Selecting a Bike

On Jul 12, 2:36 am, Chalo wrote:
Katuzo wrote:

How well do road bikes handle rain or grass, only talking about riding
a hundred feet or so?

"Road bikes" have been with us since the 19th century; "mountain
bikes" since about 1980. A lot of us have been riding long enough to
remember when off-road riding was a matter of location, not type of
bicycle.

Just about any bike fit for life on the road can tolerate being ridden
over the occasional gravel road, empty lot, or grassy field. If you
want to ride rock gardens, you may be happier with both fat tires and
dual suspension.

Are disc brakes worth the extra money?

At the low end? No. For mostly road riding in mostly dry
conditions? No. For nasty-weather riding at $1000 bike purchase
prices, maybe. For being able to switch between different wheel sizes
on the same bike (with handling implications), sure. For riding
routinely in mud and snow, definitely.

A bicycle rim constitutes a brake rotor of larger mass, larger surface
area, larger radius, and better thermal conductivity and heat capacity
than any disc brake rotor. Tradeoffs include their tendency to foul
the bike with smut during wet weather riding and the necessity to keep
rims running true.

Chalo

Thanks for reply, I was going to call around to see if someone had a
Cypress DX this morning, now I look for a Cypress instead (the major
difference between the two was that the DX had disc brakes).
Katuzo

Just for the record, I've looked and there are no places that let me
demo a bike that is within 50 miles of where I live.

When I did look at the Sedona yesterday, one place had one that had a
14" frame, and it was the only one they had and told me it would fit,
however, I tried out a 16" frame the day before, and I was able to
touch both heels to the floor on it.
Thats why I don't trust sales people.

Why the Sedona, there are alot of Giant dealers in my area (16), they
get high ratings, and there are within my price range (less than
$500). Plus the girl at the store explained that a Sedona would be
more versatile and more comfortable and be able to ride on trails,
while the Cypress would not. Now I know that the Cypress tire is wide
enough (38cm), to be comfortable, and the Cypress is capable of trail
riding if I ever wish to take a trip to the park and watch the birds
or go fishing. Hopefully, it will be able to handle that if there is
still dew on the grass with not that big of an decrease in safely.

Still have some issues I'd like to resolve however.
What are the disadvantages of a woman's bike over a man's?
My dad (who'se 86) rides a bike, and a few years ago, he lost his
balance getting on the bike outside of a supermarket, and did major
damage to the inside of his thighs. Now he rides a women's bike, and
he likes that just fine.
Thanks
Katuzo

Avoid that 29" hype BS. You would be served well by a bike such as a
Trek 7100 which has a front suspension , shock seatpost and wider 700c
tires. They cost about $360. Avoid x mart type bikes and the dual
suspensions. MTB's usually have a hunched over position and your
hands and neck will suffer. Your shop is right about a comfort type
bike


On Jul 11, 3:55*am, Chalo wrote:
Katuzo wrote:

Doctor told me to get a bike. Consumers Reports say Giant FCR3 is good
for exercising ( I'm 57, 5'7", 170 pounds). When I went to the LBS,
and told them I wanted a bike that was also comfortable, and could
take some bumps (be easy on my butt + back), handle curbs, be fitted
with baskets and perhaps even be ridden in a campground occasionally
or a dirt path, they told me to go with something like a Giant Sedona
or a Cannondale Comfort 5 instead.

The difference between the Giant FCR3 and the Giant Sedona is that the
latter bike has 26" wheels. *Such wheels can be fitted with fatter
tires, and they are naturally stronger.

When I talked to the people at
work, they all seem to like low end mountain bikes like the Iron Horse
Warrior 3, except for one buddy who got a $100 dual suspension bike
whose bearing failed in a coupled of yrs. So right now, I basically
confused with conflicting advice. It seems that big tires are the way
to gain comfort but exercise bikes don't seem to have them, and if the
bike isn't comfortable I know I won't ride it.

Whether you'll be more comfortable on a so-called mountain bike or a
comfort bike is a matter of personal preference and how far you intend
to ride at one time. *Comfort bikes are great for short rides at low
effort levels, but they impede the process of strong athletic
riding.

Stay away from department store bikes of any kind. *They are generally
made in only one size, so you most likely won't be able to find one
that fits you properly. *They are almost always incompetently
assembled and made of the cheapest parts and materials available.
Many worthy bike shops won't service them because they are more
trouble than they are worth.

I really would like a
dual suspension, even if it's used + a little scratched.

No you wouldn't. *It's not worth it unless you intend to ride on very
harsh surfaces. *You'll waste a lot of muscle power bouncing the bike
on its suspension, but you probably won't find the ride much more
pleasant than a normal fat-tire bike on a normal road surface. *Dual
suspension bikes require a lot more service over time than rigid frame
bikes do, and they cost a lot more for any given level of quality.

Simple is better. *For comfort, fat tires at low pressure are
beneficial, but large diameter wheels are also helpful. *You can have
both if you get a bike with 29" wheels (that's a 700c road-bike-sized
rim with a 2"+ mountain bike sized tire on it). *The Redline D440 29er
is a good and cost-effective option if you want multiple gears. *The
Redline Monocog 29er is good if you are interested in a single speed
bike.

Make sure the bike fits you acceptably well. *You should see to it
that the handlebars are no lower than the height of the saddle, and
preferably a few inches higher, if comfort is of paramount
importance. *Lower handlebars are for efficiency at high speeds at the
expense of comfort. *And take care to get a saddle you can live with;
most originally equipped saddles are terrible.

Chalo

Chalo Colina wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Chalo Colina wrote:
Katuzo wrote:
...
I really would like a
dual suspension, even if it's used + a little scratched.

No you wouldn't. It's not worth it unless you intend to ride on very
harsh surfaces. You'll waste a lot of muscle power bouncing the bike
on its suspension, but you probably won't find the ride much more
pleasant than a normal fat-tire bike on a normal road surface....

If you put a jack-shaft concentric with the suspension pivot and
position the rider so the reciprocal motion of his/her legs while
pedaling is orthogonal to the direction of the suspension motion,
pedaling related suspension bob is eliminated.

That would require that you ride a distorted bike in the manner of
some kind of upended insect. It would be undignified, even if it were
technically feasible. :^)

Chalo is very astute. I have a trike that fits my above description, and
indeed, it is named after an insect.

See http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/1940450454/ and
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/2661128680/.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Chalo Colina wrote:
Katuzo wrote:
How well do road bikes handle rain or grass, only talking about riding
a hundred feet or so?

"Road bikes" have been with us since the 19th century; "mountain
bikes" since about 1980. A lot of us have been riding long enough to
remember when off-road riding was a matter of location, not type of
bicycle.

Just about any bike fit for life on the road can tolerate being ridden
over the occasional gravel road, empty lot, or grassy field. If you
want to ride rock gardens, you may be happier with both fat tires and
dual suspension....

My experience on club rides is that every time we would take a gravel
road, someone with skinny (23-mm or less in width) tires on a road bike
would flat. However, a more reasonable width tire (e.g. 28-622) will
work well on surfaces such as gravel roads, hiking trails and fire roads
[1] (in dry conditions - the latter two should be avoided when wet to
minimize rut creation).

[1] I used to ride a road bike with 32-630 tires on such surfaces
without problems.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Katuzo wrote:
Just for the record, I've looked and there are no places that let me
demo a bike that is within 50 miles of where I live.

I would not let you demolish a bicycle without buying it first, either.

Oh, did you mean test ride? Decent shops allow test rides as long as it
is dry outside.

When I did look at the Sedona yesterday, one place had one that had a
14" frame, and it was the only one they had and told me it would fit,
however, I tried out a 16" frame the day before, and I was able to
touch both heels to the floor on it.
Thats why I don't trust sales people.

Some of the better shops will observe you riding the bicycle on a
trainer, and will swap out stems and handlebars to get you a proper fit.
Here is an example: http://www.yellowjersey.org/fit.html.

Why the Sedona, there are alot of Giant dealers in my area (16), they
get high ratings, and there are within my price range (less than
$500). Plus the girl at the store explained that a Sedona would be
more versatile and more comfortable and be able to ride on trails,
while the Cypress would not. Now I know that the Cypress tire is wide
enough (38cm), to be comfortable, and the Cypress is capable of trail
riding if I ever wish to take a trip to the park and watch the birds
or go fishing. Hopefully, it will be able to handle that if there is
still dew on the grass with not that big of an decrease in safely.

The Cypress should be able to handle anything short of technical
single-track, mud and sand. Mud should generally be avoided (rut
creation and making a mess of the bike) and it takes very wide tires at
low pressure to ride in sand.

Just go slowly on wet grass if the handling gets squirrelly. Falling at
low speed on grass does not really hurt, either.

Still have some issues I'd like to resolve however.
What are the disadvantages of a woman's bike over a man's?...

Greater weight and lower torsional frame rigidity. These are not
significant in moderate riding.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Katuzo wrote:

"Some bumps" suggests you want to ride on roads. Mountain bikes are
ill-suited to that. I can't imagine why you would want to jump curbs.
Avoid them, don't ride over them.

I figured curbs where just a part of life when you road on major
streets with traffic. I just didn't want to stop the bike and get off
at every curb to lift it up.

This is only a problem if you ride on the sidewalk, which is both unsafe
and usually illegal.

Road bikes work fine for occasional dirt paths. You might also consider
a hybrid, but again suspension has more negatives than positives.

Would you mind stating some of the negatives.

Less climbing ability. Weight. Complexity (and thus possibility of
failure).

because of the width of the tires, but you're saying that maybe the
Cypress tires are wide enough for comfort. Must have some truth in
that because today at the LBS, I saw a old guy, who was riding a
Cypress come in for a seat change,and he said the ride was
comfortable .

Heck. I'm an old guy. If you ask me, 23mm tires are comfortable.

--

David L. Johnson

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
-- Albert Einstein

On Jul 12, 12:37*am, Katuzo wrote:


I figured curbs where just a part of life when you road on major
streets *with traffic. I just didn't want to stop the bike and get off
at every curb to lift it up.

I see a serious problem here! It sounds like you're planning on
riding sidewalks. That's almost always more dangerous than riding the
street.

When you ride a sidewalk, you've got frequent potential for collisions
with utility poles, signposts, street furniture and of course
pedestrians. Those pedestrians may include people rushing out of
building doors, jogging, walking two or three abreast, etc. You also
get problems with paved surfaces that are rough or have sudden drop-
offs.

But worse, there's a big risk of being hit by cars while riding a
sidewalk. Most common, I believe, is for motorists to turn into a
driveway, or come out of a driveway. They won't be looking for anyone
moving faster than 3 mph walking speed. The same happens at
intersections.

Learn to ride with confidence as a vehicle operator. See
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm or
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Practic...ng/VCIntro.htm

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 12, 1:33*am, Katuzo wrote:
[ Iwrote:]

A couple years ago, I advised on exactly the same question for an
acquaintance (who's now a very good friend of mine). *He's an
electrical engineer, and he had done what he thought of as
"considerable research" online, which was mostly visiting manufacturer
websites and reading an article here or there.

Like me, I'm also an electrical engineer.

He was all set to get a bouncy comfort bike - suspension fork,
suspension seatpost, soft saddle, high handlebars - until I told him
some of the tradeoffs. *He and I went shopping together.

Like me, except, I have no one to guide me, hence I'm here. Would you
mind mentioning the tradeoffs again for me.

No problem. We mechanical engineers are always happy to educate
electricals! ;-)

Suspension (even in a seatpost) adds weight, complexity, expense and
maintenance. Sometimes the benefits are worth it, but those
"sometimes" are almost always limited to very rough mountain biking.
If you're riding over baseball-sized rocks, suspension will save you
energy. If you're riding over anything like a decently paved surface
(including crushed limestone rail-trails) the suspension wastes
pedaling energy and money.

Remember, your fundamental "suspension" is your set of pneumatic
tires. You've shown no interest in super-high-pressure (150 psi)
super-skinny (18mm) racing tires, so we don't have to talk you out of
those. But within reason, wider tires will soak up ordinary bumps
just fine. "Within reason" shouldn't include knobby tires, though.
They buzz horribly on pavement and give tons more rolling resistance.

I normally ride 28 mm tires, always perfectly smooth ones. When I've
got a camping load on my touring bike, I go up to 32 mm or more. With
those, I've ridden many miles of gravel roads and other rough roads
successfully. 37s are even better for such work. (Remember, you
should stand up slightly to take a big bump; then your legs provide
added suspension, saving your butt.)

Regarding handlebar height: It's a tradeoff affected by personal
flexibility and riding style. The more your upper body tilts forward,
the easier you slip through the wind, and the less weight you have on
your butt. It also makes you a bit more agile on the bike, including
things like pedaling while standing, for a quick acceleration or for a
short climb. OTOH, you'll have more weight on your hands, and some
people may get neck discomfort. If you're riding short distances at
slow speed, you may not care about the advantages, and may prefer to
be very upright. It's a choice.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 12, 7:44*am, wrote:
Avoid that 29" hype BS. *You would be served well by a bike such as a
Trek 7100 which has a front suspension , shock seatpost and wider 700c
tires. *They cost about $360. *Avoid x mart type bikes and the dual
suspensions. *MTB's usually have a hunched over position and your
hands and neck will suffer. *Your shop is right about a comfort type
bike

The 7100 is more like $450, but it's a fine bike. I flipped a yard
sale example I found for $50 on Craigslist last summer. It's got
enough squidgy bits to make a person getting back to riding happy, but
it's plenty fast compared to the misery of a mtb on pavement.