First bike

antgel said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

At a glance, not bad at all. They have the right features to make them
practical for most urban use; more than enough gears, chain guards, full
mudguards. Gripshifts are a matter of personal taste. The bikes look
capable of serving their purpose for years with a bit of care, and they
are not so expensive that you need worry too much about them when they
are parked outside (though a good lock to fix the bike to something
solid is still necessary and will add noticeably to the cost.)

Derailleur gears need more maintenance than hub gears, but so long as
you are comfortable with that, fine.

You might find it worthwhile to watch for bargain bike equipment offered
by Aldi from time to time if you don't have some of the useful extras
and tools you might want; for example, a while ago there were very cheap
but usable pannier bags.

The only crucial issue, I think, if you go ahead with one or both of the
bikes, is to make sure it's the right size for the rider.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

antgel said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

Having the pannier rack already included is preferable, since carrying
luggage in a rucksack is sweaty, uncomfortable and potentially unsafe.

However, you might want to consider hub gears at the back. Derailleurs
inevitably require regular tweakage; hub gears are virtually zero
maintenance, and most have the ability to change gear when stationary,
something quite handy in city traffic when some donkey makes you stop
abruptly in the wrong gear.

R.

JLB said:

antgel said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

At a glance, not bad at all. They have the right features to make them
practical for most urban use; more than enough gears, chain guards, full
mudguards. Gripshifts are a matter of personal taste. The bikes look
capable of serving their purpose for years with a bit of care, and they
are not so expensive that you need worry too much about them when they
are parked outside (though a good lock to fix the bike to something
solid is still necessary and will add noticeably to the cost.)

Derailleur gears need more maintenance than hub gears, but so long as
you are comfortable with that, fine.

You might find it worthwhile to watch for bargain bike equipment offered
by Aldi from time to time if you don't have some of the useful extras
and tools you might want; for example, a while ago there were very cheap
but usable pannier bags.

The only crucial issue, I think, if you go ahead with one or both of the
bikes, is to make sure it's the right size for the rider.

The only differences I can see are the 21 vs 18 gears, the pannier
carrier and the aluminium vs steel frame. I couldn't care less about
the gears, I'm sure 18 is plenty.

Is an aluminium frame likely to be worth the extra £50, given the length
of journeys that I am likely to make, and given that I am not bothered
about speed? My understanding is that the alu frame is lighter and
should therefore enable quicker or longer progress for the same effort.
Given the nature (town) and length (10 miles max, 1-5 more likely) of
my journeys, should I care?

in message <[email hidden]>, antgel

(') said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

I've never heard of Ammaco. They may be OK but there is a lot of [censored] out
there. The Claud Butler Classic is a very similar bike at a very similar
price which I do know and can recommend as good value for money.
<URL:http://www.falconcycles.co.uk/2005/HYBRID/classicM.html>

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

antgel said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

As you live in London, it would be worth going over to Decathlon
(Canada Water tube station) for a look at their range.
Their website has gone potty, and no longer lists bikes.
But they do have a decent range of city bikes.

Also I highly recommend Wharf Cycles in Cuba Street,
which is near Canary Wharf. Just near the City Pride pub.
They are a Giant dealer, so have plenty of that sort of bike.
Also do Ridgeback, which are a good brand for London commuting.
If you buy from a shop, you will get good advice and will get it set up
properly for you, and will probably get a first service for free.
Wharf Cycles would honestly be my first port of call.
http://www.wharfcycles.co.uk/

"antgel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

I'd never touch something from the ammaco brand. Nasty and heavy stuff, even
if the first one does nominally have some sensible features. Very similar to
the halfords Apollo range. Ditto for Cycle King. The 'RRP' quoted in those
ads is a joke BTW.
I think the heap lying in our shed, the first new bike my wife bought
(before I got my hands on her, so not my fault!) is something like one of
these.
(JLB - did I really read your reply properly? Seemed most out of character.)

(out of the two, I'd go for the more expensive one).

Unfortunately I'm not really in that market though so I can't really
recommend an alternative (although the traditional answer does involve
increasing your budget). Sorry.

Good luck in starting riding though! (I've read your other thread - again,
can't offer anything constructive, since my parents are pretty good in this
regard.)

cheers,
clive

Clive George said:

(out of the two, I'd go for the more expensive one).

Why?

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately I'm not really in that market though so I can't really
recommend an alternative (although the traditional answer does involve
increasing your budget). Sorry.

I know that that's the traditional answer. I should have pointed out
that at this stage, that's not an option. 🙂

in message <[email hidden]>, antgel

(') said:

JLB said:

antgel said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for
getting around Central London, probably never riding more than 10
miles at a stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

At a glance, not bad at all. They have the right features to make them
practical for most urban use; more than enough gears, chain guards,
full mudguards. Gripshifts are a matter of personal taste. The bikes
look capable of serving their purpose for years with a bit of care,
and they are not so expensive that you need worry too much about them
when they are parked outside (though a good lock to fix the bike to
something solid is still necessary and will add noticeably to the
cost.)

Derailleur gears need more maintenance than hub gears, but so long as
you are comfortable with that, fine.

You might find it worthwhile to watch for bargain bike equipment
offered by Aldi from time to time if you don't have some of the useful
extras and tools you might want; for example, a while ago there were
very cheap but usable pannier bags.

The only crucial issue, I think, if you go ahead with one or both of
the bikes, is to make sure it's the right size for the rider.

The only differences I can see are the 21 vs 18 gears, the pannier
carrier and the aluminium vs steel frame. I couldn't care less about
the gears, I'm sure 18 is plenty.

It is; but seeing the eighteen gear system is bottom-of-the-range, the
engineering will be less good, which matters because the problem with
derailleurs is they go out of adjustment and need fettling quite often
enough anyway.

Quoted message said:

Is an aluminium frame likely to be worth the extra £50, given the
length of journeys that I am likely to make, and given that I am not
bothered
about speed? My understanding is that the alu frame is lighter and
should therefore enable quicker or longer progress for the same effort.
Given the nature (town) and length (10 miles max, 1-5 more likely) of
my journeys, should I care?

Yes if there are any significant hills, no otherwise.

But I'd say again - this is an unknown brand, to me anyway, and I would
look at a Claud Butler Classic before you make your mind up.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]

"antgel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

(out of the two, I'd go for the more expensive one).

Why?

Mostly the 7 speed bit of it. It's difficult to say looking at the
pictures/specs, but I suspect the 100 quid one is a pile of stinking poo and
the 150 quid one stinks a bit less. This is all merely conjecture BTW.
(But my wife's bike was one of the cheaper ones, and that had some really
nasty features like 1/2" rather than 9/16" pedals.)

Again, sorry I can't give you concrete advice, but I'm a bit far away to do
so :-)

cheers,
clive

"antgel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
stretch?

http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

If you are going to get a bike - go to various and many bike shops and try
some out. Don't be pressurised into buying the first you try. When you do
buy, comfortable fit is important. Be prepared to change your saddle -
saddle fit is very much an individual thing. Also - budget for lights (front
& back), pump, a couple of spare inner tubes a basic waterproof jacket and a
pair of padded cycle shorts.

Cheers, helen s

Clive George said:

"
I'd never touch something from the ammaco brand. Nasty and heavy stuff,
even if the first one does nominally have some sensible features. Very
similar to the halfords Apollo range. Ditto for Cycle King. The 'RRP'
quoted in those ads is a joke BTW.

I don't know the brand, but I agree with Clive.

Go to a local bicycle shop, and discuss what you need.
Plenty of branches of Evans in London, I have recommended Wharf Cycles,
there are plenty more. Magic Bikes opposite the London Hospital.
Cycle Surgery is in Spitalfields, but is at the more expensive end of the
market.
Buy a known brand, such as a Giant, Ridgeback, Dawes.
Don't let a shop sell you a mountain bike, or anything with full
suspension at that price.

antgel wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Is an aluminium frame likely to be worth the extra £50, given the length
of journeys that I am likely to make, and given that I am not bothered
about speed? My understanding is that the alu frame is lighter and
should therefore enable quicker or longer progress for the same effort.
Given the nature (town) and length (10 miles max, 1-5 more likely) of
my journeys, should I care?

Lighter is generally preferable, but you should check the actual weight
of each to be sure the Al bike really is lighter. Although aluminium has
lower density than steel, it is not as strong or stiff, so typically you
need more of it for the same job. My view is that, except for serious
competitive riding, weight is often taken too seriously. When I'm
touring I'll put perhaps another 30 or 40 lbs of kit on the bike; it
does not make that much difference to my progress. It's a bit more
effort up hills, but you can get some of that back going downhill, and
the bike coasts more readily over smaller hills because of the extra
kinetic energy. For what you are proposing it is probably more important
that the frame is strong and stiff, so that it copes when, for example,
you try putting a lot of groceries on the rack, and it does not get
seriously dented if it takes a knock.

(If the rack offered as standard on the "cheltenham" is any good, it's
well worth having because then you can fit panniers. Carrying a rucksack
while cycling is entirely possible, but it is not comfortable.)

If the weight of each is quite similar (within, say, 5 lbs) it's
probably not worth worrying about, especially for what you intend. Your
cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of tyres
fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.
You certainly do not want knobbly, off-road style tyres, they just waste
effort on roads.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Clive George said:

(JLB - did I really read your reply properly? Seemed most out of character.)

My initial premise is that a bike is better than no bike; and for short
urban journeys something that is not too precious has its advantages.

Upgrading can come later, when the owner is clear (from experience)
about personal priorities.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

Clive George said:

(JLB - did I really read your reply properly? Seemed most out of
character.)

My initial premise is that a bike is better than no bike; and for short
urban journeys something that is not too precious has its advantages.

Upgrading can come later, when the owner is clear (from experience)
about personal priorities.

He speaks the truth.

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of

tyres

Quoted message said:

fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.

I have to disagree with this bit.

At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
narrower one.

At 100psi and carrying a weight of 100lbs, your contact patch will be one
square inch, regardless of how wide or how narrow your tyre is. For example
if that equates to 1" x1" (wide tyre) it will take less effort to roll
compared to a contact patch of 1/4" x 4" (very very narrow tyre) as it
takes energy to deform the sidewalls.

I dare say not a great deal, but every little helps, and a wider tyre
certainly feels more comfortable.

Tom

Tom said:

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Your cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of

tyres

Quoted message said:

fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.

I have to disagree with this bit.

At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
narrower one.

At 100psi and carrying a weight of 100lbs, your contact patch will be one
square inch, regardless of how wide or how narrow your tyre is. For example
if that equates to 1" x1" (wide tyre) it will take less effort to roll
compared to a contact patch of 1/4" x 4" (very very narrow tyre) as it
takes energy to deform the sidewalls.

I dare say not a great deal, but every little helps, and a wider tyre
certainly feels more comfortable.

That's fair enough, but not the whole story. Larger tyres tend to have a
lower maximum pressure, which increases the contact patch and the
flexing of the side wall. Narrow tyres can have some weight bearing
capacity in the side walls, so they do not behave simply like a party
balloon. There are reasons why racing tyres are as narrow as they can
be, and since the OP has made it clear that minimising energy use when
cycling is a priority, I thought it was worth mentioning the tyres.
However, I agree that fatter tyres are usually more comfortable.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

"JLB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
narrower one.

That's fair enough, but not the whole story. Larger tyres tend to have a
lower maximum pressure, which increases the contact patch and the flexing
of the side wall. Narrow tyres can have some weight bearing capacity in
the side walls, so they do not behave simply like a party balloon. There
are reasons why racing tyres are as narrow as they can be, and since the
OP has made it clear that minimising energy use when cycling is a
priority, I thought it was worth mentioning the tyres. However, I agree
that fatter tyres are usually more comfortable.

You've forgotten to mention the key reason for using skinny tyres -
aerodynamics and weight. A decent fat tyre can be run at over 100psi (see
tandem use), so there isn't a difference in rolling resistance - however
rolling resistance isn't as important as it is occasionally made out to be.
The OP isn't interested in going fast (yet), so the aero advantage doesn't
really matter.

(I'd recommend something in the 32-37mm range, but use 1.75" on our road
tandem :-) )

cheers,
clive

JLB said:

Clive George said:

(JLB - did I really read your reply properly? Seemed most out of character.)

My initial premise is that a bike is better than no bike; and for short
urban journeys something that is not too precious has its advantages.

Upgrading can come later, when the owner is clear (from experience)
about personal priorities.

A point well made and one which can be applied to many interests, IME. You
don't really know exactly how you want to upgrade until you've actually
spent some time doing the activity in question.

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk - about me, music, geek sitcom etc.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s-faq.html - alt.music.home-studio FAQ
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/wrap.php?file=vhs.html - vhs purchase log.
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/ukodb - uk outdoor bargain noticeboard.