#1
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
I’m riding a borrowed bike named a Giordana Spica. It was lent to me by
a friend who bought the entire bike for a few components. He lent it to me for my use while he slowly assembles the rest of the parts he’s looking for to build a new bike for himself. I may have a chance to buy this bike sometime later on either whole or by replacing the few components he bought the entire bike for thus leaving me with the parts he regards as surplus (such as frame and forks). I’ve done some research on this bike learning it was a private label built in Italy during the 80’s and named after the importer (feminized name). It’s built of quality steel tubing and fits me fairly well – or about as well as a standard bike will. By today’s standards, it’s heavy at 22+ lbs. My buddy is biased toward older bikes waxing wonderful about older bikes and generally acts somewhat skeptical about the newer ones. He is an expert – no doubt of that – but all experts have their biases. For example, at a recent bike swap, he went nuts about some bike from the late 70’s because someone had done something or another on that model, but to me, it was just an old bike. Lacking the heritage, I can’t enjoy the antiques. I’ve grown to enjoy road riding quite a bit and want a bike for myself. So my question is if I try to buy this bike from him or move to a newer bike. I have no idea if technology has moved forward enough lately to buy something new or if the new tech, like Ti, carbon and the new Al’s are really superior to this bike’s heavier steel core. How does one evaluate a bike? I do understand gradations in componentry like Dura-Ace beats a 105 (even if I’m not entirely clear on nuances) – that’s easy. What I don’t understand is how one evaluates the fundamentals of a bike. Specifically, is an older (20+) years frameset dated? Does it work less well compared to a newer bike? Has technology made significant progress which, if I bought newer, would make me a happier or faster (or both?) rider? The new bikes I look at in bike shops weigh 4 to 6 lbs less than my current ride. That strikes me as a LOT, but does that translate into a better ride? I ask this because I know some pursuits are equipment dependent. For example, years ago, my late wife (died young) who was a superb skier wanted me to ski too. I bought $10 equipment and didn’t think much of it. She badgered me into buying top of the line stuff which made skiing for me much more interesting and easier. OTOH, some pursuits are equipment independent so those who buy fancy or new are more posers than beneficiaries. So I ask this group – is there anything new under the sun which is significant in bike tech which would cause me to be happier on a new tech bike such as the Giant OCR1 composite which is what I’m considering? If there is a link to a ‘bike evaluation’ article, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Paul Cassel wrote:
Specifically, is an older (20+) years frameset dated? Does it work less well compared to a newer bike? There are pros and cons to using an older frame. Not knowing the specifics of this particular frame makes commenting difficult. Can you post a photo? I wouldn't worry too much about weight. What matters is the combined weight of the bike and rider (and the bike is a small fraction of the total). It's possible that this frame has a somewhat longer wheelbase and more tire clearance than modern bikes, and those are good things. I happen to like the looks of lugged steel frames. Modern bikes will have more gears, and brake/shift levers that allow precise shifts without taking a hand off the bars. An old steel bike can be retofitted with a moden drivetrain and shifters. If you like the frame, if it fits you well, and if the price is right, buying it could be a smart move. You should probably visit a LBS and see what's available new before making a decision. Art Harris |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Paul Cassel wrote:
I'm riding a borrowed bike named a Giordana Spica. It was lent to me by a friend who bought the entire bike for a few components. He lent it to me for my use while he slowly assembles the rest of the parts he's looking for to build a new bike for himself. I may have a chance to buy this bike sometime later on either whole or by replacing the few components he bought the entire bike for thus leaving me with the parts he regards as surplus (such as frame and forks). I've done some research on this bike learning it was a private label built in Italy during the 80's and named after the importer (feminized name). It's built of quality steel tubing and fits me fairly well - or about as well as a standard bike will. By today's standards, it's heavy at 22+ lbs. My buddy is biased toward older bikes waxing wonderful about older bikes and generally acts somewhat skeptical about the newer ones. He is an expert - no doubt of that - but all experts have their biases. For example, at a recent bike swap, he went nuts about some bike from the late 70's because someone had done something or another on that model, but to me, it was just an old bike. Lacking the heritage, I can't enjoy the antiques. I've grown to enjoy road riding quite a bit and want a bike for myself. So my question is if I try to buy this bike from him or move to a newer bike. I have no idea if technology has moved forward enough lately to buy something new or if the new tech, like Ti, carbon and the new Al's are really superior to this bike's heavier steel core. How does one evaluate a bike? I do understand gradations in componentry like Dura-Ace beats a 105 (even if I'm not entirely clear on nuances) - that's easy. What I don't understand is how one evaluates the fundamentals of a bike. Specifically, is an older (20+) years frameset dated? Does it work less well compared to a newer bike? Has technology made significant progress which, if I bought newer, would make me a happier or faster (or both?) rider? The new bikes I look at in bike shops weigh 4 to 6 lbs less than my current ride. That strikes me as a LOT, but does that translate into a better ride? I ask this because I know some pursuits are equipment dependent. For example, years ago, my late wife (died young) who was a superb skier wanted me to ski too. I bought $10 equipment and didn't think much of it. She badgered me into buying top of the line stuff which made skiing for me much more interesting and easier. OTOH, some pursuits are equipment independent so those who buy fancy or new are more posers than beneficiaries. So I ask this group - is there anything new under the sun which is significant in bike tech which would cause me to be happier on a new tech bike such as the Giant OCR1 composite which is what I'm considering? If there is a link to a 'bike evaluation' article, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Here is my OPINION. If you have no money, then finding or borrowing or stealing or buying an old bike and enjoying bicycling is great. Assuming you have some money, have an interest in riding more than just around the block, not particularly enamored with being your own mechanic, and have no preconceived bicycling biases, get a new bike. Most new bicyclists fit into the description given. Biases and mechanical ability come after you are a bicyclist. New bikes work great without much fuss and last very well. They are easier to shift (Ergo or STI) than the older bikes. And have better gearing (triples and wide range cassettes). Ride your borrowed bike to a shop and test ride some new bikes. Entry level new road bikes start around $600 at bike shops. The main thing to compare is how easy it is to shift with new bikes. And ride up a steep hill and try the really low gears new bikes have. It is possible to change your old borrowed bike to modern gear. But by the time you buy the parts and pay a mechanic to do it, you are probably half way or more to the cost of a new bike. Even if you learn the mechanics yourself, it still costs a bit for the parts. Unless you are starting with a valuable old bike, or one that has some sentimental value to you, it isn't economic to upgrade run of the mill old bikes with new components. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Art Harris wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote: Specifically, is an older (20+) years frameset dated? Does it work less well compared to a newer bike? There are pros and cons to using an older frame. Not knowing the specifics of this particular frame makes commenting difficult. Can you post a photo? Here are some photo links: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0003.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0004.jpg I wouldn't worry too much about weight. What matters is the combined weight of the bike and rider (and the bike is a small fraction of the total). I'm baffled. All the noise I hear from bike riding folks fusses about mass. People seem to pay brutal money for a carbon waterbottle cage over a steel one to say, what, 20 g? When I go to an LBS, they go on about how neat their 16 lb bikes are and that I can go even lower if I choose to. It seems to be the ruling criterion for a bike and here you run counter and say don't worry too much about it. I can't reconcile both views. It's possible that this frame has a somewhat longer wheelbase and more tire clearance than modern bikes, and those are good things. I happen to like the looks of lugged steel frames. Modern bikes will have more gears, and brake/shift levers that allow precise shifts without taking a hand off the bars. An old steel bike can be retofitted with a moden drivetrain and shifters. Is that really worth the bother? These shifters are on the 'down' tube (word?) and seem to work ok. If you like the frame, if it fits you well, and if the price is right, buying it could be a smart move. You should probably visit a LBS and see what's available new before making a decision. I have visited and not gained much insight which is why I posted here. Let me expand a bit. I'm an expert in motorcycles. Today you go to a motorcycle store and for a reasonable price ($10k) buy a motorcycle which would be competititive in professional road races of 10 years ago. There has been that much progress. The motocycles of today are amazing compared to those of a decade ago. I'm curious to know if similar progress has been made in bicycles. Do the bikes of today stand way above those older tech bikes or are the changes mostly fashion? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Paul Cassel wrote:
Here are some photo links: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0003.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0004.jpg DO'T BUY THAT BIKE! IT'S OUT OF FOCUS! (And what the hell was that last pic?!?) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Paul Cassel wrote:
When I go to an LBS, they go on about how neat their 16 lb bikes are and that I can go even lower if I choose to. That's what sells bikes. Depends what you want to do. If you're a CAT 1 racer, and extemely skinny, a 16 pound bike might make sense. If you're a recreational rider looking for exercise and the enjoyment of riding, then bike weight isn't a big deal (within reason). Is that really worth the bother? These shifters are on the 'down' tube (word?) and seem to work ok. Probably not worth the bother and expense if you're happy with the down tube shifters. Just pointing out what you will find on a new bike. Need to know what you're going to do with the bike. Race? Easy rides? Long hard rides? Solo or group rides? Tnx for the photos, but they're kinda "blocky" an hard to see much detail Art Harris |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Bill Sornson wrote:
Paul Cassel wrote: Here are some photo links: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0001.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0002.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0003.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...d/IMG_0004.jpg DO'T BUY THAT BIKE! IT'S OUT OF FOCUS! (And what the hell was that last pic?!?) embarass posted the wrong link. That's my GPS on a motorcycle. Beats me why they are so chewed up looking. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Paul Cassel wrote: wrote: Here is my OPINION. If you have no money, then finding or borrowing or stealing or buying an old bike and enjoying bicycling is great. Assuming you have some money, have an interest in riding more than just around the block, not particularly enamored with being your own mechanic, and have no preconceived bicycling biases, get a new bike. Most new bicyclists fit into the description given. Biases and mechanical ability come after you are a bicyclist. New bikes work great without much fuss and last very well. They are easier to shift (Ergo or STI) than the older bikes. And have better gearing (triples and wide range cassettes). Ride your borrowed bike to a shop and test ride some new bikes. Entry level new road bikes start around $600 at bike shops. The main thing to compare is how easy it is to shift with new bikes. And ride up a steep hill and try the really low gears new bikes have. It is possible to change your old borrowed bike to modern gear. But by the time you buy the parts and pay a mechanic to do it, you are probably half way or more to the cost of a new bike. Even if you learn the mechanics yourself, it still costs a bit for the parts. Unless you are starting with a valuable old bike, or one that has some sentimental value to you, it isn't economic to upgrade run of the mill old bikes with new components. Thanks. I'm looking for OPINION. I figure that for my first bike, I rely on others' opinions and then after riding a while, I'll have my own. I don't think it possible that a new guy like me can have much of an informed opinion. For example, riding a bike up and down a parking lot gives me a rough idea of how it fits, but not how I'll feel after 40 miles. Also I learned that I can mess with a bike to make it fit me better. For example, when I got the borrowed bike, I could only stand being on it for .5 hr. I switched the seat with an eBay special, adjusted the whole thing, played with it a while and now I have no seat/ass issues at all. I can ride 3-4 hours at least enjoying the ride 100%. If you can ride 3-4 hours and enjoy the ride 100% then the bike is probably about right for you. Probably would not hurt to buy it cheap and ride it for a year or two. Old bikes are OK and work well. Beginning riders usually find modern handlebar shifting and lots of low gears add to the enjoyment. You have addressed and solved a complete bafflement for me on the old bike. It has 45/52 chainrings and a very small cluster (wd for rear sprocket grouping?). I guess the bike is geared for going downhill because that's the only place I use the 52 ring. So it's a new thing to have climbing gears. I ride with a 53-42 crankset on my racing style bike. Love the 42. I do use bigger cogs in back for the occassional times I need lower gears on that bike. Another road bike has a triple crankset so the front rings are 52-42-30. More low gears than I need unless I am in the mountains, but it does not hurt. The word for the rear gear set is either freewheel or cassette. Most likely a freewheel for this bike. Big cogs in back for road bikes are about 28 teeth usually. I suspect the bike was designed to mimic the pro racing bikes of the times and pro racing bikes don't have very low gears. Without too much difficulty or money, you could replace the double crankset and bottom bracket with a compact (110mm bolt circle diameter) and that would give you 50-34 front chainrings. The 34 on front would give you fairly low gears without changing anything else. http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...eid=&pagename= http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?c...eid=&pagename= I'm suggesting the compact double crankset instead of a triple replacement because there are less parts to change. $100 total and you have probably low enough gears. Watch for sales. I have three motorcycles so my fiddling urge is satisfied with them. I really want to just ride everyday and not screw around adjusting this and that which is what I've been doing. I bought a book by Zinn on fixing bikes and have been banging away on this bike some, but now seem to need about $140 in tools such as cone wrenches to continue. Bike tools are fairly specialized for working on the headset, hubs, bottom bracket, and freewheel/cassette. You can get by with cheap ones and get by for maybe $50 total. I will say that the bike has Dura Ace gear train, but it doesn't really shift any better, or stop any better, than my mountain bike which has XT and XTR components. If the bike came with Dura Ace in the mid 1980s it may be a higher quality frame than I thought. Shifting should be more convenient and quicker on the mountain bike due to indexed shifting on the handlebars. That is what modern road bikes have with Ergo and STI. It would be cost prohibitive to put them on an older bike. Brakes have improved on modern bikes. Dual pivot calipers on modern road bikes require less force to brake. Your V brakes are likely easier to activate on your mountain bikes than the old single pivot calipers on the borrowed road bike. Do you experts really just take a new bike around a parking lot and then decide to spend thousands based on that short ride? There MUST be more to it. -paul |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Evaulating a bike
Art Harris wrote:
Probably not worth the bother and expense if you're happy with the down tube shifters. Just pointing out what you will find on a new bike. Need to know what you're going to do with the bike. Race? Easy rides? Long hard rides? Solo or group rides? Tnx for the photos, but they're kinda "blocky" an hard to see much detail I prefer the shifters on the bar like on my modern mtn bike but have been living with them down there like on the old 'english racer 10 speeds'. My riding is recreational, but I tend to do anything rather vigorously. Right now, I typically ride 30-40 miles on some hills alternating between riding full out hard and recovery days. Being a 40+ I can't recover from day after day of hard push like I could when I was a distance runner. So I tend to ride hard one day, next day lift in the gym, then have a recovery day riding (same distance but slower) with some pushes in the ride. Then back to the gym, then a hard day riding. Repeat. Now hard is different for each of us. I've only been at this a short while so my hard 70% effort isn't very fast compared to good riders, I know but it is percieved as hard by me. I'd like to ride an autumn easy 100 miler. That's my short term goal. Long term I'd like to use bicycling as a substitute for distance running which I had to quit due to severe arthritis in my feet and knees subsequent to injuries. I find the biking helps my very bad left knee. Does that give you an idea of my profile? Thanks. -paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
My New Bike | brucianna | General | 6 | June 8th 05 08:45 AM |
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale | Marilyn Price | Rides | 0 | June 1st 04 04:53 AM |
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale | Marilyn Price | General | 0 | June 1st 04 04:52 AM |
Trips for Kids 13th Annual Bike Swap & Sale | Marilyn Price | Recumbent Biking | 0 | June 1st 04 04:49 AM |
aus.bicycle FAQ (Monthly(ish) Posting) | kingsley | Australia | 3 | February 24th 04 09:44 PM |