Considering a Road bike for commuting... good idea?

Rick Onanian wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:34:14 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:
professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from
Didn't you read the 12-25 vs. 12-27 thread?

I was just wondering if Mr. Sherman had opened that can of worms again.

lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".
Just like a stem with a rise is not macho. I don't care, I've
got one.

Curiously luggage is not macho either - which is odd, because those of us
with luggage have to push it up the hills as well.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:23:13 GMT, Wayne Pein wrote:

:
:
: One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road handlebars
: are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
: Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a car
: while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.
:
: - Boyd S.
:
:I ride both and I find this statement to not be true at all. If motor vehicles
:are close enough that a few extra inches of handlebar width is the difference
:between getting hit or not, then you must be either Superman or a nut case or
:both. I've certainly been passed very closely and very fast but never that
:close. And over the years I've come to realize that how I position myself
:laterally has a lot to do with how motorists pass me. If you teeter on the
:edge using as little lane as possible, you are inviting motorists to pass, and
:sometimes they do it unsafely. Counterintuitively, if you move further out
:into the lane than at first feels comfortable, overtaking motorists are
:induced into being more cautious when passing. They tend to slow down and move
ver. Your lateral position is critical in how you expect motorists to
vertake.
:
:Wayne

Wayne, you are absolutely right and you make a great point and I've
maybe never seen it said before. You also explain it well enough and
EVERYBODY should read and reread what you say. I've been very well aware
of this stuff for a long time and that's why I don't get in bike
accidents. It's also important to resist the temptation to ride busy
streets. I used to do it and broke myself of this foul habit. Ride the
safest routes you can find. And ride them safely.

However, Wayne, you are wrong to think that a car can't wing you with
wide handlebars. I believe it happened to me once and I prefer my narrow
Maes bars for this reason. If your handlebars are 2.5 feet wide, you are
asking for trouble regardless of the way you ride. There's only so much
room in some circumstances.

That being said, read Wayne's admonitions. Give yourself those extra
inches just in case if you have to veer away from traffic, never ever
(if you can possibly help it) ride so close to a vehicle so that an
opening door can whack you, and jockey for position with traffic, be
conspicuous and get into the heads of the drivers so they give you some
room, like Wayne says.

Dan

On 07 Aug 2003 14:20:30 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

:Werehatrack wrote:
:In the early '70s, when road bikes were All the Rage, and the mtb
:wasn't even a gleam in a marketer's eye, cheap road-pattern bikes were
:plentiful...and just as crummy as the Mall-Wart mtbs that are being
:pumped out today.
:
:I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
:reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/

What are we talking about here? Nishiki's, Raleighs, Schwinns?

On 07 Aug 2003 14:27:42 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:

:jacques wrote:
:If you have to ride
:any distance on unpaved roads don't get a road bike. I also favor my
:hybrid because it has lights (half of the year I commute by night),
:fenders (it may rain), and rack (I do sweat much more if I carry my bag on
:my back).
:
:But these are not inherent properties of the design - my light touring
:bike has all of these things.

Definitely. My road bike has a large back basket and a removeable very
adequate rechargable light. I don't require fenders.

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:12:24 GMT, Joel Lowrie
wrote:

:I just did this last week, a car munched my old mountain bike (trek
:830) and a very guilt ridden motorist bought me a new cannondale (R4).
:I enjoy a 12 mile each way commute through downtown chicago every day,
:and i have to say that the road bike actually has a smoother ride than
:the mountain bike. That and the road bike cut nearly 10 min. off of my
:commute. I would recommend either getting fitted at your LBS or
:breaking out the measuring tape and go to this site
http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html). I took a 20 min. test ride
:before and after fitting. you would not believe how much more
:comfortable a road bike is when it actually fits.

This fitting is fine but I'm American and converting to Kg and cm I can
do, but European shoe size is beyond me. Is there a site that won't
require these conversions?

Dan

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:37:29 -0500, Tom Sherman
wrote:

:
:Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
:
: Tom Sherman wrote in message ...
: I have a 22T granny ring and 24, 28 and 34T [1] cogs on my bike.
:
: Tom did you read my post awhile back where I
: stated the well known fact that roadies NEVER
: climb with a even number cog!
:
: Use a 19 or 21. And a 23 for climbing mount
: Zoncolan and the Alto L'Angliru.
:
: If you're stuck stateside then keep the 23 off, you
: only need a 21. Guys will check your cogset out
: before the ride starts, you don't want someone
: like me finding a girly 23 on your bike.
:
:Fabrizio,
:
:Wouldn't an "elite roadie" such as yourself be rather embarrassed if you
:were seen to be checking out my bike [1]?
:
:You are also forgetting that I am not a roadie, but a degenerate
:recumbent lowracer rider.
:
:[1] http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg
:
:Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

At the risk of getting flamed I'd like to ask what's the appeal of
recumbents. I see them often in Berkeley, CA and I always think they
look silly. They look as though they are not very manueverable. I wonder
what I would do if I had to avoid trouble quickly. Also the extremely
low riding position appears to me to be extremely dangerous. You can't
see over many objects. Are all these people suffering from back
conditions?

Dan

make a search for shoe size conversion. you'll get a table that will
list your size in american and european.

Dan Musicant wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:12:24 GMT, Joel Lowrie
wrote:

:I just did this last week, a car munched my old mountain bike (trek
:830) and a very guilt ridden motorist bought me a new cannondale (R4).
:I enjoy a 12 mile each way commute through downtown chicago every day,
:and i have to say that the road bike actually has a smoother ride than
:the mountain bike. That and the road bike cut nearly 10 min. off of my
:commute. I would recommend either getting fitted at your LBS or
:breaking out the measuring tape and go to this site
http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html). I took a 20 min. test ride
:before and after fitting. you would not believe how much more
:comfortable a road bike is when it actually fits.

This fitting is fine but I'm American and converting to Kg and cm I can
do, but European shoe size is beyond me. Is there a site that won't
require these conversions?

Dan

Dan Musicant wrote:
wrote:
I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/
What are we talking about here? Nishiki's, Raleighs, Schwinns?

In Britain I remember Raleigh and Peugeot as the most prolific
manufacturers, although given my age I saw only the end of the ten-speed
boom.
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!

Dan Musicant wrote:


Wayne, you are absolutely right and you make a great point and I've
maybe never seen it said before. You also explain it well enough and
EVERYBODY should read and reread what you say. I've been very well aware
of this stuff for a long time and that's why I don't get in bike
accidents. It's also important to resist the temptation to ride busy
streets. I used to do it and broke myself of this foul habit. Ride the
safest routes you can find. And ride them safely.

However, Wayne, you are wrong to think that a car can't wing you with
wide handlebars. I believe it happened to me once and I prefer my narrow
Maes bars for this reason. If your handlebars are 2.5 feet wide, you are
asking for trouble regardless of the way you ride. There's only so much
room in some circumstances.

Dan,

Thanks for the kind words. However, mt bars 2.5 ft wide are only .5 wider than road
bars. Therefore, they are only 3 inches more left (and three inches more right).
Motorists overtake with roughly 5 ft of clearance (it varies). When one passes
within an arms length, it feels noticeably close. Of course, the overtaking speed
factors into this too. Closer is ok when slower. Therefore 3 inches is really
insignificant, and I personally don't choose my bike based on width.

Like probably everywhere else, we have lanes here in Chapel Hill NC of varying
width, 9-15ft, usually no shoulders but if they exist 2ft-4ft (don't ride on the
shoulder unless it is 4 ft at least). I base my position on lane width, traffic
density, and my speed. By my observations, it is almost certain I use more of the
lane than any bicyclist I've ever seen. The closest I've been passed in 17 years of
nearly every day riding is probably about 2ft, and these were done by motorists
whose sole purpose was to intimidate me.

Regards,
Wayne

On 07 Aug 2003 14:20:30 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
wrote:
I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at
least
reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/

My girlfriend has a Schwinn Caliente from the end
of that period, maybe 1992 or so. It's quite a nice
ride, actually, even with only a double crank and
5 speeds, and friction shifters mounted to the stem,
and a pink, ladies frame.

--
Rick Onanian