Newbie Questions

"David" wrote in message
hoo.dsafds.com...


Would like to spend no more than $500-$600 and get something that I am
not
going to want to upgrade again.



While a good fit is important, it's the type of bike fitting that is
fitted to the type of riding that's going to make you happy with your
$500 to $600 bike purchase. Make sure that a bike shop isn't going to
sell you an aerodynamic efficient road bike with drops, cause you need
to very flexible on your body joints and that is something you need to
develop over time with more cycling. That is why, upright bicycles are
selling like hot cakes, especially with newbies. There are a few
advantages of riding on drops, namely being aerodynamic. But it also
allows you to push bigger gears by ways of leveraging your body against
the drops, which you can't easily do on flat bars.


What's the difference between an "upright bike" with flat bars and "road
bike" with the bars the same height as the saddle? The drop bars will be
just as upright on the tops, and then there are the additional hand
positions on the hoods and the drops. A flat bar has one position.

wrote in message
oups.com...

David wrote:


This is yet another misconception.. Not all bike shoes have very
stiff
soles. Some shoes have stiffer soles than others. The stiffer the
soles, the harder it is to walk on -- I have a SIDI road shoes than I
can barely walk on compared to my Answer's touring shoes which are
more
flexy but easier to walk on. I have one pair of commuting SPD shoes
that are just as flexible as my runners, but man it's so comfy just
walking on them.

I've never understood why the norm is to use tiny pedals - which would
concentrate pedal forces on small areas of the foot - then compensate
by wearing shoes with broad, stiff, unwalkable platforms.

I have an ancient pair of Look MTB pedals with a large platform. They're
great, and I get fewer hot spots than with my tiny SPD pedals. I guess the
weight weenies influence pedal design. There are Shimano pedals with large
platforms, though.

wrote:

I've never understood why the norm is to use tiny pedals - which would
concentrate pedal forces on small areas of the foot - then compensate
by wearing shoes with broad, stiff, unwalkable platforms.

I have the original MTB style SPDs, which I guess are what you describe as tiny.
My shoes are stiff, but have plenty of flex in the toe area to make walking
comfortable. As long as they're stiff right under the ball of the foot,
tapering gradually toward the toe, the design works fine for both riding and
walking. If you want to blame someone, blame shoemakers for not doing a better
job.

Why not use pedals with a wide platform, and have at least a moderate
amount of flex in the shoe? Certainly, clipless pedals _could_ be
designed this way.

The problem is the difference in tolerance between pedal and cleat, and pedal
and sole. Shoes vary too much, especially as they wear. We can't rely on the
precision of this interface. The softer the sole, the more the pressure will be
concentrated on the cleat, and the worse the hotspot under the rider's foot --
no matter how big the pedal platform is. The stiffer the shoe, the less the
size of the platform matters.

FWIW, my commuting bike has the old Lyotard platform pedals (Mod 23?
I forget) which I ride with loose straps. The platform isn't
extremely broad, but it's fine with my dress shoes or even with
rather spongy athletic shoes. If the platform were an inch wider, I
imagine I could pedal in moccasins.

Yup. Use what works for you.

Matt O.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:29:36 -0800, frkrygow wrote:

I've never understood why the norm is to use tiny pedals - which
would
concentrate pedal forces on small areas of the foot - then
compensate
by wearing shoes with broad, stiff, unwalkable platforms.

It's either that or use a big, absolutely unwalkable, cleat.

See, I don't think it has to be that way. I'm proposing that it's
possible to design a walkable cleat that interfaces with a wide, stiff
platform on the pedal. If the stiffness were in the pedal, the shoe
could flex more and make walking more comfortable. (Not that I've got
any design ideas sketched out, mind you!)

I suspect part of the reason for the current "tiny pedal" fashion is so
bike or pedal manufacturers can claim less weight. But in effect, the
weight just moves to the shoes, which have to be made heavier to
provide the necessary support to minimize hot spots.

To me, it looks similar to selling a bike without a saddle, to save
weight. To be used only with shorts featuring a built in, 1.5 pound
saddle, of course!


Besides, I
don't find that stiff-soled shoes with recessed cleats are bad for
walking at all.

That would be OK if I were to drive to the start of the ride, strap on
shoes, and walk to the back of the car to get my bike. Or perhaps walk
"all the way" into the coffee shop during the rest stop.

When on tour, there have been plenty of times I've wanted to walk
significant distances. I've gotten by, admittedly, but even my touring
shoes are not really comfortable for, say, a mile walk.

wrote:

David wrote:

Folks,

There are 2 main reasons in using clipless pedals. The push and pull
technique which I bet most people do not use.


I doubt anyone uses the push and pull technique except under extreme
conditions.

Lots of people think they pull up on the back part of the stroke, but I
recall reading a research paper showing the results from using
instrumented pedals with a number of road racers. When the racers
swore they were lifting the pedals on the upstroke, they were actually
just reducing the amount of down & back force they applied. That is,
they reduced the amount their back leg fought against their front leg.

There may be a few moments someone actually applies positive torque
during the back part of the pedal stroke, but I think those moments are
very few indeed.

Unless they are riding PowerCranks: http://www.powercranks.com/.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:05:40 -0800, frkrygow wrote:


That would be OK if I were to drive to the start of the ride, strap on
shoes, and walk to the back of the car to get my bike. Or perhaps walk
"all the way" into the coffee shop during the rest stop.

When on tour, there have been plenty of times I've wanted to walk
significant distances. I've gotten by, admittedly, but even my touring
shoes are not really comfortable for, say, a mile walk.

Depending on which bike I ride, if I ride one that has clipless pedals I
keep cycling shoes on all day long. Fortunately I don't have to dress up
at work. Sometimes after a recreational ride I will come home and keep my
riding shoes on for hours.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson

"eagleeye1200" wrote in message
news:gs0Ud.65284$8a6.50887@trndny09...

snip

Would like to spend no more than $500-$600 and get something that I am not
going to want to upgrade again.

New to this group, so please point me in the right direction if there is a
bette place to post or a web site where I could find some useful info in
making my decision.

See the "Bicycle Recommendation Short List" site at
"http://bicycleshortlist.com".

The Bianchi Brava is probably the best choice in your price range. It has a
non-compact, chro-moly frame, and the lower end of the Shimano component
sets (lower in terms of bicycle shop bicycle's component sets, not low as in
what is in department store bicycles). See
http://www.bianchiusa.com/brava.html

Sells for between $500 and $600 depending on the shop.

Steve
http://bicycleshortlist.com


Also look at the closeout of the 2004 Marin Argenta for $650, see
http://www.rei.com/outlet/product/47943596.htm which has the next component
set up (Tiagra).