Advise for beginner

Following on from SRT's message. . .

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also
possibly to cycle the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and
preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

Thanks for all your input. I think I should elaborate on my
situation further. I live in Shetland and consequently do
not have the opportunity to try out the bikes - there are
no real bike shops up here.

Also the bike I will be looking for as well as being used
for commuting would be used as a way of maintaining my
fitness. Are these compatible?

10 miles each way = 100 miles per week = 1.5 hours a day .
Ummm, /Perhaps/ in Shetland you /might/ just get away with
that as a way of maintaining fitness. 🙂

Seriously, if you don't have a LBS[Local bike shop] then try
to track down some local cyclists and have a natter. An
ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. Even if all you
do is try out a bike or two to find a frame size that suits
you which you can then dial into the specification for
MO[You imply you can't get to a bike shop to try things out
- The wrong size will be an enormous handicap] The local
dudes will have lots of tips on all sorts of things from
what to carry as an emergency toolkit to strategies for
combating the elements.

Well done for having a go. A 20 mile daily ride is perfectly
possible but takes some doing day-in-day-out in perfect
conditions with a well suited combination of bike and body.
You wouldn't think of running for an hour and a half every
day in ballet shoes (flimsy) or safety boots (heavy) or
wellingtons (just the wrong thing) or shoes that didn't
fit... ...so:
(1) The right sort - Probably a hybrid is ideal (a 'working'
bike) but anything _without_ knobbly tyres and _without_
suspension would get you going.
(2) The right size - There are plenty of rules of thumb...
...but none of them are 100% trustworthy enough to order
a new bike unseen.
(3) [If buying new] - Dodge the shoddy end of the market.
Expect to spend at least £300 by the time you've added a
few accessories.

My personal preferences are
(a) Get mudguards _fitted by shop_
(b) Get a good rack for the back (if not make sure bike has
screw points 'brazings'😉...
(c)...and one or two clip-on pannier bags.
(d) Avoid knife-edge or mega-fat or gel(gimmic) saddles

I'm not sure what the roads of Shetland are like but if
drivers are not used to seeing cycles they won't be driving
with them in mind. So add
(4) Invest in visibility gear (bright in the day, reflective
at night) [which you'd do anyway.]

======
** OR **
======
Take an entirely different approach. Buy a folder. That way
people will stop and offer you a lift knowing the bike will
pop in the back.

======
Finally
======
It is traditional in u.r.c. to say : "Let us know how you
get on". and "Don't be shy about asking more questions"

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

Following on from SRT's message. . .

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also
possibly to cycle the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and
preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

Thanks for all your input. I think I should elaborate on my
situation further. I live in Shetland and consequently do
not have the opportunity to try out the bikes - there are
no real bike shops up here.

Also the bike I will be looking for as well as being used
for commuting would be used as a way of maintaining my
fitness. Are these compatible?

10 miles each way = 100 miles per week = 1.5 hours a day .
Ummm, /Perhaps/ in Shetland you /might/ just get away with
that as a way of maintaining fitness. 🙂

Seriously, if you don't have a LBS[Local bike shop] then try
to track down some local cyclists and have a natter. An
ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. Even if all you
do is try out a bike or two to find a frame size that suits
you which you can then dial into the specification for
MO[You imply you can't get to a bike shop to try things out
- The wrong size will be an enormous handicap] The local
dudes will have lots of tips on all sorts of things from
what to carry as an emergency toolkit to strategies for
combating the elements.

Well done for having a go. A 20 mile daily ride is perfectly
possible but takes some doing day-in-day-out in perfect
conditions with a well suited combination of bike and body.
You wouldn't think of running for an hour and a half every
day in ballet shoes (flimsy) or safety boots (heavy) or
wellingtons (just the wrong thing) or shoes that didn't
fit... ...so:
(1) The right sort - Probably a hybrid is ideal (a 'working'
bike) but anything _without_ knobbly tyres and _without_
suspension would get you going.
(2) The right size - There are plenty of rules of thumb...
...but none of them are 100% trustworthy enough to order
a new bike unseen.
(3) [If buying new] - Dodge the shoddy end of the market.
Expect to spend at least £300 by the time you've added a
few accessories.

My personal preferences are
(a) Get mudguards _fitted by shop_
(b) Get a good rack for the back (if not make sure bike has
screw points 'brazings'😉...
(c)...and one or two clip-on pannier bags.
(d) Avoid knife-edge or mega-fat or gel(gimmic) saddles

I'm not sure what the roads of Shetland are like but if
drivers are not used to seeing cycles they won't be driving
with them in mind. So add
(4) Invest in visibility gear (bright in the day, reflective
at night) [which you'd do anyway.]

======
** OR **
======
Take an entirely different approach. Buy a folder. That way
people will stop and offer you a lift knowing the bike will
pop in the back.

======
Finally
======
It is traditional in u.r.c. to say : "Let us know how you
get on". and "Don't be shy about asking more questions"

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the deckchair business folded
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/wcc.htm Witham Cycling Campaign
www.eminent.demon.co.uk/rides East Anglian Pub cycle rides

From your description I would suggest looking no further than a Claud Butler
Chinook :-

heres a link :-

falconcycles.co.ukproduct.phpOpen ↗
1&p.id=236

PS

If you search hard enough you should be able to pick a new
one up for £239

Regards

Sean B

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

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also
possibly to cycle the ten miles to work everyday.

Does anyone have any advice on the type of bike to buy?

I would like it to be as inexpensive as possible and
preferably brand new.

The bike will be used on the road.

TIA.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

But do check for what the /lowest/ gear setting is.

My experience of bike-shop folk is that they are
dismissive of the new-to-cycling adult commuter.

My thoughts exactly. Norfolk isn't the hiiliest county in
England, but *particularly* when I first got back on the
bike I was very pleased I had a granny ring & 27 gears...

The fit may well not use a granny ring or lots of gears,
but it's easily forgotten that when first getting on or
back on a bike in an unfit state, it can be of benefit to
have lots of gears as provided by a granny ring & nine-
speed block.

Cheers, helen s

Absolutely agree. Make sure *you're* happy with the fit of
the bike too, don't let them tell you it's fine if it's too
big or too small. I have 3x9 gears on mine, and whilst not
the lowest gearing combinations in the world, I'm managing
to get up at least part way of most hills these days (and am
unfit with wet string for leg muscles). But, lower gears
still would be easier sometimes. Tis hard work for legs
unused to this sort of thing even on the gearing I have.

Granny rings are great!

--

Velvet

SRT said:

Quoted message said:

Hi,

I am looking to take up cycling for recreation and also
possibly to cycle the ten miles to work everyday.

My four penworth,

I started bicycle commuting 11 miles each way at the age of
53. If I can do it, anybody can.

Like you, I agonised over what sort of bike to get for a
fairly long commute using normal roads. The advice I got
from most local bike shops was to get a hybrid. The
reasoning behind this advice was that I would be able to use
the bike for commuting during the week and still be able to
go off-roading at weekend. This advice was offered in spite
of my insistence that I was in no way interested in cycling
off-road. This example goes to show that bike shops are
influenced by fashion.

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I
can only help you to consider your personal requirements.
You say you will be cycling on roads. This suggests a
_road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy suspension
systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use
the bike off-road.

You _will_ need a pannier rack. Carrying stuff to work in a
rucksack is sweaty and tends to affect the balance.

You _will_ need mudguards. Cycling on wet roads without
them is not fun. If you are commuting in all weathers you
have to consider the fun element _very_ seriously. It is
very easy to slide back into car use after one or two bad
trips. Cycling in the rain can actually be fun, but you
have to be prepared.

When thinking about how much you can afford to spend,
remember how much you will be saving by not using a car or
public transport. Even if you keep your car (I sold one of
ours when I started cycle commuting) you will still be
saving money on approximately 5000 miles worth of
petrol/diesel per year. This could allow you to buy a new,
good quality bike every year and still be ahead financially.

My personal decision was to build an Audax bike. This is a
compromise between a touring bike built for long distance
tours with heavy loads and a race bike which is built purely
for speed. It is lighter than a proper touring bike, but
retains the fittings for mudguards and pannier rack which
pure race machines do not require.

If you are to continue commuting throughout the year you
will find that an efficient system is preferable to one
which provides a substantial amount of weight training.
Aerobic exercise does not require you to have a heavy,
inefficient bike.

If you do start to commute, it will take about three weeks
maximum to work out why cyclists wear cycle clothing.
Anything else is sweaty. At this time of year a cycling top
and shorts (preferably BIB shorts, which will maintain an
interesting dialogue with Helen on this ng) will be enough.

I must echo the other contributors who specified drop
handlebars for commuting. If the wind is against you (It
always is) getting down on the drops will make the ride
bearable. Sitting up into the wind is not recomended.

When you start budgeting for your new bike remember to
include the cost of lighting systems, waterproofs, special
clothing, clipless pedals and shoes and panniers. You should
also consider the cost of a new suit which will be at least
a size smaller than your current one.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

I wear a helmet more in hope than expectation, a bit like
not walking under a ladder, just in case.

Terry D said:

to go off-roading at weekend. This advice was offered in
spite of my insistence that I was in no way interested in
cycling off-road. This example goes to show that bike
shops are influenced by fashion.

And in turn fashion dictates what they have to sell. But
the modern hybrid is basically very similar to what were
just called "bikes" (as opposed to racers, tourers,
shoppers etc.) back in the 70s (and probably before) and
are actually good because they're an all round /road/
machine, not because you can go off the tarmac (you can get
off the tarmac on just about anything if the tyres aren't
knife blades)

Quoted message said:

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I
can only help you to consider your personal requirements.
You say you will be cycling on roads. This suggests a
_road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy suspension
systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use
the bike off-road.

Though do note that the MTB part of "hybrid" often amounts
to flat bars and gear shifters you can reach without moving
your hands. I think it's a mistake to assume they're
necessarily inferior on roads. If you say "road bike" to
most cycle shops they will probably assume the current
fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing machinery" and
give you something that isn't too comfortable and doesn't
necessarily take luggage or mudguards very well.

Quoted message said:

I must echo the other contributors who specified drop
handlebars for commuting. If the wind is against you (It
always is) getting down on the drops will make the ride
bearable. Sitting up into the wind is not recomended.

When I rode an upright bike for distances I preferred drops
more for the different hand positions than the aero, but why
ever you have them it should be noted that they do have a
learning curve (both physical and mental) and are more
awkward than flat bars for a novice. Millions of people
across the world use flat bars for cycling, quite a lot of
them over Real Distances, so you shouldn't get hung up on
flat bars being bad, and they are easier to get you going.

Quoted message said:

When you start budgeting for your new bike remember to
include the cost of lighting systems, waterproofs, special
clothing, clipless pedals and shoes and panniers.

"Special clothing" may not need to amount to much. If you're
doing 10 miles each way every day then cycle shorts with a
padded insert may well be good, but beyond that it's quite
possible you have everything you need. Don't start with
clipless pedals, they can be retrofitted at any time in the
future and are an unnecessary complication for now, though
cycling shoes do make journeys easier whatever pedals you
use. But again, millions get by without them. Panniers are
wonderful, but you can bungee a carrier bag to the rack for
a start and save yourself another pile of cash.

The denizens of this group include pretty serious cyclists
who are aware of the benefits of improved kit (me, for
example: I have a selection of bikes for different jobs, a
couple of them have 4 figure price tags), but sometimes they
seem to forget that you can get a lot done on a basic
machine with no special kit. As is well proven by the
machines most of us started on and the things we wore, and
by the millions of people around the world who just get on
their normal bikes every day and use them to get from A to B
in whatever clothes they happened to be wearing. The extras
/are/ worth it but you can add them over time and there is
no need to budget for them in your initial purchase if you
are cutting things financially fine. Caveat: lights are not
to be considered "extras" on a roadgoing utility cycle,
especially as far north as you are if you plan using the
bike between October and March.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Caveat: lights are not to be considered "extras" on a
roadgoing utility cycle, especially as far north as you
are if you plan using the bike between October and March.

Though the up side is that you do not need lights at all
for three months of the year (having lived at the same
latitude for a while.. Lerwick is about the same distance
north as Oslo)

If you go further north then you need sunglasses 24 hours a
day in the land of the midnight sun but Shetland isn't
quite that far.

..d

On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:25:22 +0100, "Clive George"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'll find out about the generic level of Martlet
awareness at EBC soon, as it's going to be a staff
meeting issue now (I mentioned how the Martlet bill might
have the potential for criminalising bike shop staff).

You do know it isn't actually Martlet? (just checking -
people often get thrown by such minor errors/jokes)

Sorry I used Martlet here as a sort combo of 'Martlew' and
'Martinet'.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Terry D wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I
can only help you to consider your personal requirements.
You say you will be cycling on roads. This suggests a
_road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy suspension
systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use
the bike off-road.

Though do note that the MTB part of "hybrid" often amounts
to flat bars and gear shifters you can reach without
moving your hands. I think it's a mistake to assume
they're necessarily inferior on roads. If you say "road
bike" to most cycle shops they will probably assume the
current fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing
machinery" and give you something that isn't too
comfortable and doesn't necessarily take luggage or
mudguards very well.

Perhaps I should redefine the statement _road_ bike. I was
of course refering to a bike which has been assembled purely
for use on roads and which does not offer any part time off-
road capability. I was thinking in terms of light weight,
properly selected gearing, narrow tyres and reasonable
luggage capacity. If the hybrid on offer has all this, then
it may well be suited for purpose. The point I was hoping to
make (perhaps not too clearly) is that the bike shops I
approached when attempting replacing an aging Raleigh, all
assumed that I _would_ want to go off-road at some point. If
that were the case I would recommend getting two bikes.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The denizens of this group include pretty serious cyclists
who are aware of the benefits of improved kit (me, for
example: I have a selection of bikes for different jobs, a
couple of them have 4 figure price tags), but sometimes
they seem to forget that you can get a lot done on a basic
machine with no special kit. As is well proven by the
machines most of us started on and the things we wore, and
by the millions of people around the world who just get on
their normal bikes every day and use them to get from A to
B in whatever clothes they happened to be wearing. The
extras /are/ worth it but you can add them over time and
there is no need to budget for them in your initial
purchase if you are cutting things financially fine.

I too started on an old piece of junk which lasted for less
than a year. As a regular cyclist it is amazing how quickly
one becomes aware of the shortcomings of cheapo bikes. Take
for example the set of brand new cogs that lasted only 2000
miles and the lead heavy frame that sapped energy and
eventually did me a big favour when it snapped. I think it
is our duty to explain to any newcomer who is intelligent
enough to ask, just why we are prepared to spend quite large
sums of money on our bikes.

I said it before and I will say it again, if you intend to
commute by bicycle all year round then it has to be Fun. If
the Fun element starts to fade because the going gets heavy
or the gears won't work properly then the rider will give up
and revert to a more sedentary form of transport and the
bike gets consigned to the shed. It is worth spending that
bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding experience
is a good one.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

Peter Clinch said:

Terry D wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cannot decide for you what _kind_ of bike you need. I
can only help you to consider your personal requirements.
You say you will be cycling on roads. This suggests a
_road_ bike. You will have no need of heavy suspension
systems nor of fat knobbly tyres unless you intend to use
the bike off-road.

Though do note that the MTB part of "hybrid" often amounts
to flat bars and gear shifters you can reach without
moving your hands. I think it's a mistake to assume
they're necessarily inferior on roads. If you say "road
bike" to most cycle shops they will probably assume the
current fashion for "road bike" == "serious racing
machinery" and give you something that isn't too
comfortable and doesn't necessarily take luggage or
mudguards very well.

Perhaps I should redefine the statement _road_ bike. I was
of course refering to a bike which has been assembled purely
for use on roads and which does not offer any part time off-
road capability. I was thinking in terms of light weight,
properly selected gearing, narrow tyres and reasonable
luggage capacity. If the hybrid on offer has all this, then
it may well be suited for purpose. The point I was hoping to
make (perhaps not too clearly) is that the bike shops I
approached when attempting replacing an aging Raleigh, all
assumed that I _would_ want to go off-road at some point. If
that were the case I would recommend getting two bikes.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The denizens of this group include pretty serious cyclists
who are aware of the benefits of improved kit (me, for
example: I have a selection of bikes for different jobs, a
couple of them have 4 figure price tags), but sometimes
they seem to forget that you can get a lot done on a basic
machine with no special kit. As is well proven by the
machines most of us started on and the things we wore, and
by the millions of people around the world who just get on
their normal bikes every day and use them to get from A to
B in whatever clothes they happened to be wearing. The
extras /are/ worth it but you can add them over time and
there is no need to budget for them in your initial
purchase if you are cutting things financially fine.

I too started on an old piece of junk which lasted for less
than a year. As a regular cyclist it is amazing how quickly
one becomes aware of the shortcomings of cheapo bikes. Take
for example the set of brand new cogs that lasted only 2000
miles and the lead heavy frame that sapped energy and
eventually did me a big favour when it snapped. I think it
is our duty to explain to any newcomer who is intelligent
enough to ask, just why we are prepared to spend quite large
sums of money on our bikes.

I said it before and I will say it again, if you intend to
commute by bicycle all year round then it has to be Fun. If
the Fun element starts to fade because the going gets heavy
or the gears won't work properly then the rider will give up
and revert to a more sedentary form of transport and the
bike gets consigned to the shed. It is worth spending that
bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding experience
is a good one.

--
Terry Duckmanton.

Gawnsoft:

Quoted message said:

Exactly. So 'we call the bottom gears granny gears because
only a granny would ever need to use them' to a new
cyclist who is using their granny gears a lot is a bit
condescending.

And I thought it was called a granny becuase it had very few
teeth. :-)

Quoted message said:

'By people who are into bikes, for people who are into
bikes.' is exactly the attitude I think it betrays, and
that is true of many bike shops.

I have the opposite problem with my LBS - they assume that
everyone that walks into the shop is completely clueless.
It's painful trying to get information out of them more
specific than "that one's more expensive" or "that one's
better quality".

d.

Peter Clinch said:

If you say "road bike" to most cycle shops they will
probably assume the current fashion for "road bike" ==
"serious racing machinery" and give you something that
isn't too comfortable and doesn't necessarily take
luggage or mudguards very well.

Not a current fashion; in traditional British cycling usage,
a "road bike" was what you rode road races on, as distinct
from a track bike (which most riders in road time trials
used, one upon a time) or a touring bike or your
hack/training/clubrun bike or whatever. It has become
confused with a more recent (post-mountain bike) American
usage where road bike = that which is not a mountain bike.

Cheers

Roger

Terry D said:

Perhaps I should redefine the statement _road_ bike. I was
of course=20 refering to a bike which has been assembled
purely for use on roads and=

=20

Quoted message said:

which does not offer any part time off-road capability.

First up, not having /any/ off road ability is a /very/
small subset of=20 bikes. I've been places on my old tourer
with 700x28 tyres that the=20 great majority of dedicated
off road designed machinery hasn't ever seen =

simply by dint of their owners never having tried that hard.
I used my=20 tourer 'cause that was all I had! For not
offering any off-road I think =

you'd need razor blade tyres and/or possibly a fixed gear.
I've been on =

off-road trails around the Cairngorm area on my Brompton,
and overtaken=20 people on MTBs that didn't have my
cycling legs, and I'm nobody's idea=20 of an off-road
specialist (I use my MTB a couple of times a year these=20
days). Second, though I personally agree with the thrust
of your argument, that =

"road bike" /should/ mean "bike designed for the road", the
current=20 popular usage of the term often appears to equate
to "UCI type road=20 racer". Daft, but true, and it is
likely you'd be misunderstood=20 wandering off the street
and asking for one.

Quoted message said:

in terms of light weight, properly selected gearing,
narrow tyres and=20 reasonable luggage capacity.=20

Tyres don't have to be especially narrow to be worth a damn
on the road. =

I use 38mm on my tourer and that's right for it. The
design of the=20 tyre is more important than the width
IMHO, especially if the road is a=20 bit marginal in
places. And if you put slightly narrower tyres on a=20
Brompton it would fulfil the above criteria quite well,
but I wouldn't=20 recommend one for the OP. Tricky things,
definitions...

Quoted message said:

attempting replacing an aging Raleigh, all assumed that I
_would_ want =

Quoted message said:

to go off-road at some point. If that were the case I
would recommend=20 getting two bikes.

I think quite possibly a case of bullet-point marketing
combined with=20 stock. We have these and think they will
work for you, we will recite=20 every feature point we can
think of to help you towards a decision to=20 buy it.
Something like a Ridgeback Genesis is classed as a hybrid=20
'cause it has flat bars but wouldn't be any better off road
than a Dawes =

Audax (though that's still better than you suspect, I
suspect!).

Quoted message said:

I too started on an old piece of junk which lasted for
less than a year=

=2E=20

Quoted message said:

As a regular cyclist it is amazing how quickly one becomes
aware of the=

=20

Quoted message said:

shortcomings of cheapo bikes. Take for example the set of
brand new cog=

s=20

Quoted message said:

that lasted only 2000 miles and the lead heavy frame that
sapped energy=

=20

Quoted message said:

and eventually did me a big favour when it snapped. I
think it is our=20 duty to explain to any newcomer who is
intelligent enough to ask, just =

Quoted message said:

why we are prepared to spend quite large sums of money on
our bikes.

Fair point, but there's bad and there's bad, and there's
great and=20 there's okay. My initial postings said IMHO not
spending at least ~=A320= =20 on a basic no-frills bike
would be a false economy for the very reasons=20 you give
above. But OTOH you can get a =A3200 which will do
everything=20 required quite reasonably, if not amazingly. A
=A31000 bike of the same =

overall design will do them better, but I don't think to the
extent that =

you wouldn't even want to use the =A3200 model.

Quoted message said:

transport and the bike gets consigned to the shed. It is
worth spending=

=20

Quoted message said:

that bit extra on some quality kit so that the riding
experience is a=20 good one.

Agreed, I just want to point out that "that bit extra" can
actually be a =

sensible quantity of money! My old tourer cost =A3250 in
1989. 2x6 SIS =

gears, sidepull brakes, that's what you got in those days
though it did=20 have alloy wheels (cor!). For the same
money (not even inflation=20 adjusted!) you can now get a
bike which is superior in pretty much every =

respect, yet that bike was good enough to change me from an
A-B cyclist=20 to someone who'd go cycling just for
enjoyment. Avoidance of supermarket bikes and bikes crammed
with stuff to make them =

look like downhill MTBs (discs and full suspension) are
absolutely to be =

avoided, but a =A3200 no-frills hybrid /can/ give real
cycling pleasure. =

=A3500 will get you more, but at least you're on something
that will cut =

/some/ mustard, which I think is important to point out if
the budget is =

tight.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382
660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44
1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Roger Hughes said:

Not a current fashion; in traditional British cycling
usage, a "road bike" was what you rode road races on, as
distinct from a track bike (which most riders in road time
trials used, one upon a time) or a touring bike or your
hack/training/clubrun bike or whatever. It has become
confused with a more recent (post-mountain bike) American
usage where road bike = that which is not a mountain bike.

I stand corrected. Though not having come across it before a
couple of years ago I must say I find the American idea
rather more sensible...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch:

Quoted message said:

I stand corrected. Though not having come across it before
a couple of years ago I must say I find the American idea
rather more sensible...

Imagine going into a car dealership and saying you wanted a
"road car". Would you expect them to be able to deduce your
requirements from that statement?

d.

davek said:

Imagine going into a car dealership and saying you wanted
a "road car". Would you expect them to be able to deduce
your requirements from that statement?

No, you'd need a certified Sith Temple for one of those:
rhoadescar.comrhoadescar.comOpen ↗

IGMC

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

you know? said:

Wot Pete said. £200 is pretty much the minimum you can
expect to pay for a serviceable bike, anything less is
generally horrible.

It's all true. Mine cost £150 and it's pretty poor. Bits of
it are going out of true, and it hasn't even been ridden
that much. It feels like it rides OK to me, cos it's all I'm
used to, but then if I ride my partner's bike (£200 5 years
ago) I can feel a difference.

I didn't know any better when I bought it, and finances
won't allow for a replacement right now, but I am looking
forward to The Day I can get a decent bike.

A x
--

email = audmad aaatttt hhhottt mmmaailll dddoottt ccccoommm

you know? said:

Wot Pete said. £200 is pretty much the minimum you can
expect to pay for a serviceable bike, anything less is
generally horrible. If you can't afford £200 for a new
bike, spend what you can afford on a seocnd hand bike that
originally cost not less than £200 at today's prices.

So, the cutoff point between "cheap" (i.e. [censored]) and "low
cost" (i.e. good value functional bike) is £200, in my
estimation.

Hi Guy

My old and extremely battered rigid Trek 4300 has done many
a mile; I use it for shoppng trips and used to use it for
longer trips (60+ miles) before I bought my Orbea. IIRC, the
Trek cost just under £300 and it has served me extremely
well over the years.

Of course, over the years I have spent a bit more than £300
on the bike. A couple or three years ago I had to replace
the front forks, front wheel, headset, stem - pretty much
everything that might be damaged in a head on crash with a
not particularly hyperthetical parked car, in fact. The only
piece that has worn out (excluding tyres and chain-related
bits) has been the bottom bracket. That item fell apart on
me when I was pulling away from a set of traffic lights.
Click, groan, grunge, rapid pedal spinning - aaarrggghhh!!!!
my groin hurts.

£300 well spent, IMO.

James