Dazed and Confused

Paul D wrote:


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



Where roughly are you based and perhaps we can recommend some good shops
to try. As always there are good shops which will aim to sell you a
bike for your needs and bad shops which will aim to sell you a bike for
their needs. You might even find a local bike buddy to come along and
help you choose.

Tony

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:22:43 +0100, "wafflycat" wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk
wrote:


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.

Maybe it's just the area of West London where I ride when in London, but I keep
seeing people on drop handle bar'd bikes going through red lights (usually at
pelicans when they people have long since crossed in a gap in the traffic), but
also at some big hairy junctions.

It's certainly true that the vast majority of pavement cyclists are not road
bike users - in fact, it's cutting off corners in the same area where I do see
them doing it.

Perhaps it's just the same few people I see over and over again.

wafflycat wrote:

"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.


I think he said you had special dispensation to do so, not that you did
or you had to ;-)

Tony

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:11:57 +0100, Brian G wrote:

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

Actually, a lot of it was background to try an alleviate the grumbles.

I don't know if this is a windup or not.

Yeah, I've got all the time in the world to type stuff into here just to wind
people up.

If I wanted to do that I'd just make a post saying that all cyclists should be
forced to ride wearing helmets on cycle paths and not on the road. That would do
it *much* better, with *much* less effort.

It's fun,

No it isn't. It's the most miserable experience I've had in a long time.

Paul D wrote:

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 conflic=
ting and
disjointed information.

You can get just as much and more conflicting information on any of the=20
above. Hi-fi, for example, all you /need/ to do is sit and listen to a=20
few and buy what your ears like, but despite that being all you need to=20
know there's thousands of people reading about what they could listen=20
too and trying all sorts of daft nonsense to "improve" their stereos.

And so it is with bikes. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and=20
there's more than one bike that will do all you need, but as long as you =

can try it out for comfort and tick off a few boxes of what it can=20
reasonably be expected to do, that should be enough if you don't want to =

go into microscopic detail.


Years ago, when I were t'lad, there were three sorts of bikes: men's bi=
kes,
women's bikes and racing bikes. It was, for the most part part, clear w=
hat you
wanted.
=20
Now, if we ignore folding, electric, recumbent, trikes, choppers and cr=
utch
rockets, we are still left with:
=20
Mountain bikes (with and without suspension)
Road bikes
City bikes
Shoppers
Tourers
Hybrids
Comfort bikes

Unless you're a /very/ old lad the road bikes and tourers existed=20
anyway, as did the urban bikes and shoppers. Those two tend to be=20
interchangeable to a large degree anyway, and "comfort bikes" is just a=20
bit of marketing for hybrids with a certain flavour of handlebar. In=20
other words, nothing much has changed. Your basic "bike" is now called=20
a hybrid and has a derailleur rather than a Sturmey 3 speed hub, but=20
they're available with diamond or step through frames as before. Aside=20
from Mountain Bikes, not much has actually changed, so Don't Panic.

12 years or so back, when I decided to start cycling again, I just boug=
ht a
cheap BIKE. No qualifier. It was almost exactly the same as a BIKE woul=
d 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 improvem=
ent on
the 2 out of 3 you could get with a Sturmey Archer.

See above: The only difference between a BIKE and a hybrid is the name.

Anyway, the chap asked me if I wanted to sit on it, so I did, and my fe=
et
reached the ground, and my hands reached the handlebars, so that was OK=
=2E
=20
The tyres weren't inflated, so I couldn't ride the thing, but what woul=
d that
have told me anyway.=20

Whether the riding position suited you in motion.

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 woul=
d get a
slightly higher top, and a slightly lower low. WRONG! The lowest gear a=
llows for
climbing vertically, but the top was lower than on my previous bike, an=
d that
was too low going downhill, or with more than about 5 kn of following w=
ind.

You're on a mountain bike though, which is designed for climbing=20
vertically and generally traversing loose surfaces where high gears=20
aren't much use. Horses for courses. On towpaths and roads you don't=20
need the suspension either (MTB suspension is to take big knocks, and it =

will reduce your pedalling efficiency, where serious road suspension=20
will enhance it, but at a higher cost).

Firstly, I find that even spending =A3350 will only get a "budget" bike=
, an
attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious - especially consi=
dering
how many years of pleasure I had from my =A3109 BIKE bike.

How much has =A3109 changed in 10 years? I spent =A3250 in 1989, and for=
=20
the same figure value today (much less in real terms) what I can buy is=20
substantially better in just about every respect.

and I think, quite honestly, I'll stick with rest of the population and=
consider
anything over =A3250 an 'expensive' bike, and anything over =A3500 as '=
specialised'
(or "nut-job" as someone I mentioned the existence of =A31000+ bike to,=
refered to
them).

You can get a perfectly acceptable bike for what you want for =A3200. If=
=20
you spend a lot more it'll be nicer, but you don't /need/ to.

And it seems that because I might want to go on a tow path occasionally=
, I might
need a mountain bike.=20

No. Mountain bikes are for serious mud, logs and rocks. There is no=20
reason for a MTB on a towpath.

Seriously, though, I can't seem to get a handle on what actually makes =
a bike a
mountain bike.
=20
I thought it meant an extra strong frame, probably suspension, the avai=
lability
of extra low gears, stronger wheels, and perhaps disk brakes for cleara=
nce.

That's right, so you have got a handle on it.

I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient ra=
nge of
gears to handle going up or down hills.=20

Then get a BIKE, i.e., a hybrid.

Oh, and I'd like to actually have a
chainring set where the gears change EVERY time I move the lever, rathe=
r just
when they feel in the mood for it

With a hybrid, without suspension and the like, the money can go on the=20
transmission, so it'll work better.

The funny thing is, I'm now so confused I don't know whether to up my b=
udget to
=A3450 (the Ridgeback Supernova looks to be a really nice bike), keep i=
t where it
is (where the RB Velocity looks good), or reduce it to =A3100, and just=
get my
current one upgraded (the LBS says it's possible).

There are merits to any of these solutions, though the Velocity should=20
cut the mustard. Upgrading to the same level would cost a substantial=20
portion of the price of the new one. You've said you don't want to=20
spend =A3450, so don't!

You don't actually seem very confused at all...

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/

in message , 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.

I think it's worth pointing out that without any prompting three of us
recommended the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op's Revolution Courier (and/or
the 'Race' version of the same bike). It's in the middle of your budget
and will do everything you want.

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}).

Problems of this sort are down to two things:
(i) deraileur adjustment and
(ii) deraileur slop.
More expensive deraileurs are better engineered and change more reliably
- this is an area where spending more money brings real benefit.
However this is a component that you can easily upgrade, so if you're
having problems a new, better, deraileur could be a better investment
than a new bike.

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

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

[Yes, I've already responded to this once. So sue me.]

in message , Paul D
') wrote:

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).

My first bike cost ten shillings in a junk shop (1968). My second cost
about thirty pounds, I think, new from Halfords (1972). My third (1974)
cost quite a bit more, and was my first really nice bike, but after it
got stolen I bought another Halfords own brand, again not for terribly
much (can't remember how much) (1982). Four years later I spent about
£600 building myself a very nice road bike, which I really enjoyed for
three years until it in turn got stolen. I also got myself a £250 rigid
mountain bike, and after it got stolen spent £350 on another (1989).
I've still got that one, but I've lent it to a friend. In 1994 I bought
a new road bike - a not a very good one - for about £260, I think.

The year before last I spent £1,700 on a new mountain bike, which is
definitely my favourite bike and on which I've spent about another £500
in upgrades. Last year I spend about £1200 building myself a new road
bike, and I've spent about another £300 upgrading it since.

I think that's money very well spent. I can afford it, and I get a huge
amount of pleasure out of my bikes. It's certainly true that there is a
law of diminishing returns when spending money on bikes - a £500 bike
isn't twice as good as a £250 bike, and a £1,000 bike isn't twice as
good as a £500 one.

But look at it another way. I'll never be able to afford a Ferrari, or a
Porsche. But my bikes are sporting technology of very high quality -
people win serious professional races on bikes very like mine - and
they are a total joy to use. My mountain bike, in particular, allows me
to ride places which on a lesser bike I would not have the skill to
ride at all, and allows me to ride a lot faster over difficult ground
than I otherwise could. To drive a car as good as either of my two
favourite bikes you would have to spend six figures.

Looked at that way, they're cheap.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html

How in the world does the EBC justify not fitting mudguards as
standard?

--
Peter Headland

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:24:30 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , 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.

I think it's worth pointing out that without any prompting three of us
recommended the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op's Revolution Courier (and/or
the 'Race' version of the same bike). It's in the middle of your budget
and will do everything you want.

Funnily enough, I was looking at that one, and when I mentioned it on a cycling
forum, a couple of people mentioned the Ridgeback (although nobody had anything
bad to say about the Courier).

It does seem odd to me that when I said that an MTB with a 21 speed setup didn't
have sufficient range (i.e. I use the lowest possible gear, but the highest is
much too low), that people are recommending a bike that has, I would imagine, a
much smaller range.

When I get my bike back, I'll calculate a table of metres/revolution with its
gearing, and see how that compares to that available with the courier.

Although to be quite honest, I've now been rather put off spending that little,
considering that everyone seems to think that that's at the low end of the
'budget' price range, and with all the dark mutterings about component longevity
at that price point it does seem sensible to spend more.

Also, there is no dealer list on the site, and I can't find anywhere on google
either.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:51:01 +0100, Simon Brooke wrote:

My first bike cost ten shillings in a junk shop (1968). My second cost
about thirty pounds, I think, new from Halfords (1972). My third (1974)
cost quite a bit more, and was my first really nice bike, but after it
got stolen I bought another Halfords own brand, again not for terribly
much (can't remember how much) (1982). Four years later I spent about
£600 building myself a very nice road bike, which I really enjoyed for
three years until it in turn got stolen.

Did they not have bicycle locks in those days?