|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
Chums
Further to a previous post about upgrading from my initial cheap intro to cycling with a sub £100 'mountain bike' (this a deliberate decision), I'm popping into townat the weekend to do a bit of window shopping - there are four cycle shops in Colchester :-) I'm clear that what I want is to - go faster on the country roads in north Essex (a few occasional uphill bits, but its probably as flat as anywhere in England) and never want to go off road on it - no need for mudguards, panniers or any of that palaver -but- I'm not too sure about assuming a bent over body position on the drop handlebars for long periods. (In my 40s and never had a racer before). A 'fitness bike' as described on CTC seems to be the thing I should be looking at - a sort of racer with straight handlebars, or a 'lite' hybrid http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3793 It's alll very confusing! So what kind of bike should I be looking at? What shoulds I be looking at in terms of - type of bike - type of gears? - 2 or 3 front chainrings? - very narrow wheels? - dropped handlebars a must? M |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
Maurice Wibblington wrote:
shopping - there are four cycle shops in Colchester :-) If your budget is medium (or high), try 53-12, who are back trading in another unit after the fire at the Cowdrey Centre. If you want another opinion outside of Colchester, travel north to Mick Madgett in Diss. I'm clear that what I want is to - go faster on the country roads in north Essex (a few occasional uphill bits, but its probably as flat as anywhere in England) and never want to go off road on it - no need for mudguards, panniers or any of that palaver -but- I'm not too sure about assuming a bent over body position on the drop handlebars for long periods. (In my 40s and never had a racer before). - type of bike Maybe one of the flat-barred racing bikes (aka Fitness bike), eg. Ridgeback Genesis series. Or traditional drop bars. I'd go for the drop bars. In either case, you need to decide how far over you will bend, because the standard low bar position of either is possibly too low for you, and its not very different with the "fitness bikes". Some bikes come with adjustable stems which will allow you to raise the bars, others will require you to purchase replacement parts to raise the bars. - type of gears? Doesn't really matter. They will be derraileur. There is a difference between Shimano and Campagnolo gears, but basically they all work. As the price rises the quality rises (and weights fall), but eventually you reach the point where the next step up is a massive hike in price for marginal weight/quality changes. If you know the gear you tend to ride a lot on your current bike, you can work out exactly which ratios you should fit. I suggest that there is no point having gears higher than 110inches, quite a few bikes come higher than this which is fine for professional atheletes, but no good for ordinary people's knees. (consult www.sheldonbrown.com for articles on gear inches, calculators etc). - 2 or 3 front chainrings? I'd get three for the times I am tired (and I live in Suffolk, equally flat). But Mr Brookes will be along to say get two, or a "compact" which is two with a slightly smaller inner ring than normal. Probably for what you've said, an ordinary double and a wider range road rear cassette (say 12-27 or 13-29) would be sufficient, or a "compact double" and a closer ratio rear cassette (say 12-25), but, if you can, leave open the option of retro-fitting the triple should you change your mind. - very narrow wheels? Not sensible in my opinion. I'd go for something with 28mm tyres for the improved comfort. Certainly not below 25mm. - dropped handlebars a must? I'd go with them as they offer more hand positions than straight ones. This gives your muscles and joints more options to avoid stiffness. There are three on the top, with lots of small shifts between (same height as flat bars): on the straight bit, hands outside the curve, on the brake hoods. For what you've said, I'd try to get something with a carbon front fork if you can afford it. The better comfort is worth the expense. And I'd get something with mudguard clearance incase you change your mind about getting wet and sprayed with horse muck. -- Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
in message , Nigel Cliffe
') wrote: Maurice Wibblington wrote: I'm clear that what I want is to - go faster on the country roads in north Essex (a few occasional uphill bits, but its probably as flat as anywhere in England) and never want to go off road on it - no need for mudguards, panniers or any of that palaver -but- I'm not too sure about assuming a bent over body position on the drop handlebars for long periods. (In my 40s and never had a racer before). If you know the gear you tend to ride a lot on your current bike, you can work out exactly which ratios you should fit. I suggest that there is no point having gears higher than 110inches, quite a few bikes come higher than this which is fine for professional atheletes, but no good for ordinary people's knees. (consult www.sheldonbrown.com for articles on gear inches, calculators etc). I'd agree with this. I have friends who go a lot higher, but my top gear is 107", and I don't spin out on descents until I hit about 40mph, by which point you're usually faster getting into a tuck and letting gravity do the work for you. - 2 or 3 front chainrings? I'd get three for the times I am tired (and I live in Suffolk, equally flat). But Mr Brookes will be along to say get two, or a "compact" which is two with a slightly smaller inner ring than normal. Oh, come on... I can do a thousand feet of climbing just nipping into the shops (not the most direct way, I admit, but one I often take). I rarely if ever use my 39/26 lowest gear doing that. The lowest gear on my winter bike is 42/26, and until a fortnight ago was 42/23. I can /once/ remember having to get off and walk up a hill with that, and that was a fairly steep hill and against a strong wind. I'm no athlete. I'm overweight, 50+, with blood full of warfarin because of deep vein thrombosis, and a hernia. If I can do it anyone can. You may need a compact double or a triple if you're doing the Fred Whitton Challenge or the Bealach na Ba, but in Suffolk? Probably for what you've said, an ordinary double and a wider range road rear cassette (say 12-27 or 13-29) would be sufficient, When I put together my current road bike I used a medium cage rear mech so that I would have capacity to put on a 13-29 cassette if I needed it. I never have. The bike has now been over pretty much every nasty climb in the south of Scotland, and 53-39 driving 13-26 is enough. As I say, if you're going to do the English Lake District you might want something a bit lower. For what you've said, I'd try to get something with a carbon front fork if you can afford it. The better comfort is worth the expense. And I'd get something with mudguard clearance incase you change your mind about getting wet and sprayed with horse muck. Good point, and someone no-one else has had the sense to mention. Full carbon bikes are extremely comfy; if you can't afford that, carbon forks make a real difference, and so do carbon seat stays. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably ;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
In article
Simon Brooke wrote: snip Oh, come on... I can do a thousand feet of climbing just nipping into the shops (not the most direct way, I admit, but one I often take). I rarely if ever use my 39/26 lowest gear doing that. The lowest gear on my winter bike is 42/26, and until a fortnight ago was 42/23. I can /once/ remember having to get off and walk up a hill with that, and that was a fairly steep hill and against a strong wind. I'm no athlete. I'm overweight, 50+, with blood full of warfarin because of deep vein thrombosis, and a hernia. So you push big gears and you've got a hernia ... :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
in message , Rob Morley
') wrote: In article Simon Brooke wrote: snip Oh, come on... I can do a thousand feet of climbing just nipping into the shops (not the most direct way, I admit, but one I often take). I rarely if ever use my 39/26 lowest gear doing that. The lowest gear on my winter bike is 42/26, and until a fortnight ago was 42/23. I can /once/ remember having to get off and walk up a hill with that, and that was a fairly steep hill and against a strong wind. I'm no athlete. I'm overweight, 50+, with blood full of warfarin because of deep vein thrombosis, and a hernia. So you push big gears and you've got a hernia ... :-) I never push big gears. I'm not that sort of cyclist. I'm not into macho nonsense. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; lovely alternative to rice. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
Simon Brooke wrote:
Oh, come on... I can do a thousand feet of climbing just nipping into the shops (not the most direct way, I admit, but one I often take). I rarely if ever use my 39/26 lowest gear doing that. The lowest gear on my winter bike is 42/26, and until a fortnight ago was 42/23. I can /once/ remember having to get off and walk up a hill with that, and that was a fairly steep hill and against a strong wind. I'm no athlete. I'm overweight, 50+, with blood full of warfarin because of deep vein thrombosis, and a hernia. If I can do it anyone can. Not everyone would want to, even if they could. BTW, it's no good mentioning the number of feet climbed unless you mention the distance as well (or preferably just the gradient to save the maths). It's no consolation for me that a hill is short if it's steep. I'm still not going to manage or enjoy it if I'm over-geared. You may need a compact double or a triple if you're doing the Fred Whitton Challenge or the Bealach na Ba, but in Suffolk? Your legs must be pretty strong despite your medical conditions. Suffolk I don't know but there are parts of Essex and Hertfordshire where I'm really glad I'm on a triple chainset. Spinning a granny gear is a totally different experience from mashing/honking with higher gears. Much preferable for me, maybe because my heart & lungs are in better condition than my legs? ~PB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
In article
Nigel Cliffe wrote: Maurice Wibblington wrote: snip - very narrow wheels? Not sensible in my opinion. I'd go for something with 28mm tyres for the improved comfort. Certainly not below 25mm. You can fit 28mm tyres on all but the narrowest rims - I wouldn't restrict my choice of bike because of the tyres it comes with, especially as the shop will probably change them for something a bit wider for minimal outlay. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:56:25 +0100, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
are three on the top, with lots of small shifts between (same height as flat bars): on the straight bit, hands outside the curve, on the brake hoods. Backing up what Nigel says. To explain to Maurice - if you have dropped bars, most of the time spent riding is with the hands on top of the brake hoods. Notice these are made of rubber, and the forefinger and thumb wrap easily round them. They are used somewhat like bar ends on a mountain bike. So when sizing at the shop put your hands there, not on the dropped part. (I never use my drops that way). Also you can unloosen the bars and rotate them so the brake hoods point up a bit more, to the angle which suits you. Mine are pointed up a bit. (Read that tip in a magazine article on Paris-Roubaix I think). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - whichone
John Hearns writes:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 19:56:25 +0100, Nigel Cliffe wrote: are three on the top, with lots of small shifts between (same height as flat bars): on the straight bit, hands outside the curve, on the brake hoods. Backing up what Nigel says. To explain to Maurice - if you have dropped bars, most of the time spent riding is with the hands on top of the brake hoods. Notice these are made of rubber, and the forefinger and thumb wrap easily round them. They are used somewhat like bar ends on a mountain bike. Except you have your hands on the controls rather than away from them like on a MTB. IMO this is one of the biggest arguments for drops rather than straight bars with bar-ends for general use - having your hands on the hoods/bar-ends is a much more natural position. So when sizing at the shop put your hands there, not on the dropped part. (I never use my drops that way). Also you can unloosen the bars and rotate them so the brake hoods point up a bit more, to the angle which suits you. Mine are pointed up a bit. (Read that tip in a magazine article on Paris-Roubaix I think). Mine too but found out by fiddling rather than research ;o) Chris -- Chris Eilbeck |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
road bike / race bike / hybrid / touring / fitness bike - which one
"Chris Eilbeck" wrote
John Hearns writes: To explain to Maurice - if you have dropped bars, most of the time spent riding is with the hands on top of the brake hoods. Notice these are made of rubber, and the forefinger and thumb wrap easily round them. But that puts the thrust on the soft bits between the forefingers and thumbs; hoods give little support for the palms. When I ride "the hoods" I either put my palms against the horns or my hands are palms down with the horn between first and second fingers. They are used somewhat like bar ends on a mountain bike. Bar ends are a different shape - they toe in and are angled up so line up with the knuckle line better. Even when adjusted for the same body position, the way the hands make contact with the bar is quite different except when the fingers are hooked under for climbing. On a flat bar (with bar ends or bar "middles"), the fingers and thumbs can be completely free while cruising. Except you have your hands on the controls rather than away from them like on a MTB. IMO this is one of the biggest arguments for drops rather than straight bars with bar-ends for general use - It certainly is an opinion... It might be true for some. The hands actually need to be wrapped round the hoods for this to be valid. I suggest it is much easier to get to the controls from an off the control position on flat bars than it is on drops. I usually brake from the drop anyway because my hands are not on the controls in the first place and the leverage from the drop is greater. having your hands on the hoods/bar-ends is a much more natural position. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
19 Days to go: NBG Mayors' Ride Excitement #5 | Cycle America | Recumbent Biking | 0 | March 30th 05 07:32 PM |
Some questions etc.. | Douglas Harrington | General | 10 | August 17th 04 02:42 AM |
Convert Hybrid to Touring bike | Willy Smallboy | Techniques | 23 | March 26th 04 01:03 PM |
aus.bicycle FAQ (Monthly(ish) Posting) | kingsley | Australia | 3 | February 24th 04 08:44 PM |
Tour of the Alps 2003 | [email protected] | Rides | 2 | September 15th 03 04:52 AM |