P
Peter Clinch
Guest
Paul D wrote:
> Nothing I've ever tried to buy before; hi-fi's, computers, cars, flats,houses,
> has left me feeling so helpless in the face of such an array of conflicting and
> disjointed information.
You can get just as much and more conflicting information on any of the
above. Hi-fi, for example, all you /need/ to do is sit and listen to a
few and buy what your ears like, but despite that being all you need to
know there's thousands of people reading about what they could listen
too and trying all sorts of daft nonsense to "improve" their stereos.
And so it is with bikes. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and
there's more than one bike that will do all you need, but as long as you
can try it out for comfort and tick off a few boxes of what it can
reasonably be expected to do, that should be enough if you don't want to
go into microscopic detail.
> Years ago, when I were t'lad, there were three sorts of bikes: men's bikes,
> women's bikes and racing bikes. It was, for the most part part, clear what you
> wanted.
>
> Now, if we ignore folding, electric, recumbent, trikes, choppers and crutch
> rockets, we are still left with:
>
> Mountain bikes (with and without suspension)
> Road bikes
> City bikes
> Shoppers
> Tourers
> Hybrids
> Comfort bikes
Unless you're a /very/ old lad the road bikes and tourers existed
anyway, as did the urban bikes and shoppers. Those two tend to be
interchangeable to a large degree anyway, and "comfort bikes" is just a
bit of marketing for hybrids with a certain flavour of handlebar. In
other words, nothing much has changed. Your basic "bike" is now called
a hybrid and has a derailleur rather than a Sturmey 3 speed hub, but
they're available with diamond or step through frames as before. Aside
from Mountain Bikes, not much has actually changed, so Don't Panic.
> 12 years or so back, when I decided to start cycling again, I just bought a
> cheap BIKE. No qualifier. It was almost exactly the same as a BIKE would have
> been when I was a child, except it had derailiers, with which you couldusually
> get 5 out of 6 ratios to work at any one time, which was a BIG improvement on
> the 2 out of 3 you could get with a Sturmey Archer.
See above: The only difference between a BIKE and a hybrid is the name.
> Anyway, the chap asked me if I wanted to sit on it, so I did, and my feet
> reached the ground, and my hands reached the handlebars, so that was OK.
>
> The tyres weren't inflated, so I couldn't ride the thing, but what would that
> have told me anyway.
Whether the riding position suited you in motion.
> Well, it would have told me the gearing was wrong for one
> thing. I had assumed that if you went from two rings to three, you would get a
> slightly higher top, and a slightly lower low. WRONG! The lowest gear allows for
> climbing vertically, but the top was lower than on my previous bike, and that
> was too low going downhill, or with more than about 5 kn of following wind.
You're on a mountain bike though, which is designed for climbing
vertically and generally traversing loose surfaces where high gears
aren't much use. Horses for courses. On towpaths and roads you don't
need the suspension either (MTB suspension is to take big knocks, and it
will reduce your pedalling efficiency, where serious road suspension
will enhance it, but at a higher cost).
> Firstly, I find that even spending £350 will only get a "budget" bike, an
> attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious - especially considering
> how many years of pleasure I had from my £109 BIKE bike.
How much has £109 changed in 10 years? I spent £250 in 1989, and for
the same figure value today (much less in real terms) what I can buy is
substantially better in just about every respect.
> and I think, quite honestly, I'll stick with rest of the population andconsider
> anything over £250 an 'expensive' bike, and anything over £500 as 'specialised'
> (or "nut-job" as someone I mentioned the existence of £1000+ bike to,refered to
> them).
You can get a perfectly acceptable bike for what you want for £200. If
you spend a lot more it'll be nicer, but you don't /need/ to.
> And it seems that because I might want to go on a tow path occasionally, I might
> need a mountain bike.
No. Mountain bikes are for serious mud, logs and rocks. There is no
reason for a MTB on a towpath.
> Seriously, though, I can't seem to get a handle on what actually makes a bike a
> mountain bike.
>
> I thought it meant an extra strong frame, probably suspension, the availability
> of extra low gears, stronger wheels, and perhaps disk brakes for clearance.
That's right, so you have got a handle on it.
> I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient range of
> gears to handle going up or down hills.
Then get a BIKE, i.e., a hybrid.
> Oh, and I'd like to actually have a
> chainring set where the gears change EVERY time I move the lever, rather just
> when they feel in the mood for it
With a hybrid, without suspension and the like, the money can go on the
transmission, so it'll work better.
> The funny thing is, I'm now so confused I don't know whether to up my budget to
> £450 (the Ridgeback Supernova looks to be a really nice bike), keep it where it
> is (where the RB Velocity looks good), or reduce it to £100, and justget my
> current one upgraded (the LBS says it's possible).
There are merits to any of these solutions, though the Velocity should
cut the mustard. Upgrading to the same level would cost a substantial
portion of the price of the new one. You've said you don't want to
spend £450, so don't!
You don't actually seem very confused at all...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
> Nothing I've ever tried to buy before; hi-fi's, computers, cars, flats,houses,
> has left me feeling so helpless in the face of such an array of conflicting and
> disjointed information.
You can get just as much and more conflicting information on any of the
above. Hi-fi, for example, all you /need/ to do is sit and listen to a
few and buy what your ears like, but despite that being all you need to
know there's thousands of people reading about what they could listen
too and trying all sorts of daft nonsense to "improve" their stereos.
And so it is with bikes. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and
there's more than one bike that will do all you need, but as long as you
can try it out for comfort and tick off a few boxes of what it can
reasonably be expected to do, that should be enough if you don't want to
go into microscopic detail.
> Years ago, when I were t'lad, there were three sorts of bikes: men's bikes,
> women's bikes and racing bikes. It was, for the most part part, clear what you
> wanted.
>
> Now, if we ignore folding, electric, recumbent, trikes, choppers and crutch
> rockets, we are still left with:
>
> Mountain bikes (with and without suspension)
> Road bikes
> City bikes
> Shoppers
> Tourers
> Hybrids
> Comfort bikes
Unless you're a /very/ old lad the road bikes and tourers existed
anyway, as did the urban bikes and shoppers. Those two tend to be
interchangeable to a large degree anyway, and "comfort bikes" is just a
bit of marketing for hybrids with a certain flavour of handlebar. In
other words, nothing much has changed. Your basic "bike" is now called
a hybrid and has a derailleur rather than a Sturmey 3 speed hub, but
they're available with diamond or step through frames as before. Aside
from Mountain Bikes, not much has actually changed, so Don't Panic.
> 12 years or so back, when I decided to start cycling again, I just bought a
> cheap BIKE. No qualifier. It was almost exactly the same as a BIKE would have
> been when I was a child, except it had derailiers, with which you couldusually
> get 5 out of 6 ratios to work at any one time, which was a BIG improvement on
> the 2 out of 3 you could get with a Sturmey Archer.
See above: The only difference between a BIKE and a hybrid is the name.
> Anyway, the chap asked me if I wanted to sit on it, so I did, and my feet
> reached the ground, and my hands reached the handlebars, so that was OK.
>
> The tyres weren't inflated, so I couldn't ride the thing, but what would that
> have told me anyway.
Whether the riding position suited you in motion.
> Well, it would have told me the gearing was wrong for one
> thing. I had assumed that if you went from two rings to three, you would get a
> slightly higher top, and a slightly lower low. WRONG! The lowest gear allows for
> climbing vertically, but the top was lower than on my previous bike, and that
> was too low going downhill, or with more than about 5 kn of following wind.
You're on a mountain bike though, which is designed for climbing
vertically and generally traversing loose surfaces where high gears
aren't much use. Horses for courses. On towpaths and roads you don't
need the suspension either (MTB suspension is to take big knocks, and it
will reduce your pedalling efficiency, where serious road suspension
will enhance it, but at a higher cost).
> Firstly, I find that even spending £350 will only get a "budget" bike, an
> attitude I quite frankly find absurd and pretentious - especially considering
> how many years of pleasure I had from my £109 BIKE bike.
How much has £109 changed in 10 years? I spent £250 in 1989, and for
the same figure value today (much less in real terms) what I can buy is
substantially better in just about every respect.
> and I think, quite honestly, I'll stick with rest of the population andconsider
> anything over £250 an 'expensive' bike, and anything over £500 as 'specialised'
> (or "nut-job" as someone I mentioned the existence of £1000+ bike to,refered to
> them).
You can get a perfectly acceptable bike for what you want for £200. If
you spend a lot more it'll be nicer, but you don't /need/ to.
> And it seems that because I might want to go on a tow path occasionally, I might
> need a mountain bike.
No. Mountain bikes are for serious mud, logs and rocks. There is no
reason for a MTB on a towpath.
> Seriously, though, I can't seem to get a handle on what actually makes a bike a
> mountain bike.
>
> I thought it meant an extra strong frame, probably suspension, the availability
> of extra low gears, stronger wheels, and perhaps disk brakes for clearance.
That's right, so you have got a handle on it.
> I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient range of
> gears to handle going up or down hills.
Then get a BIKE, i.e., a hybrid.
> Oh, and I'd like to actually have a
> chainring set where the gears change EVERY time I move the lever, rather just
> when they feel in the mood for it
With a hybrid, without suspension and the like, the money can go on the
transmission, so it'll work better.
> The funny thing is, I'm now so confused I don't know whether to up my budget to
> £450 (the Ridgeback Supernova looks to be a really nice bike), keep it where it
> is (where the RB Velocity looks good), or reduce it to £100, and justget my
> current one upgraded (the LBS says it's possible).
There are merits to any of these solutions, though the Velocity should
cut the mustard. Upgrading to the same level would cost a substantial
portion of the price of the new one. You've said you don't want to
spend £450, so don't!
You don't actually seem very confused at all...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/