#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dazed and Confused
"Paul D" wrote in message
... I posted a thread yesterday, entited; "stressed and depressed", because that's just about how I felt trying to come to some sort of a decision about upgrading my bike. Today, despite quite a few people posting advice, and a definite flow of knowledge in my direction, I am just as stressed, and even more confused. Nothing I've ever tried to buy before; hi-fi's, computers, cars, flats, houses, has left me feeling so helpless in the face of such an array of conflicting and disjointed information. I'm seriously thinking about giving up cycling, and using either the car or a pogo stick to get around. Years ago, when I were t'lad, there were three sorts of bikes: men's bikes, women's bikes and racing bikes. It was, for the most part part, clear what you wanted. Now, if we ignore folding, electric, recumbent, trikes, choppers and crutch rockets, we are still left with: Mountain bikes (with and without suspension) Road bikes City bikes Shoppers Tourers Hybrids Comfort bikes 12 years or so back, when I decided to start cycling again, I just bought a cheap BIKE. No qualifier. It was almost exactly the same as a BIKE would have been when I was a child, except it had derailiers, with which you could usually get 5 out of 6 ratios to work at any one time, which was a BIG improvement on the 2 out of 3 you could get with a Sturmey Archer. Nonetheless, I LIKED the bike. It was plain, and it did what it would have said on the tin, had it come in a tin. It was very plain, it gave me no trouble, never needed repairing and hardly ever even got a puncture. It was used on roads and tow paths. After 10 years, moy £109 bike started to show its age a little. The handlbars moved in directions they shouldn't, the pedals showed evident bearing wear as did the rear wheel. A spoke went in the rear wheel, and before I got around to getting it repaired, a half a dozen others decided that they were going to give up their unequal struggle as well. So I went along to my LBS (not knowing that abbr. at the time), and said I wanted to buy a bike. "There they are", said a pleasant chap, and I had a look. Given that I'd just broken a bunch of spokes, I thought I ought to go for something with bigger tyres and stronger wheels, and suspension (and a third set of cogs for going up really steep hills seemed a good idea), so I picked a bike that was within my budget (I thought that as I'd been perfectly happey with my (£109) bike for ten years, and the "budget" models were stil £99, spending double what I had before should get me a pretty reasonable bike. I'd heard of people spending £3,000 on a bike, but you get nutters in every sphere of human activity. You can spent £60,000 on a hi-fi amplifier if you like (although I somehw doubt that you'll enjoy your misc more that about 5% more than you would with a £600 one - if that). Anyway, the chap asked me if I wanted to sit on it, so I did, and my feet reached the ground, and my hands reached the handlebars, so that was OK. The tyres weren't inflated, so I couldn't ride the thing, but what would that have told me anyway. Well, it would have told me the gearing was wrong for one thing. I had assumed that if you went from two rings to three, you would get a slightly higher top, and a slightly lower low. WRONG! The lowest gear allows for climbing vertically, but the top was lower than on my previous bike, and that was too low going downhill, or with more than about 5 kn of following wind. Still, apart from that the bike was OK. With the seat and saddle at the top of their available range, it fitted OK. I could certainly go faster on it than I could on the previous one (unless I was going downhill, or had a significant following wind). Brakes were good! However, now I started to really enjoy cycling. I didn't want to become a racer, but I did enjoy going out for an hour or two, and cycling fast enough to be breathing hard, just for the hell of it. I started reading rec.cycling, and learned a few things (or, at least I thought I'd learned a few things). I realised that I was going to have to upgrade the bike again , to correct the gearing problem, and get a frame more suited to my height. No great hurry, though. Then, a week or so back, I had a few problems with the bike, and decided that now might be the time to get a new one. And that's when my problems started. Firstly, I find that even spending £350 will only get a "budget" bike, an attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious - especially considering how many years of pleasure I had from my £109 BIKE bike. Any amount is a budget, and I think, quite honestly, I'll stick with rest of the population and consider anything over £250 an 'expensive' bike, and anything over £500 as 'specialised' (or "nut-job" as someone I mentioned the existence of £1000+ bike to, refered to them). Secondly, although I want to spend, probably 98% of my time on the road, I don't want a "road bike", because they refer to drop handlebar bikes that I would call 'racers' (the sort that are ridden by people who have special dispensation (not mentioned in the highway code) to ride fast on pavements and go through traffic lights at red). And it seems that because I might want to go on a tow path occasionally, I might need a mountain bike. This I find odd, because a) the tow paths I've been on are actually in better condition than some of the road surfaces I have to use, and b) it's quite unusual to find a tow path on a mountain, given the difficulty of finding sloping water in a usable canal. Seriously, though, I can't seem to get a handle on what actually makes a bike a mountain bike. I thought it meant an extra strong frame, probably suspension, the availability of extra low gears, stronger wheels, and perhaps disk brakes for clearance. Quite, honestly, an extremely light frame is probably wasted on me. I don't mind putting in effort if I'm going up a hill. I find that far less objectionable than fighting against the strong headwinds that we get so much being on the coast. I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient range of gears to handle going up or down hills. Oh, and I'd like to actually have a chainring set where the gears change EVERY time I move the lever, rather just when they feel in the mood for it (or, as happend a few weeks ago, refuse point blank to change up, despite cycling the lever five or six times, then, in a fine show of petulance, the chain suddenly deciding they it *would* like to move accross, and making up for it's previous slothfulness by bypassing the big ring, shattering the chain guard and jamming solid {little bugger hadn't noticed that we were only 100m from home, though}). The funny thing is, I'm now so confused I don't know whether to up my budget to £450 (the Ridgeback Supernova looks to be a really nice bike), keep it where it is (where the RB Velocity looks good), or reduce it to £100, and just get my current one upgraded (the LBS says it's possible). And, whilst I'm talking about LBS's - well, perhaps that's another thread. Gosh - I didn't find it quite so hard.... I just bought a bike and went cycling..... :-) Graham |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Paul D wrote:
snip If you don't want to spend much money, get the old one mended. And a bigger chainring fitted if you think the gears are too low. ps, I think your stereotype road bike rider is rather wide of the mark |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Paul D wrote:
I posted a thread yesterday, entited; "stressed and depressed", because that's just about how I felt trying to come to some sort of a decision about upgrading my bike. Today, despite quite a few people posting advice, and a definite flow of knowledge in my direction, I am just as stressed, and even more confused. great long grumble snipped I don't know if this is a windup or not. Buying a suitable bike is not difficult. As with many purchases, make a note of your specific requirements and preferences, together with your budget and take it to a bike shop run by knowledgable cyclists. They should tell you what they have to fit your bill, set it up to fit your shape, posture, etc. and let you take it away (against a deposit of some sort) for an hour or two to try it out for size and suitability. It's fun, but it ain't rocket science (unless you want it to be :-) ) -- Brian G |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Firstly, I find that even spending £350 will only get a "budget" bike, an
attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious - especially considering how many years of pleasure I had from my £109 BIKE bike. Any amount is a budget, and I think, quite honestly, I'll stick with rest of the population and consider anything over £250 an 'expensive' bike, and anything over £500 as 'specialised' (or "nut-job" as someone I mentioned the existence of £1000+ bike to, refered to them). I've had friends with that opinion. When they've tried the nicer stuff though (bearing in mind my most expensive solo bike is still only 800 quid), they've said "Oh yes, it is nicer, isn't it!". Possibly my bikes are 'specialised', in that they're actually ridden almost every day - something which doesn't happen to the majority of bikes sold. Obviously this description doesn't apply to the readers of this fine newsgroup, but we are in a minority. Now you can get bikes from 200 quid up which suit this purpose (you could probably force a 40 quid bike into doing this - but it'll be very tedious) - however you do still get something for your money well into your 'specialised' territory. cheers, clive |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
You have a fair point.
I'll add my 2p worth - and hopefully not confuse you more. I agree things have changed a bit - in the old days all bikes were roadsters, then all bikes were "racing" bikes (but not really), nowadays all bikes are mountain bikes. A mountain bike is entry level for everyone now, and cheapest by virtue of being common. You've decided you want something above entry-level, and specifically something that WORKS and is RELIABLE. I'd have said that =A3350 is quite adequate, but if you go for very cheap it won't be reliable, and things won't work without constant adjustment. You've listed: Mountain bikes (with and without suspension) Road bikes City bikes Shoppers Tourers Hybrids Comfort bikes Well, rule out comfort bikes and shoppers, you said you like to go fast now and again. But only now and again, so rule out road bikes. You don't ride in town by the sound of it, so probably rule out city bikes. You're left with tourer, hybrid and mountain bike. You may not want a mountain bike because there aren't any mountains. So basically you've got the choice between drop handlebars or straight. And that depends on how much you dislike the wind. A hybrid will be much more stable than a tourer (until you get used to it. A tourer will be faster, is more likely to have the gearing you're asking for, and should cope with tracks and paths as long as you don't use very narrow tyres. Don't rule out the mountain bike, but they very often have the low gearing you're complaining about, and will not be as good as a hybrid on the road. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:40:47 GMT, Paul D wrote:
I posted a thread yesterday, entited; "stressed and depressed", [snip] Firstly, I find that even spending £350 will only get a "budget" bike, an attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious I think that 350 is probably the very top of the budget for an inexpensive good bike. There may well be some cheaper than that. I have a hybird which I bought for 260 - which gives good service. I would avoid the "budget" bikes which are 100 or less. Secondly, although I want to spend, probably 98% of my time on the road, I don't want a "road bike", because they refer to drop handlebar bikes that I would call 'racers' (the sort that are ridden by people who have special dispensation (not mentioned in the highway code) to ride fast on pavements and go through traffic lights at red). That description seems more to fit people on crappy mountain bikes and bmxes to me. If you don't want drops because you don't get on with 'em then fine. And it seems that because I might want to go on a tow path occasionally, I might need a mountain bike. I use tow-paths and fairly uneven ground on my hybrid. When you were young you just had a bike with a 3-speed SA hub and you used to ride it everywhere. I still treat my hybrid like that - some people treat their tourers like that. I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient range of gears to handle going up or down hills. Oh, and I'd like to actually have a chainring set where the gears change EVERY time I move the lever, OK, I have been having a few problems with gear changes on the chain-ring. However, they are fairly easy to adjust. -- Andy Leighton = "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul D" wrote in message ... Secondly, although I want to spend, probably 98% of my time on the road, I don't want a "road bike", because they refer to drop handlebar bikes that I would call 'racers' (the sort that are ridden by people who have special dispensation (not mentioned in the highway code) to ride fast on pavements and go through traffic lights at red). Both my main bikes have drop bars. I *never* but *never* ride on the pavement and I *never* but *never* go through traffic lights at red, unless said lights are not working or am instructed to do so by a police officer etc., etc., etc. I know many other such people riding bikes with drop bars who adhere to riding safely. Cheers, helen s |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Clive George" wrote in message ... I've had friends with that opinion. When they've tried the nicer stuff though (bearing in mind my most expensive solo bike is still only 800 quid), they've said "Oh yes, it is nicer, isn't it!". Indeed. I had a *cheap* bike - paerly pink - loved it, but it was made of lead girders ;-) It sufficed. Then I acquired a decent hybrid which cost a lot more money. Literally overnight my mileages doubled. Now I ride mostly my tourer (Bianchi San Remo) which is a good workhorse where I can cycle mile after mile after mile in comfort and my Bianchi racer which is lighter again and I love it. My 'bent has been mostly purloined by my teenage son ;-) You don't have to spend the budget of a third world country to get a decent bike but there is a world of difference between a *cheap* bike and a good value one. Cheers, helen s |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:03:35 +0100, "Simonb"
wrote: If you don't want to spend much money, get the old one mended. And a bigger chainring fitted if you think the gears are too low. I don't mind spending the money, if it will enhance the cycling experience, but it's utterly confusing. The advice I got at the LBS is quite contrary to what I got here. And I'll bet if I went to another LBS, I'd get different advice again ps, I think your stereotype road bike rider is rather wide of the mark It's an observation thing, isn't it. You see someone bent forward on drop bars, hooning accross red lights after squeezing between you and the bus waiting there, but don't notice the other road bikers patiently waiting behind you. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Paul D wrote:
I posted a thread yesterday, entited; "stressed and depressed", because that's just about how I felt trying to come to some sort of a decision about upgrading my bike. If you want something cheapish, simple and with enough gears try the Edinburgh Courier. http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/news...n_courier.html It's light (for its price range), straight bars, and with eight usable gears it has more gears than a 1970s 10 speed which actually 10 - about 3 gears which were duplicates or not usable due to chain crossover. Iain C |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|