What do you think it the best bike for the city

Don Whybrow wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Doki wrote:

Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
type of bike is always comfier than another.

Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
rather different case.

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Doki wrote:

Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
type of bike is always comfier than another.

Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
rather different case.

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are up
the thread a bit.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"There is a wicked pretense that one has been informed. But no
such thing has truly occurred! A mere slogan, an empty litany.
No arguments are heard, no evidence is weighed. It isn't news at
all, only a source of amusement for idlers." (Gibson-Sterling,
The Difference Engine)

Don Whybrow wrote:
Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Doki wrote:

Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
one type of bike is always comfier than another.

Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
it's a rather different case.

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
up the thread a bit.

Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

On 23 Apr, 19:23, "Doki" wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:
Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
Doki wrote:

Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
one type of bike is always comfier than another.

Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
it's a rather different case.

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
up the thread a bit.

Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike

Comfortable commuting? Strip down a tourer- designed for long stints
in the saddle, tough, plenty of gears etc.
I wouldn't want to be riding a 20Kg + roadster away from traffic
lights every two minutes, let alone into a headwind!

If you want fast- get fixed and get fit!

Cheers,
W.

Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:
Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
up the thread a bit.

Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

There are lots of alternatives for comfort. Some would say to go
recumbent, or even semi-recumbent like the RANS Fusion.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,
which failed to start because of the following error: The
operation completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

On 23 Apr, 11:02, Rob Morley wrote:
In article e442ca95-99e9-4273-be3d-4ca8ab9b2049
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, bornfree
says...

Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
(Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)

Here's a picture of it.http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg

I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed.

That's probably more about the rider than the bike. Having said that, I
wonder if your bike setup is right - it looks to me that either your
seat is much too low or your bars are much too high. Also make sure you
keep the tyres properly inflated, as that can make quite a difference to
efficiency - get a track pump with pressure gauge if you don't already
have one.

Yes I know how important tire pressure is.

Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
position. A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
Mark pointed out.

In article ac11f436-0a31-417d-bdfb-
, bornfree
says...

Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
position.

Obviously it's more upright, but it's not "how it's meant to be" - a
folder is a bike like any other upright (although perhaps more honest
about its utilitarian nature than some with sporting pretensions).

A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
Mark pointed out.

And a fair bit less aerodynamic. Are you sure the saddle is high enough
for optimal pedalling efficiency?

Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
weight weenie...

My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
don't want super acceleration.

My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.

Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
and acceleration.

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/

bornfree wrote:

Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
position.

Hmmmm, see http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pj...ddleheight.jpg

That's a folder and I'm in an upright position (my head is a bit forward
as it was just the state of balance leaning on the wall while the shot
was taken, look at the body rather than head and neck)

A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
Mark pointed out.

But the shot of your bike, unless you have /very/ short legs, suggests
the saddle is a bit low. The rule of thumb of heel on pedal when it's
at 6 o'clock and a /little/ bent at the knee is still a good place to
start irrespective of whether it's a folder or not. A folder doesn't
make it more desirable to have a low saddle, and the most upright bikes
there are (Dutch style roadsters and Pedersens) have saddle more or less
the same height as the bars.

Too low a saddle will make for very inefficient pedalling, which will be
part of the reason you keep getting left behind!

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/

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Doki wrote:
Don Whybrow wrote:

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
weight weenie...

My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
don't want super acceleration.

My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.

Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
and acceleration.

An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could easily
produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds anything to the
experience.