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.

bikesdirect.comgalaxy.htmOpen ↗

bikesdirect.comsuper.htmlOpen ↗

bikesdirect.commirage.htmOpen ↗

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:
home.earthlink.netWelcome.htmOpen ↗ See the
books I've set free at:
bookcrossing.comCpeterskyOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Joseph Meyer
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.

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 schwalbe.comindex.plOpen ↗
bstract=1164&bereich=&einsatzbereich=&produktgruppe=

--

A: Top-posters.
B: 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]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ 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.

physics.helsinki.firolling.htmlOpen ↗ "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."

discoveryride.comrolling.htmlOpen ↗ (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

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).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Benjamin Lewis said:

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?

henryjames.comproductlug.htmlOpen ↗

This page, if you scroll down far enough, claims that the
weight difference between a lugged BB and a welded BB is
about an ounce. I suspect it overstates the case, but a
cursory search could not find what I really wanted, a steel
frame-maker who builds similar lugged and welded designs,
and quoted weights. The closest I found was a quote of
3.52 pounds for Independent Fabrication's racy steel
frame. Welded?

That's pretty light. The ultimate stupid-light line for
aluminum racing frames is probably 2.2 pounds (1.0
kilograms), but I haven't established a good baseline for a
light lugged frame.

But it's down to needs. I'd never bother trimming a pound
from my commuter bike, but unlike last year, I'm within a
few pounds of my goal weight.

I could seriously think about dropping some weight from my
race bike (it weighs about 22 pounds; at most I could
expect to drop five pounds with a really pricey bike
change), but the money it would cost would probably be
better spent on coaching.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club