New bike advice.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I haven't bought a new bike in many years and am looking for one for my
wife. She will be riding it mostly around our neighborhood streets. I want
something light enough and with narrow enough tires that it will be
comfortable for riding longer distances if she wants. I went to a couple
bicycle shops today and was disappointed in what I found. Everything seemed
like it was either a pure touring bike in the $600+ price range or a
so-called hybrid bike that looked more like an off-road bike than a road
bike. All of the hybrids in the $350 price area were really heavy. Can
anyone recommend a road bike with slightly wider than average tires, a
fairly lightweight frame, and a price tag of between $300 and $400?

There's not much in the way of new road bikes in quite that price range,
though the Fuji Ace is close (about $450), and the Fuji Finest is only a
little more. You would probably get better quality in that price range
by buying used.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

To find a bike in your price range, you're either going to have to find a
used bike, or buy one online.

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/galaxy.htm

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/super.html

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/motobecane/mirage.htm

Joseph Meyer said:

I haven't bought a new bike in many years and am looking for one for my
wife. She will be riding it mostly around our neighborhood streets. I want
something light enough and with narrow enough tires that it will be
comfortable for riding longer distances if she wants. I went to a couple
bicycle shops today and was disappointed in what I found. Everything seemed
like it was either a pure touring bike in the $600+ price range or a
so-called hybrid bike that looked more like an off-road bike than a road
bike. All of the hybrids in the $350 price area were really heavy. Can
anyone recommend a road bike with slightly wider than average tires, a
fairly lightweight frame, and a price tag of between $300 and $400?

Thanks!
Joe Meyer

Try looking for a nice used ride from the eighties when "touring" type
bikes were more popular--if you're fortunate, you might make a $15 dollar
thrift store discovery--add $50 worth of fresh tape and tires, and you've
got a bike for less than a 100 bucks that's closer to what you actually
need/want than the 600 smacker alternative "modern" variant...

😄

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful advice. I did a little reading on the
Internet and decided that a steel-frame bike is the best thing for my wife.
I want one sturdy enough for her to bang around with bikes she hauls around
in the back of our van for our 4-year old and 6-year old kids. And, it
needs to be sturdy enough to withstand a crash or two since she's a
beginning rider. In other words, I would hate for her to total a $600
aluminum frame . But, I want a bike that is light enough and has thin
enough tires for her to be able to joyfully ride it around for fun when she
needs a break from the kids in the evening when I get home from work.

I looked around a bit more today and found a place that sells the Fuji
Finest, which another poster recommended, for $599. That's a little more
than I wanted to pay, but it's the closest thing to what I've been trying to
find for my wife. In fact, I like it about a billion times more than the
29-pound Giant hybrid bikes that I was looking at a couple of days ago and
think it's the best steel-frame bike for the money that I've seen so far.

I guess nobody makes bikes with lugged frames, like the Peugeot that I
bought for $200 about 30 years ago. But, the components on the Fuji Finest
are actually nicer that was my Peugeot had on it. What is the consensus
today about the strength of the Fuji steel frames without lugs? Are they
just as strong as the old lugged frames, or close at least? They aren't as
pretty, I can tell you that for certain. The only other thing I don't like
about the the Fuji Finest is the goofy looking decal on the rear forks that
says "simply the finest". Maybe I can scrape that off!

I guess the other option is buying a used bike as some have suggested. But,
I'm a little nervous about buying a bike that may have a bent frame or rust
on E-Bay. There's a Bianchi out there for a little over $100, but it's
missing a couple of cable stays and is old enough (15 years+) to be rusty.
If I can't find a used bike in excellent condition in my local area, I will
probably go for the Fuji Finest.

Thanks!
Joe Meyer
Austin, Texas (Kerry Democrat)

p.s. Do they call those hybrid bikes Giant's because they weigh so much?

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I haven't bought a new bike in many years and am looking for one for my
wife. She will be riding it mostly around our neighborhood streets. I

want

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

something light enough and with narrow enough tires that it will be
comfortable for riding longer distances if she wants. I went to a

couple

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bicycle shops today and was disappointed in what I found. Everything

seemed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like it was either a pure touring bike in the $600+ price range or a
so-called hybrid bike that looked more like an off-road bike than a road
bike. All of the hybrids in the $350 price area were really heavy. Can
anyone recommend a road bike with slightly wider than average tires, a
fairly lightweight frame, and a price tag of between $300 and $400?

There's not much in the way of new road bikes in quite that price range,
though the Fuji Ace is close (about $450), and the Fuji Finest is only a
little more. You would probably get better quality in that price range
by buying used.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Joseph Meyer said:

I guess nobody makes bikes with lugged frames, like the Peugeot that I
bought for $200 about 30 years ago.

They do, but they're not so common outside of the custom bike market.

Quoted message said:

But, the components on the Fuji Finest are actually nicer that was my
Peugeot had on it. What is the consensus today about the strength of the
Fuji steel frames without lugs? Are they just as strong as the old
lugged frames, or close at least? They aren't as pretty, I can tell you
that for certain.

I vastly prefer lugged frames from an aesthetic point of view, but I don't
believe there is any significant strength or functional difference.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Gravity brings me down.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

....

Quoted message said:

I looked around a bit more today and found a place that sells the Fuji
Finest, which another poster recommended, for $599. That's a little more
than I wanted to pay, but it's the closest thing to what I've been trying to
find for my wife. In fact, I like it about a billion times more than the

They didn't have a Fuji Ace on the display floor?

Quoted message said:

29-pound Giant hybrid bikes that I was looking at a couple of days ago and
think it's the best steel-frame bike for the money that I've seen so far.

I guess nobody makes bikes with lugged frames, like the Peugeot that I
bought for $200 about 30 years ago. But, the components on the Fuji Finest
are actually nicer that was my Peugeot had on it. What is the consensus
today about the strength of the Fuji steel frames without lugs? Are they
just as strong as the old lugged frames, or close at least? They aren't as

Yes, welded steel is just as strong as lugged steel, as long as it's
done properly.

Quoted message said:

pretty, I can tell you that for certain. The only other thing I don't like
about the the Fuji Finest is the goofy looking decal on the rear forks that
says "simply the finest". Maybe I can scrape that off!

It shouldn't be difficult to remove...

Quoted message said:

I guess the other option is buying a used bike as some have suggested. But,
I'm a little nervous about buying a bike that may have a bent frame or rust
on E-Bay. There's a Bianchi out there for a little over $100, but it's
missing a couple of cable stays and is old enough (15 years+) to be rusty.
If I can't find a used bike in excellent condition in my local area, I will
probably go for the Fuji Finest.

See if some of your LBS' have used bikes for sale. Many around here do,
though there's not a wide selection.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Joseph Meyer said:

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful advice. I did a little reading on the
Internet and decided that a steel-frame bike is the best thing for my wife.
I want one sturdy enough for her to bang around with bikes she hauls around
in the back of our van for our 4-year old and 6-year old kids. And, it
needs to be sturdy enough to withstand a crash or two since she's a
beginning rider. In other words, I would hate for her to total a $600
aluminum frame .

Aluminum frames are fine. Some people claim to have experienced more
long-term, high-mileage (tens of thousands) issues with al frames
than with steel; and any idiot with any old welder can fix steel.

I handle my aluminum-framed road bike roughly, it seems to survive.
I've crashed my aluminum-framed mountain bike a million times, it
remains unbroken.

Quoted message said:

But, I want a bike that is light enough and has thin
enough tires for her to be able to joyfully ride it around for fun when she
needs a break from the kids in the evening when I get home from work.

Similar aluminum and steel frames weigh similarly. Thin tires, while
more aerodynamic, have more rolling resistance than thicker tires at
the same pressure.

Better priorities would be finding a bike shop that will fit her
_properly_, and offer good service.

Quoted message said:

I guess nobody makes bikes with lugged frames, like the Peugeot that I
bought for $200 about 30 years ago. But, the components on the Fuji Finest

Rivendell does. There are probably others around too.
Inflation-adjusted, that $200 is worth some $850 now; you can
probably find a lugged steel bike for $850 -- although your reduced
variety of choices will mean that you probably won't get as much
bike for the money.

Quoted message said:

I guess the other option is buying a used bike as some have suggested. But,
I'm a little nervous about buying a bike that may have a bent frame or rust
on E-Bay. There's a Bianchi out there for a little over $100, but it's

I'd probably only buy used bikes locally, preferably from a
knowledgable bike shop.

Quoted message said:

p.s. Do they call those hybrid bikes Giant's because they weigh so much?

Giant is a huge company that manufactures many other companies'
frames, as well as a hue variety of their own. I suspect their sheer
size is why they call themselves Giant.

I have a Giant TCR2 racing bike that weighed under 20 pounds when I
bought it.

Since they are really into compact frames, they name their sizes
rather than numbering them; so you could have a "small Giant".
--
Rick Onanian

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 31 May 2004 19:50:29 GMT, "Joseph Meyer"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I want one sturdy enough for her to bang around with bikes she hauls

around

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the back of our van for our 4-year old and 6-year old kids. And, it
needs to be sturdy enough to withstand a crash or two since she's a
beginning rider. In other words, I would hate for her to total a $600
aluminum frame .

Aluminum frames are fine. Some people claim to have experienced more
long-term, high-mileage (tens of thousands) issues with al frames
than with steel; and any idiot with any old welder can fix steel.

I handle my aluminum-framed road bike roughly, it seems to survive.
I've crashed my aluminum-framed mountain bike a million times, it
remains unbroken.

I've crashed my Al frame road bike, too, a few times in my life. I've also
had it rammed into the garage while on top of the station wagon (= new
carbon fork), had it fall over from being leaned against a tree/curb/sign
etc. about 50,000 times, had it face horrible weather while on the bus bike
rack week after week in the winter, and I hate to think what happens to it
at the community rack at work when other people are fetching/parking their
bikes and I'm not around. The frame has, golly, at least 16K on it, and I
see no signs of any problems.

I tend to be hard on my bikes (and cars, and clothing, and...) in general.
In fact, part of the reason why I went aluminum was because I felt like I
didn't have to sweat the dings in the paint job as much as with a steel
frame -- no rust worries.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Joseph Meyer said:

I haven't bought a new bike in many years and am looking for one for my
wife. She will be riding it mostly around our neighborhood streets. I
want something light enough and with narrow enough tires that it will be
comfortable for riding longer distances if she wants. I went to a couple
bicycle shops today and was disappointed in what I found. Everything
seemed like it was either a pure touring bike in the $600+ price range
or a so-called hybrid bike that looked more like an off-road bike than a
road bike. All of the hybrids in the $350 price area were really heavy.
Can anyone recommend a road bike with slightly wider than average tires,
a fairly lightweight frame, and a price tag of between $300 and $400?
Thanks! Joe Meyer

I really enjoy my Gary Fisher hybrid which is 24#, aluminum, w/ rack &
bar ends. It has 35c tires w/ little tread, and I toss it in the van
with my daughter's bike ... it goes pretty well ... the longest I've
ridden it is about 2 hrs and short of 30 miles. I like being able to
look all around easily when riding with kids. My saddle and handlebars
are at about equal ht. The one overlooked question in this discussion
seems to be what does your wife want and what does she find comfortable.
There are alot of "city bikes" around that are road bikes w/ flat
handlebars. Prices seem to range from $300 to $800 on the regular
configurations of these.

Good Luck and let us know what you find.

--

Rick Onanian said:

Similar aluminum and steel frames weigh similarly. Thin tires, while
more aerodynamic, have more rolling resistance than thicker tires at
the same pressure.

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have more
rolling resistance than thicker? I assume that this also means keeping
tread type constant? The idea that thin tires, with less surface area,
would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe you. I just don't understand how it works.

Thanks.

-Michael,
www.andsoforth.com.

Michael Libby said:

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have more
rolling resistance than thicker?

Groups.google.com will reveal many discussions.

Quoted message said:

I assume that this also means keeping
tread type constant?

This would be for a perfect world where everything is constant, the
only variable being tire width. Especially, air pressure must be
constant. Consider that narrower tires often offer higher pressure
limits, so it becomes an exercise in guessing unless you really want
to do a lot of work to figure out which tire offers better RR.

Quoted message said:

The idea that thin tires, with less surface area,
would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe you. I just don't understand how it works.

I don't blame you. I felt the same way until it was explained to me.
For slick tires, and tires with well-designed tread, it's not the
tread or the surface area that causes RR; it's the flexing of the
casing. At a given pressure, with a given load, the contact patch
will be the same regardless of width. A narrower tire must flex more
of it's casing for the same contact patch, and there's the
additional RR.

Example: If a tire is at 100psi, and has 100 pounds of load, it will
(by definition) have a 1 square inch contact patch. A 1 inch wide
tire will flex 1 inch of casing. A 1/2 inch wide tire will flex two
inches of casing. Extra credit: Convert to metric. 😉
--
Rick Onanian

"Michael Libby" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have
more rolling resistance than thicker? I assume that this also means
keeping tread type constant? The idea that thin tires, with less
surface area, would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe you. I just don't understand how it works.

Take two tyres identical in every respect except that one is a 23 and one is
a 25. The 23 will distort more than the 25 at the same pressure in order to
distribute the same load across the contact patch.

See
http://www.schwalbe.com/index.pl?modus=lang&punkt=265&abstract=1164&bereich=&einsatzbereich=&produktgruppe=

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Michael Libby said:

Quoted message said:

Similar aluminum and steel frames weigh similarly. Thin tires,
while more aerodynamic, have more rolling resistance than thicker
tires at the same pressure.

Quoted message said:

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have
more rolling resistance than thicker? I assume that this also means
keeping tread type constant? The idea that thin tires, with less
surface area, would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

Quoted message said:

I believe you. I just don't understand how it works.

I doubt that you will find tires on which this could be demonstrated
because there is a parameter missing in that statement. The larger
cross section tire would need to have the same casing material and
tread to have lower RR than a smaller one. RR being the result of
flexing the tire, its tread, and its tube. All three of these have
visco-elastic losses (hysteresis), however I am not aware of a current
set of comparable tires so that this could be demonstrated. Fat tires
usually have a thicker tread and casing.

In the days of Clement tubulars, there was a 250 Criterium Seta, and a
Paris-Roubaix Seta made of the same materials, the Paris-Roubaix being
a large 26mm cross section version of the 23mm Criterium to absorb
the cobbles that were not commonly encountered on city criterium
courses. This was a conspicuously odd tire because, in the hand, it
felt disproportionately soft and floppy un-inflated.

The nice thing in those days was that only professionals and their
teams were the demand and there wasn't much hyperbole, if any, about
the merits of one kind of BS or another. TT tires had red tread
because carbon (black) tires had higher RR and one knew not to use
then in the wet for hard cornering.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

Joseph Meyer wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, the components on the Fuji Finest are actually nicer that was my
Peugeot had on it. What is the consensus today about the strength of the
Fuji steel frames without lugs? Are they just as strong as the old
lugged frames, or close at least? They aren't as pretty, I can tell you
that for certain.

I vastly prefer lugged frames from an aesthetic point of view, but I don't
believe there is any significant strength or functional difference.

All else being equal, a welded frame can be built slightly lighter than
a lugged frame. I would personally place this criteria very low on my
list of requirements for a bike. Indeed, I did, and the result is that I
bought a lugged steel Pinarello, which is still a fairly light bike
(which is to say, it's heavier than a good hardtail mountain bike).

-RjC.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

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

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian said:

Similar aluminum and steel frames weigh similarly. Thin tires, while
more aerodynamic, have more rolling resistance than thicker tires at
the same pressure.

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have more
rolling resistance than thicker? I assume that this also means keeping
tread type constant? The idea that thin tires, with less surface area,
would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

http://www.physics.helsinki.fi/~tlinden/rolling.html
"They tested quite a few different tires at different pressures and found
that
rolling resistance decreased with tire diameter and tire width for otherwise
identical tires."

http://www.discoveryride.com/human/rolling.html
(mainly recumbent/BMX size)

@80psi
Primo 25-349 35.0 watts absorbed
Primo 37-349 32.0 watts absorbed

@80psi
Primo Comet 37-406 27.4 watts absorbed
Primo Comet 47-406 17.4 watts absorbed

@100psi
IRC RoadLite 28-451 31.3 watts absorbed
IRC RoadLite 32-451 27.0 watts absorbed

Pete

Ryan Cousineau said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

I vastly prefer lugged frames from an aesthetic point of view, but I
don't believe there is any significant strength or functional
difference.

All else being equal, a welded frame can be built slightly lighter than
a lugged frame. I would personally place this criteria very low on my
list of requirements for a bike.

I suspect your "slightly" is smaller than my "significant". Do you have
any idea what some actual numbers might be?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

Rick Onanian said:

Example: If a tire is at 100psi, and has 100 pounds of load, it will
(by definition) have a 1 square inch contact patch. A 1 inch wide
tire will flex 1 inch of casing. A 1/2 inch wide tire will flex two
inches of casing. Extra credit: Convert to metric. 😉

Ah, I get it, given the same casing material, thickness, surfacing, etc,
the thinner tire must deform more in the process of rolling. Energy is
absorbed.

I will now have to do a bunch of research, because I'm curious about the
effects of tire stiffness and stuff like.

Thanks for your explanation.

-Michael

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rick Onanian said:

Similar aluminum and steel frames weigh similarly. Thin tires, while
more aerodynamic, have more rolling resistance than thicker tires at
the same pressure.

Do you (or anyone) have a resource that explains how thin tires have more
rolling resistance than thicker? I assume that this also means keeping
tread type constant? The idea that thin tires, with less surface area,
would resist more seems counter-intuitive to me.

I believe you. I just don't understand how it works.

Keep in mind that this discussion is not referring to aerodynamics (wind
resistance)!

Rolling resistance is a function of how much the tire deforms at the
contact patch, and how much energy it wastes in producing that
deformation. *At the same pressure* (a key point in the above
statement), a narrower tire of the same construction will deform more
than a wider one, and therefore will have higher rolling resistance.
The "same construction" is a keyword for telling how much energy is lost
in the deformation.

A smaller tire at *higher* pressure may have less rolling resistance,
assuming it's a good tire, but a cheap one may still waste more energy
in the deformation of the rubber.

When you hear the term "supple" when discussing tires, that usually
refers to how easy the tire is to deform when disregarding the effect of
the air pressure. A more supple tire doesn't waste as much energy when
flexing the sidewalls.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Quoted message said:

Ah, I get it, given the same casing material, thickness, surfacing, etc,
the thinner tire must deform more in the process of rolling. Energy is
absorbed.

http://www.fitwerx.com/NewFiles/BicycleRollingResistance.html

http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns
(Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)