peter
Clinch" wrote:

Basically, wot 'e said..

This got me thinking on how do I choose a bike?

Me, I just fall in love with them.

I'd lusted after Cannondales for the better part of fifteen years before
I actually bought mine. It's just the combination of outrageous
engineering and unfussy design that gets to me - which is why I bought
the Cannondale I did. For me it is the epitome of the breed - the
combination of a monoblade fork and variable geometry suspension on a
bike light enough and agile enough to be competitive in cross country
events is just -- right. Just _so_ right. And it feels so right when I
ride it and enables me to do things which frankly I'm not even nearly
good enough to do. And it looks so completely funky - I still see
people doing double-takes every time I ride it.

The price didn't matter. Whether it was value for money didn't matter.
Whether I couldn't have got a better bike from Whyte (the only possible
competitor in my mind was that extraordinary preying mantis thing from
Whyte) didn't matter. I saw the Jekyll and I had to have it.

And the Dolan's been the same thing. I first saw Dolan's carbon
monocoques about a couple of years before I bought mine, and I just
thought it looked so beautiful and organic - so sculptural. Once again,
I saw it and I immediately felt 'I want that one!'.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"