Schwinn Prelude

That's a really low quality bike, I would go with the lower model of a higher brand like Trek, Cannondale or Giant.

The main reason that I voted "not worth it" is because it only comes in one size, 55cm. I don't know your friend's size, but I am 6 feet tall and the size bike that I need is 56 cm to 58 cm, and even then, that is only the starting point.

The components on the bike are extremely cheap bottom of the barrel junk, probably sufficient for the occasional rider but not for the regular rider that you have described. For a start, your friend should go to a bicycle shop and get fitted which will cost about 1/3 of the price of the Prelude. This will enable him to look for a bike that fits properly and he will be much more happy and apt to keep riding rather than hating the bike and letting it collect dust in the garage.

Better looking at LBS for a used bike. The Schwinn will be worth about $50 when
he gets it home. A nice bike will hold its value forever.

Been there done that. Now riding a '91 Trek 720. Beats any new dept store bike.

I got mine at a yard sale and in twenty years it will still be worth more than I have
in it!

I actually bought 3 of them a few years back. Target was clearancing them for $50 a pop. At that price, its not a bad bike to have for guests, it's way too small for me. A friend of mine has done a few tours on the Schwinn with no issues. The shifting on the bike is simple, but actually works well enough for casual or tour riding. The brakes work well after adjustment. The components are nothing special but seem robust enough to take abuse. The seat is awful, the handlebar wrap material is bad and the rim strips in the wheels should be replaced. I would recommend this bike, perhaps, if it were to properly fit the rider and the buyer could not possibly afford more.

At MSRP + $100 or so, there are a lot better options. The big box stores and online retailers have some interesting offerings closer to the $400 price range, for perhaps $100 more than that you may be able to get a bike at the LBS with a proper fit and service included.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by maydog [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

. I would recommend this bike, perhaps, if it were to properly fit the rider and the buyer could possibly afford more.

Since they only offer it in one size, 55 cm, it will fit only those riders who can ride a 55cm bike. It seems to me sort that it is shady dealing when they make a bike that is only one size. Looks like they are trying to cash in on the ignorant masses who don't know anything about fit.

Of course they are trying to cash in, but shady dealing? More likely is that some MBA did an analysis and found that that one size would maximize profit. I found no outright lies in the product descriptions, just hyped up claims that any marketing materials have. The businesses that these bicycles are being purchased at also have generous return policies. Ignorance is a choice; consumers have access to more instantaneous product information, comparisons and reviews than ever before. "Caveat Emptor" is the rule when making a purchase.

I bought the bikes from brick and mortar stores, potential buyers could sit on and test ride these before purchase. They also had the option of going down the street the the LBS. Given that they were being clearanced at $50 a pop, I don't think they were selling too well on their own merits anyway. I may have paid $100 for one, with adjustments and a seat swap the bike is capable.

I wish the Prelude fit me better so I could take it to a group ride or two. It would be a perverse pleasure to ride a bike that cost me less new than one of my companion's tires. That would be good for a laugh.

I thank you all. I found these posts to help a lot. I'm currently looking for an inexpensive road bike but would like some performance. I currently use a Trek hybrid that I ride for 25 to 35 miles but find the hybrid features to be a hinderance. Anybody have an opinion on lesser knowns like Mercier?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by jayactiv [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I thank you all. I found these posts to help a lot. I'm currently looking for an inexpensive road bike but would like some performance. I currently use a Trek hybrid that I ride for 25 to 35 miles but find the hybrid features to be a hinderance. Anybody have an opinion on lesser knowns like Mercier?

There are a lot of good and not so good lesser knowns. Mercier is sold through Bikes Direct. All of the BD bikes have decent quality frames. The differences between their offerings are pretty much just the name on the bike and the quality level of the components that they used.

Speaking of bike sizes... it seems that a lot of pro riders use smaller frames with long seat tubes and presumably longer stems when needed too. So I'm not so sure if the traditional way of sizing a frame is always appropriate.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by AlanG [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Speaking of bike sizes... it seems that a lot of pro riders use smaller frames with long seat tubes and presumably longer stems when needed too. So I'm not so sure if the traditional way of sizing a frame is always appropriate.

Most people don't ride like pros and are better suited to a more traditional fit. With that said, the correct bike size is the one that provides the best fit for a given rider. Regular people can shop around and try out different brands and models to find the one that fits best, whereas pros are stuck with whatever their team's sponsor gives them. As a result, it's common to see a pro bike with a seemingly odd setup to make the bike work for the rider.

I doubt if there is a shortage of larger frames at Trek, BMC, and others. Clearly these riders are on small frames and long seatposts out of choice as they can get custom frame sizing. I believe the idea is that this may provide a stiffer frame and also gets the handlebars lower. Yes this might not be ideal for the non-racing average rider, but I can't see how a similar setup but with perhaps higher handlebars (and maybe a longer top tube) would be any different in terms of body geometry than using a larger frame and a shorter seatpost. Of course a longer bike and changes in angles will have different riding characteristics and there are various factors in choosing a frame. But the pro riders don't seem to be following the old adage of sizing a frame to an inch or two less than one's inseam.

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]
You can see from the image below that in 1994 Lance rode a larger frame than the recent one above.

[IMG]cyclingforums.com700Open ↗[/IMG]

The one thing that old adages have in common is that they quite often are useless and are based on nothing. Pro riders race. Using what they do as an example good bike fit is completely inappropriate since proper bike fit is dependent on the rider in question.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

The one thing that old adages have in common is that they quite often are useless and are based on nothing. Pro riders race. Using what they do as an example good bike fit is completely inappropriate since proper bike fit is dependent on the rider in question.

Of course fit depends on the rider in question. If you can't bend over or have a stiff neck, your bars should probably be pretty high. But if this method of fitting works for a pro rider why would it not work for an enthusiast rider? E.g. what specifically makes it "inappropriate?" What is the advantage to anyone of a taller frame compared with a lower frame that still locates the seat, bars, pedals in the exact same spot?

I am specifically trying to understand the dynamics of frame height. Pro riders don't seem to see a reason to use taller frames and I can't see any advantage that would come out of it for an average rider either. If you feel there is an advantage to a taller frame in some situations, what is it?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by AlanG [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Of course fit depends on the rider in question. If you can't bend over or have a stiff neck, your bars should probably be pretty high. But if this method of fitting works for a pro rider why would it not work for an enthusiast rider? E.g. what specifically makes it "inappropriate?" What is the advantage to anyone of a taller frame compared with a lower frame that still locates the seat, bars, pedals in the exact same spot?

I am specifically trying to understand the dynamics of frame height. Pro riders don't seem to see a reason to use taller frames and I can't see any advantage that would come out of it for an average rider either. If you feel there is an advantage to a taller frame in some situations, what is it?

Why don't ask a pro? Are all pros riding frames a size smaller or more than they should? How do you know how pros are fit to their biked? When did bike fit became all about "taller" or shorter frames? A lot of folks would say that reach is the most important of the bike fit variables, with reach technically being the distance from a line perpendicular to and through the BB axis to the center of the handlebar tops. This why so many people focus on virtual top tube length (reach can vary with a given top tube length because of differences in seat tube angle and in head tube angle). The people that worry about frame "height" are usually new riders that don't understand bike fit or riders with atypical morphology, such as very short legs compared to torso and arm length.

What about pro riders? They get payed to win or help teammates win races. How do they do this? By going faster. How do you go faster? By producing more power, by increasing endurance, and by reducing the forces that a cyclist's power has to overcome. The primary force to overcome is aerodynamic drag. Power needs vary with the cube of the velocity for a cyclist. That means if a cyclist wants to go twice as fast as he goes at P0, he has to produce 8x P0 power. As a result, most pros have fits that will allow them very low position on a bike. Here's a key point: pros work a long time to get to those low, aero positions. It's an adaptation that takes time, appropriate fitness, and appropriate flexibility.

Now, understanding all the work that a pro goes through to go fast for a long time and the punishment that pros endure, exactly now appropriate do you think modeling bike fit after what pros do......is? If you still think its appropriate, then have at it. You won't be the first.........and you certainly won't be the last cyclist to have a fit problem and possible injury from a fit that was completely inappropriate.

Thanks. BD is actually where I've been looking. Between a a Mercier and a Motobecane. I've riden some bikes with the Shimano brake/shifter setup and I like it so that's my only requirement right now. I'm ok with toe cages, I'll look into clip ins and maybe a carbon fork as I advance.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Why don't ask a pro? Are all pros riding frames a size smaller or more than they should? How do you know how pros are fit to their biked? When did bike fit became all about "taller" or shorter frames? A lot of folks would say that reach is the most important of the bike fit variables, with reach technically being the distance from a line perpendicular to and through the BB axis to the center of the handlebar tops. This why so many people focus on virtual top tube length (reach can vary with a given top tube length because of differences in seat tube angle and in head tube angle). The people that worry about frame "height" are usually new riders that don't understand bike fit or riders with atypical morphology, such as very short legs compared to torso and arm length.

What about pro riders? They get payed to win or help teammates win races. How do they do this? By going faster. How do you go faster? By producing more power, by increasing endurance, and by reducing the forces that a cyclist's power has to overcome. The primary force to overcome is aerodynamic drag. Power needs vary with the cube of the velocity for a cyclist. That means if a cyclist wants to go twice as fast as he goes at P0, he has to produce 8x P0 power. As a result, most pros have fits that will allow them very low position on a bike. Here's a key point: pros work a long time to get to those low, aero positions. It's an adaptation that takes time, appropriate fitness, and appropriate flexibility.

Now, understanding all the work that a pro goes through to go fast for a long time and the punishment that pros endure, exactly now appropriate do you think modeling bike fit after what pros do......is? If you still think its appropriate, then have at it. You won't be the first.........and you certainly won't be the last cyclist to have a fit problem and possible injury from a fit that was completely inappropriate.

Well I'm sorry to the OP that I have gotten off topic and didn't really expect it to be a bunch of posts on this. None of the above statements actually answer my question - all things being equal in terms of seat height, bar height, pedal placement, reach, etc. there seem to be various bike sizes and methods to achieve a personal "fit" for this. I am not proposing that an average or beginner rider should set up a bike exactly the way the pros do it.

So I think the general bike frame size may not be so significant in all applications, as evidenced by the fact that even long legged pros choose smaller frames today. I understand that pros get to a lower position partially via a smaller frame. All I am saying is that the average rider could also ride a smaller frame with perhaps a longer top tube or stem and appropriate spacers or stem so that their reach and bar height is correct for them. And I don't see any drawbacks to them doing this. Do you?

Well, ride one and see. Bike shops all over allow test rides. Maybe a smaller frame will deliver you to Nirvana. Maybe it won't. As for performance benefit, until I see data that correlates improved performance with smaller frames, I feel pretty comfortable with physics telling me there's not going to be a huge difference in any performance metric that isn't affected by fit. Also, keep in mine that pros can fall for wives tales and false generalizations just as recreational riders can.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Well, ride one and see. Bike shops all over allow test rides. Maybe a smaller frame will deliver you to Nirvana. Maybe it won't. As for performance benefit, until I see data that correlates improved performance with smaller frames, I feel pretty comfortable with physics telling me there's not going to be a huge difference in any performance metric that isn't affected by fit. Also, keep in mine that pros can fall for wives tales and false generalizations just as recreational riders can.

I didn't say anything about looking for nirvana or a personal solution of any sort. So I don't know why you feel the need to personalize this in any way. I am happy with my bikes that have a traditional fit. Please try to understand that I did not say or imply that I expected that a smaller frame would significantly affect performance. What I am trying to do is simply explore the possibility that a larger frame for a larger person is not necessarily the only approach for good fit and good performance. I was not trying to provoke an argument. And the fact that numerous pros have taken this smaller frame approach certainly shows that it is doable. I have no first hand information on what leads these pros to this choice whether that is from falling for wives tales or it is the result of rigorous testing.