Another commute to work thread....

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, HermanToothrot

(') said:

I am thinking of commuting to work by bike. As I am getting ensconced
in my 30s, the fat is consolidating! And this must stop.

My commute would entail an approximate 26 mile round trip from
Caerphilly to Cardiff (according to data from Google Earth). My
question is:

Do I need a new bike?

Currently, I have an old Trek 820 Mountain bike. I've had it around 10
years. It has been a great purchase. When I was in my early 20s, and
going through a (late) Holden Caulfield phase, I used to ride my bike a
lot to make myself feel better. And the Trek has never let me down. But
would I need a Road bike for a daily commute of this distance?

Soft knobbly tyres are exceedingly draggy on tarmac, and a mountain bike
has a more upright and consequently less aerodynamic riding position
than a road bike.

At normal touring/commuting speeds the aero will make little
difference. I found on the long drags that a pair of long, about half
the length of tri bars, made a difference in that I could take a better
position.

Quoted message said:

Also, if your bike has suspension, this is almost
certainly parasitic on the road, and is costing you energy.

You get used to it and develop a smoother pedalling style.

Quoted message said:

On a
mountain bike unmodified, you are going to have difficulty exceeding
12mph average, unless you are very fit.

LMAO. You can't hope to average 20mph but 12mph is what you'd probably
expect to exceed from the start.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, a pure road race bike isn't very forgiving of less
than perfect surfaces, so if some of your off-road sections are not
tarmacked, a road race bike is not the best choice.

indeed.

Quoted message said:

There are essentially two compromises you could aim for. The cheaper one
is to fit slicks to your mountain bike and pump them up hard,

Or if you are on looser stuff, a pair of good semislicks will work
fine.

Quoted message said:

and either
lock your suspension (if you have it) or swap suspension forks for rigid
- ideally carbon fibre - ones. This will greatly improve the bikes
performance on tarmac for a total spend of about £40 - £120.

The other is to get something like a cyclo-cross bike, and fit it with
slick tyres. Cyclo-cross bikes are designed for racing off road, but
with drop bars like a road bike. They are tougher and more forgiving
than road bikes while still having good aerodynamics.

Quoted message said:

The
terrain would be a mixture of road and trail (the Taff Trail to be
precise). I think that a great deal of it is now tarmacked so that
should make things easier. I was thinking of getting an entry level
bike (after 5 minutes of research) like the Trek 1000. Any
recommendations?

The Trek is OK if all your off-road section is tarmac. If not, you'll
find it distinctly sketchy on loose surfaces. But we've had bad reports
recently of the wheels fitted to Trek bikes, and it might be better to
look at equivalent models from other manufacturers - there are lots of
good bikes of this class around this price point.

One bad report of bad wheels..

...d

On Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:17:01 +0100, Tom Anderson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure about that. Do you mean 12 mph overall average, including
lights and whatnot, or 12 mph average cruising speed? Last time i was on a
ride with a computer along, we were turning in 15 mph without too much
strain, and i was on an unmodified mountain bike - although it did have
semi-slicks and a rigid fork

I knew what a bad influence cheap and nasty saddle suspensions can
have, but does a rigid fork make that much of an difference?

Andrew Price said:

I knew what a bad influence cheap and nasty saddle suspensions can
have, but does a rigid fork make that much of an difference?

Yes. It's very difficult to pedal such that you don't bob on a front
suspension bike, which wastes energy.

BTW, you have the same name as my dad!

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

Tom Anderson wondered:

Quoted message said:

Does that not make it all creasy? The vertical creases down the sides
aren't too bad, but you've also got four big horizontal folds.

As long as it's folded and rolled carefully, there's nothing that won't
drop out within the first few minutes of wearing the shirt. Of course,
YMMV for different materials. Most of my work shirts are 65% polyester,
35% cotton, but I've used this technique successfully with 100% cotton
shirts as well.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom

Anderson (') said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, HermanToothrot

(') said:

Do I need a new bike?

Soft knobbly tyres are exceedingly draggy on tarmac, and a mountain
bike has a more upright and consequently less aerodynamic riding
position than a road bike. Also, if your bike has suspension, this is
almost certainly parasitic on the road, and is costing you energy. On
a mountain bike unmodified, you are going to have difficulty exceeding
12mph average, unless you are very fit.

I'm not sure about that. Do you mean 12 mph overall average, including
lights and whatnot, or 12 mph average cruising speed? Last time i was
on a ride with a computer along, we were turning in 15 mph without too
much strain, and i was on an unmodified mountain bike - although it did
have semi-slicks and a rigid fork, which you'd perhaps consider a
modification in a moral sense.

Since slicks and rigid forks were precisely the modifications I was
suggesting, yes I would.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are essentially two compromises you could aim for. The cheaper
one is to fit slicks to your mountain bike and pump them up hard, and
either lock your suspension (if you have it) or swap suspension forks
for rigid - ideally carbon fibre - ones. This will greatly improve the
bikes performance on tarmac for a total spend of about £40 - £120.

FWIW, gets my vote. Unfortunately, i think lockouts are only found on
more expensive shocks - the cheap shocks, as found on the mountain
bikes which are most likely to used on-road, don't have it. Happily,
our friend here has rigid forks anyway, as mentioned elsewhere in this
thread.

Two questions about forks, though. Firstly, what's so special about
carbon fibre? Is it just that it's light?

No, it's /very/ resilient - more resilient even than steel, and much more
resilient than aluminium. That makes for a much more comfortable ride.

Quoted message said:

Secondly, are there geometric
considerations? A bloke in a bike shop recently told me that because
(most) MTBs are designed for suspension forks, which compress under
load, if you fit a rigid fork, which doesn't, the head'll ride higher
than it should. It sounded fishy to me; is it in fact a load of old
surstromming?

Mountain bikes are, obviously, designed to normally ride with the
suspension at about 75% extension. So you want to fit rigid forks which
are of equivalent length to that 75% extension. So you need to get the
right length of fork - it ain't rocket science. Actually if you get a
still shorter fork you'll lower the front of the bike /and/ steepen the
head angle, both of which will improve road performance a bit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The other is to get something like a cyclo-cross bike, and fit it with
slick tyres. Cyclo-cross bikes are designed for racing off road, but
with drop bars like a road bike. They are tougher and more forgiving
than road bikes while still having good aerodynamics.

So, this toughness thing; when you said ...

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

Quoted message said:

Mountain bikes are NOT 'tougher' than other bikes.

Did that 'other bikes' not include road bikes? Or are cyclocrosses even
tougher than MTBs?

H'mmmm... now get out of that one...!

But seriously, 'mountain bikes' include my mate Gareth's sub-20lb
Scandium confection on which he was riding in the Commonwealth Games, F
series Cannondales, Santa Cruz Superlights, and other such works of
beauty. They are not tough by any standards. At the other end of the
scale 'mountain bikes' includes the enormously heavy downhill bikes
which are exceedingly tough. 'Mountain bikes' are not something you can
generalise about; the category is too broad.

Road racing bikes /are/ built light. They're not designed to be ridden
over very rough surfaces, and it would not be hard to damage wheel rims
if you did ride on rough stuff too often. But they are at an extreme.
Most bikes - 'other bikes' - are neither mountain bikes nor road racing
bikes.

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Quoted message said:

On a
mountain bike unmodified, you are going to have difficulty exceeding
12mph average, unless you are very fit.

LMAO. You can't hope to average 20mph but 12mph is what you'd probably
expect to exceed from the start.

On knobbly tyres?

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

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

heed said:

have a bell

s /bell/AirZound/

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Life could be much better if we had it's source code.
(Wintermute, in alt.comp.virus)

Jim Price said:

Andrew Price said:

I knew what a bad influence cheap and nasty saddle suspensions can
have, but does a rigid fork make that much of an difference?

Yes. It's very difficult to pedal such that you don't bob on a front
suspension bike, which wastes energy.

It is however a really good way of learning to pedal smoothly. It also
took a long time before I could ride the sus fork no hands (related to
bobbing). However, Once you can pedal smoothly there is nowhere near so
much energy loss and it goes just fine. I used to do a 16 mile
moderately hilly commute in just under the hour, with what I needed in
panniers.

...d

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Quoted message said:

On a
mountain bike unmodified, you are going to have difficulty exceeding
12mph average, unless you are very fit.

LMAO. You can't hope to average 20mph but 12mph is what you'd probably
expect to exceed from the start.

On knobbly tyres?

Mine came with semi-slicks so I couldn't tell you. I don't normally
regard the tyres as part of the bike anyway. 'Modified' to me means a
structural change. To an extreme it would mean changing the air in the
tyre.. Best bang for buck will be to swap the tyres for slicks.

However, from my experience over rolling countryside you have a
difference of about 3mph going from knobbly to semi slick and likewise
from semi-slick to road bike.

...d

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

Quoted message said:

Done:
<url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/shirt/>

Note how the flash shows up every little crinkle. Perhaps I shouldn't
have used a white shirt.

Another useful device is at...

http://www.pekride.com/medialith/hotstuffs/

Useful for all shirty-type folding 🙂

Cheers, helen s

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Anderson wondered:

Quoted message said:

Does that not make it all creasy? The vertical creases down the sides
aren't too bad, but you've also got four big horizontal folds.

As long as it's folded and rolled carefully, there's nothing that won't
drop out within the first few minutes of wearing the shirt. Of course,
YMMV for different materials. Most of my work shirts are 65% polyester,
35% cotton, but I've used this technique successfully with 100% cotton
shirts as well.

Who needs Trinny and Susannah when we have our very own style-guru, Danny
'Nipples' Colyer. I can see a TV series in the offing...

Cheers, helen s :-D

Response to wafflycat:

Quoted message said:

Another useful device is at...

http://www.pekride.com/medialith/hotstuffs/

Useful for all shirty-type folding 🙂

I may have to try that!

And there's always the old favourite:

http://www.jengajam.com/r/shirt-folding

which only really works for t-shirts. It's oddly satisfying to do,
though.

--
Mark, UK
"I want to share something with you: the three little sentences that
will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good
idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."

In article <[email hidden]>, Danny
Colyer <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Fold the left hand side over to the right, making the fold about 2-3"
from the edge of the shirt. Then fold the sleeve down.

At this stage I fold each sleeve back on itself in a zigzag, which I
learned from the TM Lewin little book of how to iron and fold shirts.

--
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

David Martin said:

Jim Price said:

Andrew Price said:

I knew what a bad influence cheap and nasty saddle suspensions can
have, but does a rigid fork make that much of an difference?

Yes. It's very difficult to pedal such that you don't bob on a front
suspension bike, which wastes energy.

It is however a really good way of learning to pedal smoothly. It also
took a long time before I could ride the sus fork no hands (related to
bobbing). However, Once you can pedal smoothly there is nowhere near so
much energy loss and it goes just fine. I used to do a 16 mile
moderately hilly commute in just under the hour, with what I needed in
panniers.

A good point, and well made, but the decision the OP has to make may
have to be made without the advantage of already having learnt how to
pedal smoothly, which we agree is non-trivial. I suspect we would also
agree its worth the effort to learn.

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

Jim Price said:

David Martin said:

Jim Price said:

Andrew Price wrote:
> I knew what a bad influence cheap and nasty saddle suspensions can
> have, but does a rigid fork make that much of an difference?
Yes. It's very difficult to pedal such that you don't bob on a front
suspension bike, which wastes energy.

It is however a really good way of learning to pedal smoothly. It also
took a long time before I could ride the sus fork no hands (related to
bobbing). However, Once you can pedal smoothly there is nowhere near so
much energy loss and it goes just fine. I used to do a 16 mile
moderately hilly commute in just under the hour, with what I needed in
panniers.

A good point, and well made, but the decision the OP has to make may
have to be made without the advantage of already having learnt how to
pedal smoothly, which we agree is non-trivial. I suspect we would also
agree its worth the effort to learn.

But what you have is a choice:

Pay money to not learn how to pedal smoothly and get there in time X.
Learn to pedal smoothly and get there in time 1.05*X and spend the
savings on BEER.

Bit of a no-brainer when it is presented in that way. A win-win
situation.

...d

David Martin said:

But what you have is a choice:

Pay money to not learn how to pedal smoothly and get there in time X.
Learn to pedal smoothly and get there in time 1.05*X and spend the
savings on BEER.

Bit of a no-brainer when it is presented in that way. A win-win
situation.

A few hundred quids worth of beer has to be a no-brainer. Cheers!

Now how did I end up with so many bicycles?

JimP

--
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to
grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after
all. - DNA

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is true. The ride down from Caerphilly to Taffs Well is great!
You've just made me realise that I love that part! I could ride the
trail down there - but it is more fun to ride on the pavement down the side!

Over the mountain is more fun. Not everyday but it needs to be done.