Re: Dazed and Confused

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul D
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I posted a thread yesterday, entited; "stressed and depressed",
> because that's just about how I felt trying to come to some sort of a
> decision about upgrading my bike.

I think it's worth pointing out that without any prompting three of us
recommended the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op's Revolution Courier (and/or
the 'Race' version of the same bike). It's in the middle of your budget
and will do everything you want.

> I just want something that is strong, reliable, and has a sufficient
> range of gears to handle going up or down hills. 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 (or, as
> happend a few weeks ago, refuse point blank to change up, despite
> cycling the lever five or six times, then, in a fine show of
> petulance, the chain suddenly deciding they it *would* like to move
> accross, and making up for it's previous slothfulness by bypassing the
> big ring, shattering the chain guard and jamming solid {little bugger
> hadn't noticed that we were only 100m from home, though}).

Problems of this sort are down to two things:
(i) deraileur adjustment and
(ii) deraileur slop.
More expensive deraileurs are better engineered and change more reliably
- this is an area where spending more money brings real benefit.
However this is a component that you can easily upgrade, so if you're
having problems a new, better, deraileur could be a better investment
than a new bike.

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

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> It does seem odd to me that when I said that an MTB with a 21 speed setup didn't
> have sufficient range (i.e. I use the lowest possible gear, but the highest is
> much too low), that people are recommending a bike that has, I would imagine, a
> much smaller range.

A typical 21 speed setup will give you about 11 effective gears, and the
actual range you'll get in that is highly variable according to the
cogs used. If you put an 11-34 on the back that gives you quite a high
range. A typical MTB has a 42 big ring, the Rev. Courier has a 44, so
that gives you a higher top gear (which you want). 42 to 34 (32 is
standard I think) still gives you a usefully low bottom gear, bearing in
mind MTB low gears are designed for the sort of steepness where keeping
the front wheel down is a major problem and the surfaces are potentially
loose too.
My freight bike is an 8 speed with enough depth of gearing that I can
take 50Kg of coal up a fairly major hill while sitting in the saddle.
You don't need a tiny ring to get usefully low, even somewhere with
hills (and Dundee "does" hills).

> Also, there is no dealer list on the site

Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op *is* the dealer: they are primarily a shop
rather than a manufacturer. There's one in (unsurprisingly) Edinburgh,
and also now in Aberdeen and Newcastle.

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/

 

[Paul D]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 08:53:15 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A typical 21 speed setup will give you about 11 effective gears, and the
> actual range you'll get in that is highly variable according to the
>cogs used. If you put an 11-34 on the back that gives you quite a high
>range. A typical MTB has a 42 big ring, the Rev. Courier has a 44, so
>that gives you a higher top gear (which you want). 42 to 34 (32 is
>standard I think) still gives you a usefully low bottom gear, bearing in
>mind MTB low gears are designed for the sort of steepness where keeping
>the front wheel down is a major problem and the surfaces are potentially
>loose too.
>My freight bike is an 8 speed with enough depth of gearing that I can
>take 50Kg of coal up a fairly major hill while sitting in the saddle.
>You don't need a tiny ring to get usefully low, even somewhere with
>hills (and Dundee "does" hills).

Interesting points.

I'll experiment tomorrow.

>> Also, there is no dealer list on the site
>
>Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op *is* the dealer: they are primarily a shop
>rather than a manufacturer. There's one in (unsurprisingly) Edinburgh,
>and also now in Aberdeen and Newcastle.

That's an aweful long way to go for a test ride when you live in the SE.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> That's an aweful long way to go for a test ride when you live in the SE.

Indeed it is. If it's what you want on paper you can risk the postage
cost to return it. Personally I'm a believer in getting my hands on
stuff before I buy for the most part, especially where fit is very
important, but having said that plenty of people buy mail order and are
happy with the results.

My first tourer came from EBC (I lived around the corner at the time)
and my MTB is an EBC which I picked up on a visit (I'm usually through
to Embra several times a year), so I can report I'm happy with their bikes.

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/

 

[Paul D]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:00:00 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

>You're confusing number of gears with range.

I do wish people would stop telling me I'm confused about gears.

I'm not in the least. I don't even need a gear calculator, I could easily make
my own, or even do the calculations in my head if necessary.

It's still quite clear that an 11-32 with a 42 will not give me the same range
as an 11-32 with a 48-26 chainring set. In fact, it won't even be close.

a 2.9 range in the first case, and a 5.3 range in the secind case.


>Well, that's true. But how you spend money is something to consider. If
>you go for the top bike from a cheap brand, what you typically get is
>good components on a poor frame. It'll be low maintenance for a good
>while because those good components will last a long time, but you'll
>never really be able to upgrade it and it will still have that poor
>frame for the life of the bike.
>
>By contrast if you get a bottom-end bike from a good maker you will
>often find you get poor quality components on a high quality frame
>(Cannondale is a particular case in point). The poor quality components
>will wear out much more quickly, but if you replace them as they wear
>with better quality ones then over time you'll end up with a really
>good quality bike.

So given that I'm consdering increasing the budget to £450, to cover the
Ridgeback Supernova, are you saying that's a 'cheap' frame?

Or are the components not up to much?

Is Ridgeback a 'cheap' brand?

All this talk about spending hundreds of pounds and still having to make a
choice between either a cheap frame or inferior components just brings on the
"stressed and depressed" feelings again.

And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this nightmare of
trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

I had a hundred quid bike that lasted for ten years without any repairs.

Surely, a £450 bike should be able to manage 5 years without the bits wearing
out? (except tyres of course).

 

[Arthur Clune]

Paul D <[email protected]> wrote:

: Surely, a £450 bike should be able to manage 5 years without the bits wearing
: out? (except tyres of course).

As ever, it depends. If you only ride it in summer, then yes. If you ride it
in winter and all year then you'll get through at least a couple of chains, maybe a
cassette, a few jockey wheels, some tyres, some inner tubes. Maybe a saddle
and some bottle cages.

Nothing lasts for ever.

Good, full length mudguards do really help though.


--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
Don't get me wrong, perl is an OK operating system, but it lacks a
lightweight scripting language -- Walter Dnes

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> It's still quite clear that an 11-32 with a 42 will not give me the same range
> as an 11-32 with a 48-26 chainring set. In fact, it won't even be close.
> a 2.9 range in the first case, and a 5.3 range in the secind case.

But as has been pointed out it's the Actual Useful Gears you have
available on the bike that Really Matters. A 26 -> 32 gives you the
sort of gearing that is only generally much useful up very steep hills
and/or with heavy luggage. If you don't use it there isn't much point
in having it.

> Is Ridgeback a 'cheap' brand?

Depends how you define "cheap". In automotive terms I'd put them as
about Ford. They are well respected and make a range from fairly low
cost but good value free of gimmicks up to reasonably well respected
performance mid-range.

> And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this nightmare of
> trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

If you dwell on the negatives of shopping it's a depressing experience.
If you dwell on coming out of it with Something Very Shiny then it's
potentially fun. If you see a test ride as a pain you've got to go
through then it's a pain, if you see it as a chance to try out lots of
Really Good Toys then it's fun. Go into something convinced it's a
chore and it will be. It seems you are, where the rest of us revel in
the thought of a new bike, because we know it's a precursor to years of
pleasure and useful service.

> I had a hundred quid bike that lasted for ten years without any repairs.

Though if you'd done more repairs and maintenance over that time it
should still be going strong, and you wouldn't be in your current
situation. Not only it wouldn't be dying, it would be more or less as
good as the day you bought it.

> Surely, a £450 bike should be able to manage 5 years without the bitswearing
> out? (except tyres of course).

Don't forget the brake blocks... Beyond that, it depends how well it's
cared for. If you ride through a winter with lots of road gritting and
never clean the chain then the chain will be rather inflexible, and
using a rusty chain on a gear block will wear it far faster than a chain
in good repair, and so on. Leave broken spokes unfixed and sooner or
later the rim won't be able to take any more and will die, keep any
breaks fixed ASAP and it'll be fine. There isn't /much/ that needs to
be done to keep an okay bike running well, but it's more than sticking
it in the shed until next time you ride.

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/

 

[Roos Eisma]

[email protected] (Paul D) writes:

>It's still quite clear that an 11-32 with a 42 will not give me the same range
>as an 11-32 with a 48-26 chainring set. In fact, it won't even be close.

And now compare the 11-32 with a 48-26 chainring with 9-52 with a 42
chainring.


Roos

 

[Brian G]

Paul D wrote:

> And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this nightmare of
> trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

Well pardon my cheek. I accept from all you say that you are having a
tough time reconciling some of the conflicting issues you identify. I
don't doubt that for you they are serious issues and I hope some of the
many responses you've had here have helped.

OTOH, I think I'd be right in saying that for many if not most cyclists
the opprtunity to replace a bike or add to the collection would be seen
as a positive one,aka "fun".

--
Brian G

 

[davek]

Paul D wrote:
> I do wish people would stop telling me I'm confused about gears.

You give a very good impression of someone who is confused about gears.

> It's still quite clear that an 11-32 with a 42 will not give me the
same range
> as an 11-32 with a 48-26 chainring set. In fact, it won't even be
close.

No, of course it won't, but you seem to be missing the point that it is
easily possible to acquire the range of gearing you want on a bike with
a single chainring, providing you choose the right size of chainring
and fit a wide-ranging cassette.

The Courier Race as described above by Simon actually has a wider
gearing range and a higher top gear than my road bike, which has a
triple chainset.

QED.

I could easily increase the range on my bike by changing the 14-25
cassette for an 11-32, but for my needs the closer spacing between
gears is preferable to that wider range.

Your needs are in the opposite direction, so I would endorse what
everyone else is saying viz the appropriateness of the EBC Courier. It
sounds eminently suitable for your requirements.

> And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this
nightmare of
> trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and "Ignorance is bliss" are
the cliches that spring to mind.

> I had a hundred quid bike that lasted for ten years without any
repairs.
>
> Surely, a £450 bike should be able to manage 5 years without the
bits wearing
> out? (except tyres of course).

This problem is not exclusive to the world of cycling - washing
machines, televisions, you name it, they are all produced to a much
higher technical specification these days and for a much lower price,
but if you want to buy something that's built to last you have to spend
a /lot/ of money. (That said, a reasonably decent steel frame should
last you a lifetime and needn't be that expensive.)

And don't forget inflation - £450 now is probably worth significantly
less than your £100 was back then.

d.

 

[audrey]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:29:09 GMT, [email protected] (Paul D) wrote:
>
>All this talk about spending hundreds of pounds and still having to make a
>choice between either a cheap frame or inferior components just brings on the
>"stressed and depressed" feelings again.

yeahbut ... that's true of just about any major purchase. I felt the
same working up to buying a digital camera, and I'm feeling much the
same about impending laptop buying. As I see it, if one is not
already well versed in the field of bikes or computers or whatever,
there are basically 2 options:
1. Get well versed. Take advice from friends and interweb strangers,
read magazines and articles, mither the people in your local
specialist shops, until you feel like you know what you're doing.
or
2. Go to shop, close eyes, cross fingers and throw your credit card
at the problem.

happy shopping

 

[Alan Braggins]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>in message <[email protected]>, Paul D
>combinations. And then you say the lower gears are too low to be useful
>to you. So you're probably _now_ using only five or six different
>gears. The Courier Race has, as you say, only eight gears, but they're
>rationally spaced with no overlap so they're eight usable different
>gears.

Another option would be an 8 speed hub gear. People seem to be less
rude about the Halford's Subway 8 than they are about Halfords in
general, and there's bound to be a Halfords near you, though not
necessarily one with staff that know anything about their bikes.
Hub gears generally need less maintaining and adjusting than derailleur
gears, and their chains generally last longer. On the other hand the
Courier is cheaper, and possibly better in other ways (the Halfords
web page doesn't give a detailed spec).
http://www.halfords.com/opd_product_details.asp?id=18883&type=0&cat=144

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul D
('[email protected]') wrote:

> So given that I'm consdering increasing the budget to £450, to cover
> the Ridgeback Supernova, are you saying that's a 'cheap' frame?
>
> Or are the components not up to much?
>
> Is Ridgeback a 'cheap' brand?

That's my prejudice, yes. I could be wrong. I mean, compare it to a
Cannondale Adventure 400 which you should be able to pick up for about
the same price (05 models a bit more expensive, 04 models a bit cheaper
if you can still find them).
<URL:http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/ce/model-4AS4.html>
You'll find the frame on the Cannondale is much nicer, and the kit
generally not quite as good.

> All this talk about spending hundreds of pounds and still having to
> make a choice between either a cheap frame or inferior components just
> brings on the "stressed and depressed" feelings again.
>
> And to think that someone actually had the cheek to say that this
> nightmare of trying to choose a bike was in some way 'fun'!

It _is_ fun, or should be. Wander around bike shops looking at nice toys
until you see the one that you absolutely have to have, and then buy
it.

> I had a hundred quid bike that lasted for ten years without any
> repairs.
>
> Surely, a £450 bike should be able to manage 5 years without the bits
> wearing out? (except tyres of course).

It depends what you're doing with it! If you're thrashing it around a
forest, across rocky screes, through deep mud and over dusty gravel
paths, then substantial transmission wear in a few thousand miles use
is inevitable, no matter how good the parts. If you only use it in an
indoor velodrome, then nothing may wear out for donkeys years.

I've spent part of this evening stripping and cleaning the transmission
on my good road bike; and I've been amazed how little wear it shows, as
compared to a mountain bike transmission of similar age. But roads are
a relatively nice environment, particularly for a bike which doesn't
get used when the roads are salted or when it's pissing with rain.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?

To put it in simple terms, Cannondale is nicer than Ridgeback in the
same way that BMWs are nicer than Fords. However, that does not mean
that Ford make poor cars, and they certainly make /cheaper/ cars, and
they certainly make cars that are perfectly adequate for the majority of
things people want to use cars for.

> If the Cannondale is so 'nice', why don't Ridgeback make theirs more like it?

Cannondale's reputation lies primarily on their very high quality
frames. They pioneered mass market use of thin wall high diameter
tubing and have a reputation for innovation at the cutting edge. People
win world class races on Cannondales. Things like serious R&D and very
high quality mechanical engineering cost Real Money, which is why 'Dales
have considerably higher price tags than Ridgebacks on average.

> What superiority would I notice, as a rider, about the 'nicer' canondale frame.
> What inferiority would I notice about the generally less good 'kit' ?

Nicer stuff just does what you want it to with less effort from you.

> What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?

It isn't as good as a Cannondale frame. However, this does not mean it
is intrinsically bad, just that it isn't the best. I certainly wouldn't
have a problem riding a Ridgeback.

> I don't really want to spend days and days travelling round the country trying
> to find a bike shop that happens to have the model I want to try, in my size,
> and is prepared to adjust it so that it fits me, and then let me go for a ride
> on it.

We now have an amazing invention which some people call a "telephone".

<snip>
> And people make out this should be some kind of pleasure?

Your problem isn't actually finding the right bike, ISTM, it's finding
the right bike *shop*. They are not all created equal. The good ones
are very good and will get you on a bike for what you want.

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/

 

[Paul D]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:57:44 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

Fistly, although parts of this and previous posts might seem sarcastic in
places, please don't think I don't appreciate people attempts to help.

My somewhat tetchy responses are caused by my genuine and rather extended period
of frustration at not being able to get a handle on the information I need in
order to make a decision about buying a piece of equipment on which I'll
probably spent several thousand hours over the course of the next few years.

>> What about the Ridgeback frame would dissapoint me?
>
>It isn't as good as a Cannondale frame.

Yes, but what would I notice?

Would it rattle?
Would it flex?
Would it fail to flex?
Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in weight?
Would it break?

What should I be looking out for.

Unless there is some way of perceiving this elusive 'niceness' I can't see the
advantage in sacrificing the quality of the other components (which I can at
least judge from my own senses - how smoothly do gears change, how well do the
brakes work, how loud is the bell )

To be quite honest, I cannot think of a single attribute that a frame has that I
could isolate as I *_rode_* a bike.

Weight? I can't isolate that from the weight of the other components.
Rigidity? I don't know if that's good or bad, and types/rims/spokes all flex.
Size? Within reason, saddles are adjustable, as are handlebars.

>> I don't really want to spend days and days travelling round the country trying
>> to find a bike shop that happens to have the model I want to try, in my size,
>> and is prepared to adjust it so that it fits me, and then let me go for a ride
>> on it.
>
>We now have an amazing invention which some people call a "telephone".

That rather contradicts the advice of another poster who said I should just go
round bike shops until I see a bike I just 'must have', and buy it!

>Your problem isn't actually finding the right bike, ISTM, it's finding
>the right bike *shop*. They are not all created equal. The good ones
>are very good and will get you on a bike for what you want.

I'm making a seperate post about bike shops.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Paul D wrote:
>
>> Why do you think the cannodale is 'nicer' than the Ridgeback?
>
>To put it in simple terms, Cannondale is nicer than Ridgeback in the
>same way that BMWs are nicer than Fords. However, that does not mean
>that Ford make poor cars, and they certainly make /cheaper/ cars, and
>they certainly make cars that are perfectly adequate for the majority of
>things people want to use cars for.

And the 100 pound bikes are the Ladas and Yugos, usable if you have to,
but you'ld be better off with a second hand Ford.

 

[davek]

Paul D wrote:
> Yes, but what would I notice?

Only you can answer that. There comes a point where information on
paper reaches its limit, and it's at this point that you should
consider test-riding a few bikes and finding out for yourself.

If you don't perceive a difference, at least you will then be in a
better position to decide whether you want to spend the extra money for
the "nicer" bike.

> What should I be looking out for.

Whether or not you enjoy riding one bike more than the other bike,
which one feels more comfortable, which one you like the look of
best...

You say you don't want to spend lots of time trailing round bike shops,
but you've already spent lots of time posting to the newsgroup that
might perhaps have been spent more productively.

d.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> Fistly, although parts of this and previous posts might seem sarcastic in
> places, please don't think I don't appreciate people attempts to help.

Similarly, please don't take my telephone comment /too/ harshly! ;-)

> Yes, but what would I notice?
>
> Would it rattle?
> Would it flex?
> Would it fail to flex?
> Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in weight?
> Would it break?

no, not appreciably, not appreciably, yes, no.

> What should I be looking out for.

In frames I frankly wouldn't worry too much. Yes, there are
differences, but they're not the sort of differences where if you look
at Brand X's £350 hybrid and Brand Z's £350 similar hybrid then there
will be clearly a no-brainer purchase of one over the other based on
specification alone (if one just fits you better, that's different).

Part of the problem is that you not only have Brands X and Z but A-W and
Y too and there's not a lot of obvious clear air between them. Part of
the reason for no obvious clear air is very little *actual* clear air:
Diamond frames are reasonably standard items, as are the wheels, gears,
brakes etc. Which is better out of a Focus, Megane, P307, Astra etc.?
Same sort of thing goes, but the effective bottom line is if you can get
away with one of them then you can, in practice, almost certainly get
away with any of the others. People don't listen to every single hi-fi
in their price range, they listen to a few, select one they're happy
with even though one of the 47 different similar ones available /might/
have been a shade better, go home and enjoy their CD collection.

What I'm saying is don't get hung up on minutiae. If you're really into
bikes and have a *very* specific requirement then it can be worth
obsessing over small details, but we're looking at family hatchbacks
here and once you're past supermarket specials and obvious style over
substance gimmick-laden fashion items nobody is really making dogs
because it's too competitive a market to put out dogs and the
manufacturers have been making them for a long time and have a fair idea
how to do it.

> Unless there is some way of perceiving this elusive 'niceness'

Get on it and ride it. If you can't feel a difference then there is no
difference worth your while.

> advantage in sacrificing the quality of the other components (which I can at
> least judge from my own senses - how smoothly do gears change

You can make any derailleur gears change better or worse by adjusting
them. Unridden bikes frequently have gears that aren't perfectly
adjusted, so do beware thinking that a clunky change on a test of a new
machine must indicate poor quality or a smooth change indicates very good.

> That rather contradicts the advice of another poster who said I should just go
> round bike shops until I see a bike I just 'must have', and buy it!

We all have our own methods and axes to grind. Though we're trying to
give good advice it can't be totally objective and it will include our
prejudices. However, if lots of people home in on a single thing then
that's a good indication of it being worth a look.

In your case you're interested in Ridgebacks and they have a solid, if
unexciting reputation (but you're after a solid, rather than exciting,
bike, so that's a moot point). So track down some Ridgeback dealers,
visit and compare the RBs to what ever else in a similar vein they have
and see if anything is calling your name. EBC is too far away, I'd also
have a look at Dawes and Kona for sensible, capable bikes that can be
had for a reasonable sum. There are plenty of others, but as I've
pointed out they're not actually /that/ different in practice so you
don't need to try *everything* in this sector of the market to get a
good bike.

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/

 

[Paul D]

On 28 Apr 2005 03:18:52 -0700, "davek" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul D wrote:
>> Yes, but what would I notice?
>
>Only you can answer that. There comes a point where information on
>paper reaches its limit, and it's at this point that you should
>consider test-riding a few bikes and finding out for yourself.
>
>If you don't perceive a difference, at least you will then be in a
>better position to decide whether you want to spend the extra money for
>the "nicer" bike.
>
>> What should I be looking out for.
>
>Whether or not you enjoy riding one bike more than the other bike,
>which one feels more comfortable, which one you like the look of
>best...

Unfortunately, you've completely failed to understand my problem with that. A
problem that I clearly outlined two posts up.

How can I tell whether my preference for one bike over another is down to the
frame, or other componenents?

People keep talking about 'nicer' frames.

A frame is a piece of engineering, not a painting by Monet. If one frame is
'nicer' in an absolute sense, as I've been informed the canondale is, (as
opposed to just one that one person might prefer over another), then there must
be a solid engineering reason for that.

>You say you don't want to spend lots of time trailing round bike shops,
>but you've already spent lots of time posting to the newsgroup that
>might perhaps have been spent more productively.

There is a considerable difference between spending a few minutes here and there
typing, and spending the more than half a day it would take to get to a London
bike shop.

In any case, I want to do plenty of research *before* I venture into a bike
shop, since I find the people working in them to be thoroughly untrustworthy (by
which I don't necessarily mean dishonest).

I need to develop a cycling ******** detector.

Knowing the bad experiences I've had with bike shops, and the complete rubbish
I've been told in Camera, Computer and Hi-Fi shops on occasion, I don't intend
to shell out the best part of £500 unless *I* know what's going on.

 

[David Martin]

On 28/4/05 11:34 am, in article [email protected], "Peter
Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote:

Basically, wot 'e said..

This got me thinking on how do I choose a bike?


1. What do I want it for? Does it have the appropriate braze ons for
mudguards, racks, bottles etc. that may be required?

2. What is the frame made of? Cheap steel is a no no for a 'good bike'. I
have never had an alu bike (though that might change). A good quality frame
(good material and design, well finished) is a key component to assembling a
good bike.

3. Does it ride well?

Then we come to the compromise between:

4. How adjustable/upgradeable are the bits to the spec I would like?

5. How much does it cost?

I have specific upgrade requirements, such as shorter cranks, appropriate
handlebars, saddle etc. Other upgrades can come in time, but if I have the
money I'd buy higher quality components now as failing to do so is IME a
false economy.

So far I have bought very few new bikes because I seem to have got it close
to right. My 8 yo MTB/commuter has few original parts. Only the frame, forks
and handlebars are original.

My road bike has the original frame and forks. It is 16 years old. the
original gear mechs still work fine (Shimano Sante) and the other components
of similar grade are also in good condition.

Maybe it is because I look at a bike as a long term investment, and focus on
the core parts first. Everything else can be relatively easily changed.

...d