Fat Lad said:Thanks Vincent, Simon & Pete.
Logic tells me that the less tread you have the less grip in damp or wet conditions.
Logic's wrong, in this case. Except in very soft going, more tread means less grip, because less
rubber is actually in contact the road (the gaps between the knobbles don't do anything). Of course,
very soft going is where you need most traction, which is why off road cyclists tend to use
knobblies. On road, slicks (no tread at all) are best.
Quoted message said:I will invariably have to ride through some cow dung & mud each day and it is at this point I do
not want to fall off.
How deep is it? If the tyre will be in contact with the pavement below/through the mud then you
don't need knobblies; if it won't you may do. As you say, that is one place you really need
your traction!
Quoted message said:worked out a strategy to deal with getting sweaty but turning into work with cow pats stuck to my
head may cause problems. Last time I rode a bike on wet roads I ended up in a chain link fence
after sliding past my turning. As I will need to stop at a blind junction at the bottom of one of
the hills I want to be sure the tyres & brakes will perform so spending a bit more at the outset
getting a decent cycle seems a good idea.
Disk brakes are expensive and may give the impression you're a fashion victim but they really do
work better in wet and muddy conditions.
Quoted message said:The bridleway is deeply rutted and currently flooded. It is not a necessary part of the trip but I
think it would be worth the effort and a nice alternative in the summer. It’s only about a mile
long so I would have thought taking it easy & knobbly tyres would be enough. This coupled with the
potholes makes me think a front suspension job may be a good move but what about seat post
suspension. Is that worth having as well or instead?
This is starting to sound more and more like MTB territory. If you're balanced on your bike a
substantial proportion of your weight - ideally half - will be on the front wheel, and most of that
weight will be carried by your wrists which don't like too much jarring. So fronts suspension is
more important than back (which is why you see so many front-suspension-only 'hardtail' MTBs). This
is not to say a suspension seatpost is not also a good idea. You might also consider full suspension
- although a full suspension bike is going to be either quite a lot heavier, or quite a lot more
expensive, than an equivalent hardtail.
Quoted message said:The idea of a lightweight is attractive as there are plenty of opportunities to increase journey
distance. This is what I aspire to for the sake of fitness and I don’t want a cycle that is
ultimately limiting.
With regards luggage, the rear rack seems the best solution but I was really wondering if having
an extra 15kg regularly over the back wheel needed factoring in to the bike choice.
To some extent. A lot of 'mountain bike' frames do have eyes for mounting panniers, and
virtually all hybrids do. 15 kilos is a lot - what do you plan to carry? I personally am a great
fan of bar bags.
Quoted message said:Station security is an issue. It is unmanned and remote but does have purpose built places to lock
the bike up. I am going to lurk around and ask any cyclists if they have had any problems. A cheap
2nd hand job is an idea if there is a problem but I am discounting the folding bike because I
think they look daft (no offence).
If the frame looks old and tatty and the components aren't too polished then the bike won't look
attractive to a thief - but this doesn't in the least stop it being a good bike to ride, if it's all
well lubricated and well set up. Second hand bikes are also a lot cheaper. There has been occasional
discussion here and there about actively 'distressing' a new bike to make it look old, tatty and
uninviting, although I must admit it would hurt me to do that!
Of course, this doesn't protect you from the casual drunk who just wants something to get him home
from the pub.
Quoted message said:I will be visiting the local cycle shops this weekend to see what’s what and try to spot if any
are worth dealing with. It is the array of bikes on offer that worries me. I don’t think I am in a
position to tell good from bad so it would be helpful if anyone could give me some pointers on
what to look for. I would rather not have to place my trust in a salesperson (spit).
Well, weight. Good bikes on the whole weigh less than poor ones, and in the price bracket you're
talking there's nothing so exotic that you need to worry about its strength (unless you are _very_
heavy - in the States I'm told that there is a category of bikes sold as 'clydesdales' which are
designed for the more elephantine rider).
Beyond that you're into the quality of individual components. 90% of the bikes on offer will have
Shimano drivetrains and possibly other components. On the whole Shimano are reasonable, but their
very good stuff is an awful lot better than their bottom of the range stuff. Campagnolo on the whole
slightly more upmarket although I don't think there's really a lot of difference between the top
ends of the two ranges. The problem with this is there's no simple relationship between the model
names and how good they are, so unless you have real trainspotter mentality it's hard to remember
whether LX is better than Deore, or Centaur than Record. SRAM is easier to deal with - SRAM X.0 is
top of the range, X.9 next best, then X.7... but although SRAM components are also good you won't
find that many new bikes with SRAM components. And when you get into handlebars, saddles, cranks,
even disk brakes, there are a mass of makes, some good, some not so.
The best thing to do, unless you really trust your LBS (and the best LBS staff are the most
knowledgeable people of all) is take a knowlegeable friend with you.
--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗
'graveyards are full of indispensable people'
