Re: Dazed and Confused

[Arthur Clune]

Paul D <[email protected]> wrote:

: But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
: distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
: other components.

Because you are looking for certainty that doesn't exist.

Arthur

--
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:

> 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'tintend
> to shell out the best part of £500 unless *I* know what's going on.

If you require complete objective certainty over every aspect of the
design and construction then you will know more than just about /anyone/
including professional cycle designers.
The same would apply to cameras, computers and hi-fi: you tell me what
hi-fi you bought and I'll give you a a handful of reasons why something
else may heave been better.

OTOH, you can be reassured that, say, a £350 bike with no overt frills
(like disc brakes and full suspension) from a reputable manufacturer
will almost certainly be a sound bit of kit that will get you about and
not fall to bits.

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/

 

[Call me Bob]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:57:08 GMT, [email protected] (Paul D) wrote:

>But no one will tell me what the hell makes a frame 'nicer', and how I can
>distinguish features of a ride that are down to the frame from those down to
>other components.

Generally speaking a "nicer" frame would be likely to offer some (or
perhaps all) of the following benefits:

It will be lighter.

It's construction (welding, brazing, lugwork, whatever is appropriate
to that frame type and material) will be of better quality than the
typical production line, machine made equivalent.

The paint finish may be superior (in terms of aesthetics and
longevity).

It may have a better warranty (lifetime frame guarantees are available
from several manufacturers).

It's design, geometry and stiffness will be tuned far more finely to
suit the bikes intended function, be this as a touring machine, a TT
bike, a cross country hardtail, whatever.

Whether or not any of these things matter to you at all, or to what
degree, is of course up to you, but those are some of the qualities
I'd be looking for to distinguish a high end frame from a middle of
the road example.


--

"Bob"



Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Paul D]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:02:22 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>OTOH, you can be reassured that, say, a =A3350 bike with no overt frills =
>
>(like disc brakes and full suspension) from a reputable manufacturer=20
>will almost certainly be a sound bit of kit that will get you about and=20
>not fall to bits.

Quite honestly, I think that just about sums up that I need to know.

If I could just find a couple of bike shops that each had a couple of the right
types of bike, in the right price range, in my size, and would adjust them and
let me ride them, I might actually be getting somewhere.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> If I could just find a couple of bike shops that each had a couple of the right
> types of bike, in the right price range, in my size, and would adjust them and
> let me ride them, I might actually be getting somewhere.

So where are you, and see if anyone can come up with something not a
million miles away?

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/

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

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

No.

> Would it flex?

Yes, of course, all frames flex to a degree.

> Would it fail to flex?

This is the key. Lower quality aluminium frames tend to be very stiff
and to transmit a lot of vibration from the road to the rider.

> Is it a matter of there being a few hundred grammes difference in
> weight?

This too, although it is probably less important to you.

> Would it break?

Unlikely. Lower quality frames with thicker walled tubes are probably
stronger than better quality frames (very low quality steel frames do
tend to break at the welds, but that's a different matter and mostly
affects sub-£60 bikes).

> What should I be looking out for.

On aluminium frames, straight aluminium seat stays are often a bad
thing, because of transmission of vibration. Slightly S shaped seat
stays, or seat-stays with carbon inserts, are often better and evidence
of more thoughtful design. But the main thing which makes a difference
is something which you cannot see from the outside, which is the wall
thickness of the tubes, and particularly how the thickness profile
changes along the length. Around the welds the tubes need thick walls,
but in the middle of the length of the tube the wall can be much
thinner, and if the tube wall is internally shaped this gives a
lighter, less stiff frame which is generally better to ride. A tube
which is thinner walled in the middle than at the ends is called double
(or triple) butted - but you'll have to take this on faith because
without taking the bike completely apart there's no way of checking.

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

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <BE968505.F4F4%[email protected]>, David Martin
('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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?

Me, I just fall in love with them.

I'd lusted after Cannondales for the better part of fifteen years before
I actually bought mine. It's just the combination of outrageous
engineering and unfussy design that gets to me - which is why I bought
the Cannondale I did. For me it is the epitome of the breed - the
combination of a monoblade fork and variable geometry suspension on a
bike light enough and agile enough to be competitive in cross country
events is just -- right. Just _so_ right. And it feels so right when I
ride it and enables me to do things which frankly I'm not even nearly
good enough to do. And it looks so completely funky - I still see
people doing double-takes every time I ride it.

The price didn't matter. Whether it was value for money didn't matter.
Whether I couldn't have got a better bike from Whyte (the only possible
competitor in my mind was that extraordinary preying mantis thing from
Whyte) didn't matter. I saw the Jekyll and I had to have it.

And the Dolan's been the same thing. I first saw Dolan's carbon
monocoques about a couple of years before I bought mine, and I just
thought it looked so beautiful and organic - so sculptural. Once again,
I saw it and I immediately felt 'I want that one!'.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[Paul D]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:15:24 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But you're still obsessing over individual things where what you're
>actually buying is a *whole package*. Different people have different
>preferences for their packages, so there's not really much point in
>trying to infer what you want from what other people think, when it is
>/far/ more informative to just get on bikes and ride them. Furthermore,
>any of the packages that have been pointed out /will/ do what /you/ want
>and for many years.
>
>Every time you get more detailed information from here or wherever it
>just upsets you, so I don't see you're helping yourself by digging up
>even more.

A) I'm not obsessing. I just want to get as much information as I reasonably can
before I proceed to stage two which is trying to find bike shops that actually
have something for me to try.

B) The reason I'm peeved is that the information I'm getting is not
'collatable'. It's not allowing me to build up a coherent picture of the things
I need to know to make a sensible decision,

There are several reasons for this.

1) The advice I get is contradictory
2) People keep talking about things being 'nice' and refusing to say what they
mean by that,
3) There are three quite seperate things that seem to need to be considered:

How does the bike 'feel' to ride?
How long will it last?
To what extent can it be upgraded?

Add to this the fact the the bike shops don't ever seem to have the type of bike
I want, in my price range, in my size, in stock, and that my past experience has
shown them not to be very good at helping me find a bike to fit my needs, and
you should be able to see that I have a problem that has nothing to do with
obsession.

 

[Keith Willoughby]

[email protected] (Paul D) writes:

> 2) People keep talking about things being 'nice' and refusing to say
> what they mean by that,

Not able, rather than refusing. It's like trying to describe what's nice
about a Rembrandt. You can either try to talk about composition and
vibrancy and brushwork, or you can tell someone to look at it and see if
they think it's nice.

Get on a bike. See if it's nice. Get on another one. See if it's nicer.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Curry for breakfast and cornflakes for tea

 

[Peter Clinch]

Paul D wrote:

> A) I'm not obsessing. I just want to get as much information as I reasonably can

by obsessing about it in far finer detail than will make a useful
difference on the road.

> B) The reason I'm peeved is that the information I'm getting is not
> 'collatable'. It's not allowing me to build up a coherent picture of the things
> I need to know to make a sensible decision,

> There are several reasons for this.

The basic reason for this is there is not an established single
objective answer that you're looking for. You can't find it because it
isn't there. There is information that doesn't fit into spreadsheets
that is nonetheless useful.

> 3) There are three quite seperate things that seem to need to be considered:
>
> How does the bike 'feel' to ride?

Which you will only find out in the saddle, not by reading.

> How long will it last?

Any half decent bike, and all those talked about are, given a little
basic TLC will last for a minimum of ca 15 years with no trouble,
probably quite a lot longer.

> To what extent can it be upgraded?

A bike is typically infinitely upgradeable because the parts are all
modular and interchangeable. Including the frame, though that will cost
more to upgrade than, say, the brakes.

> you should be able to see that I have a problem that has nothing to do with
> obsession.

You are on a quest for something (perfect objective information on what
is subjectively best for you) that clearly does not exist. That's an
obsession. Get over it.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Me, I just fall in love with them.

Another case in point. Having decided to get a 'bent tourer, but not a
Streetmachine, Roos did /lots/ of background reading and research, put
lots of things in a spreadsheet, worried lots and lots, made lists,
amended lists, and so on.

She bought a bike she'd more or less ruled out in the first instance,
because it put a big smile on her face when she rode it.

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]

You'll all _have_ to excuse the top posting.

I've been accused of obsessing with details that don't matter.

I disagree that the details in which I'm interested are unimportant, and I want
to explain why.

When I bought my last bike, I went to the LBS, and was given absolutely no
advice whatsover.

As a result, I ended up with a quite unsuitable bike - size/gearing/presence of
unnecessary front suspension - (on which I've had plenty of enjoyment,
nontheless).

Because of this, I don't trust bike shop staff.

I'm sure that there are some who are knowledgeable, trustworthy, and can be
bothered to take an interest, but I'm not prepared to rely on being lucky enough
to find one when I want to get something I expect to last for some years.

When I came here, I got conflicting advice.

Some people said get the best frame you can for the money and put up with less
good components because these can be changed later.

Others said the only way to pick a bike is to ride it, and yet finding a bike
shop with the right type/size/price bike to try (even one) is not as straight
forward as the throwaway lines such as "Go to a bike shop and try a few out -
buy the one that you like best" would imply.

A couple of people said they thought I might need a mountain bike.

Several people said that I was 'confused' by gearing, when there is absolutely
no confusion whatsoever in my mind about gears (it's a mindnumbingly simple
concept, after all).

I've been bitten once because I didn't do enough research, and trusted a bike
shop to sell me what I needed, and I don't intend to be bitten again.

All I want is the necessary information to ensure that I don't make a complete
balls up of buying my next bike.

So far, what I have gleaned is this:

1) For £350, provided you don't go for gimmicks (wasn't interested anyway), you
should be able to get a decent bike that will, given care, last many years.

2) Although some people think some frames are 'nicer' than others, those
opinions should not be allowed to override the impression you get from riding a
bike.

3) Pretty much the same thing goes for the other components.

So, all I need to do now is find a bike shop which has some stock of the sort of
bike I want, is prepared to let me try them out, and isn't periodicaly left in
the hands of some teenager who looks as if he's probably playing truant from
school (an effect I observed with one of the LBS's).

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:58:14 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul D wrote:
>
>> A) I'm not obsessing. I just want to get as much information as I reasonably can
>
>by obsessing about it in far finer detail than will make a useful
>difference on the road.
>
>> B) The reason I'm peeved is that the information I'm getting is not
>> 'collatable'. It's not allowing me to build up a coherent picture of the things
>> I need to know to make a sensible decision,
>
>> There are several reasons for this.
>
>The basic reason for this is there is not an established single
>objective answer that you're looking for. You can't find it because it
>isn't there. There is information that doesn't fit into spreadsheets
>that is nonetheless useful.
>
>> 3) There are three quite seperate things that seem to need to be considered:
>>
>> How does the bike 'feel' to ride?
>
>Which you will only find out in the saddle, not by reading.
>
>> How long will it last?
>
>Any half decent bike, and all those talked about are, given a little
>basic TLC will last for a minimum of ca 15 years with no trouble,
>probably quite a lot longer.
>
>> To what extent can it be upgraded?
>
>A bike is typically infinitely upgradeable because the parts are all
>modular and interchangeable. Including the frame, though that will cost
>more to upgrade than, say, the brakes.
>
>> you should be able to see that I have a problem that has nothing to do with
>> obsession.
>
>You are on a quest for something (perfect objective information on what
>is subjectively best for you) that clearly does not exist. That's an
>obsession. Get over it.
>
>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/
>

 

[Alan Braggins]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> To what extent can it be upgraded?
>
>That's kind of a non-issue. Modern bike parts are highly standardised,
>and with few exceptions virtually any bike can be upgraded to very
>close to the limits of current technology - if your pockets are deep
>enough.

It depends whether you count replacing the frame as an upgrade, or
starting a new bike. If you want to end up with a suspension fork, it's
probably worth looking for a frame designed for the sort of travel
suspension fork you want (and if you want to end up with a rear disk
brakes, it's probably worth looking for one with an appropriate mounts,
though adding one is more practical than changing geometry to suit a
suspension fork - front disk mount you can get with a fork upgrade).
Adding rear suspension I think counts as a new frame, even if you could
use an existing frame as a starting point.
Not that I'm suggesting the OP needs suspension or disk brakes.

(If you do count replacing a frame as an upgrade, I suspect any bike
at all can be upgraded right to the very limits of current technology,
but not necessarily keeping any parts at all of the original bike.
Which is a silly use of "upgrade" - but on the other hand I can see how
if you have a bike with a damaged frame, and replace just the frame with
an identical one, that could reasonably be the same bike, so I'm not sure
exactly where the dividing line is.)

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>> To what extent can it be upgraded?
>>
>>That's kind of a non-issue. Modern bike parts are highly standardised,
>>and with few exceptions virtually any bike can be upgraded to very
>>close to the limits of current technology - if your pockets are deep
>>enough.
>
> (If you do count replacing a frame as an upgrade, I suspect any bike
> at all can be upgraded right to the very limits of current technology,
> but not necessarily keeping any parts at all of the original bike.
> Which is a silly use of "upgrade" - but on the other hand I can see
> how if you have a bike with a damaged frame, and replace just the
> frame with an identical one, that could reasonably be the same bike,
> so I'm not sure exactly where the dividing line is.)

Which brings us right back on topic....

Simon, dazed and confused.

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

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison