Stressed and depressed

Paul D said:

I've recently decided to get a new bike. I previously had some sort of mountain
bike (I think), with front suspension, that I bought in a hurry when my 10 year
old ultra basic straight handlebar bike finally gave out.

So, I need to buy a new bike £200 - £350 and I can't even begin to find the
information I need to make a decision. Amd it's getting quite depressing now.

I mean, it's fine having a spec sheet with info on every part, but what sense is
one supposed to make of:

Chain: HG50

Who on earth knows the name and relative desireability of all the bits from all
the different manufacturers?

Look at Alivio or Deore in this price range. Anything less, especially
gearing, won't last well.

Quoted message said:

The uses the bike will be put to:

Winter 2 x 10 min runs a day, occasional hour run.
Summer average of 1.5 hrs a day
Although I carry some shopping on the short trips, I'd rather manage with
carrier bags on the h/b's than clutter the bike up with paniers

This is a Very Bad Idea. Get a rucksack at the very least.

, and I'd prefer

Quoted message said:

to fit a basic "just good enough" rear mudguard than have the full size road
bike front/rear type.

Well, they stop the skunk stripe up your back but you'll still get
filthy legs. You won't get them jammed with mud though.

Quoted message said:

All on roads / towpath quality surfaces. No off road other than tow-path.

You need an MTB or something based on one. A heavy duty touring bike
would do, but then you're looking at more than £500.

Quoted message said:

I know I need a 21/22" frame, and I need higher gearing than my outgoing MTB.

Are you nearly 7 feet tall? I'm nearly 6 feet and I feel stretched on
an 18" Cannondale MTB - take advice from a good LBS on sizing. Look for
a bike with a 46T/48T large chainring. Some of the cheaper bikes still
have them.

Quoted message said:

I'd prefer harder tyres than typical 40/60 psi MTB tyres, provided they are not
more prone to puncture.

Schwalbe and Vredestein make a large range of 26" road tyres, all of
which are very pucncture resistant. I like Vredestein S-Licks on the
road, but they're expensive and pretty useless on gravel or mud.

Quoted message said:

I've been given brochures from the LBS for GIANT, Raleigh and Mongoose, but,
quite honestly, there isn't enough information present to make a choice. The
Mongoose brochure is really just a set of pictures, the Giant has a few sparse
details (I don't find "powerful V brakes" listed on every adult bike to be
particularly helpful). The raleigh catalogue is a bit better, but I still can't
see how to make a decision between their various models.

I always change gears 2 at a time (i.e. I use 1/2/5/7), so I don't think I need
24 speed.

All the half-decent new stuff is 8 or 9 sprockets at the back. You
could have a single chainring with a wide range cassette though.

Quoted message said:

I suspect that 700 wheels would be better for me than 26".

Probably not, given the towpath requirement.

Quoted message said:

Can anyone give me any pointers?

This is nice:

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=20816

If you want 700c wheels there's something similar:

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=20817

Forget suspension - it's totally unnecessary for your purposes and the
bike will be much nicer on the road without it.

Paul D said:

Can anyone give me any pointers?

Currently looking at the Ridgeback Velocity which I found whilst perusing the
net.

The bike market is pretty competitive and you generally get what you pay
for. You really need to work out how much you've got to spend and the
accessories you need (don't dismiss a rack and guards so easily and you
might need lights etc).

Beyond that you need to ride a few to check comfort and further to that
it's down to colour.
--
Michael MacClancy

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:05:59 GMT, [email hidden] (Paul D) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So, I need to buy a new bike £200 - £350 and I can't even begin to find the
information I need to make a decision. Amd it's getting quite depressing now.

For that money you can get a decent front-sus mountain bike or a
hybrid. The MTB is probably better value, it's very competitive out
there at present.

Quoted message said:

I mean, it's fine having a spec sheet with info on every part, but what sense is
one supposed to make of:
Chain: HG50

You can safely ignore that kind of thing. You need to know:

- Shimano Tourney is the bottom of the range, Acera is better, Deore
better again
- "SIS" is meaningless, it just means indexed gears
- cassette-type hubs are better than screw-on freewheels
- cranksets with replaceable rings are better than those with rings
riveted together
- the main difference between bikes at the same price point is (in my
recent experience) the quality of the sus fork.

Quoted message said:

Who on earth knows the name and relative desireability of all the bits from all
the different manufacturers?

The shop :-)

Seriously, the best thing to do is look at the bikes in the metal at a
proper bike shop.

Quoted message said:

Although I carry some shopping on the short trips, I'd rather manage with
carrier bags on the h/b's than clutter the bike up with paniers,

NEVER hang bags on the handlebars. Seriously. NEVER. You could use
a rucksack if you must, but a rack and panniers really is far and away
the best way of getting odd bits of shopping home on a bike.

Quoted message said:

and I'd prefer
to fit a basic "just good enough" rear mudguard than have the full size road
bike front/rear type.

I find the "just good enough" ones just not good enouogh, but YMMV :-)

Quoted message said:

I'd prefer harder tyres than typical 40/60 psi MTB tyres, provided they are not
more prone to puncture.

Schwalbe Marathon, the bike shop will probably swap them for no extra
cost at time of purchase. But they're not much good in mud :-)

Quoted message said:

I've been given brochures from the LBS for GIANT, Raleigh and Mongoose, but,
quite honestly, there isn't enough information present to make a choice.

They don't want you to be able to compare with other manufacturers :-)

Here's my LBS website:
http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s2p0

The Giant Mistral looks good, I've seen it. Nice bike.

Quoted message said:

I always change gears 2 at a time (i.e. I use 1/2/5/7), so I don't think I need
24 speed.

You can never have too many gears :-)

Quoted message said:

I suspect that 700 wheels would be better for me than 26".

Don't get too hung up on that. Modern 26" weels and tyres roll just
as well.

Quoted message said:

Currently looking at the Ridgeback Velocity which I found whilst perusing the
net.

That's a hybrid, which is good for road use but less good for unmade
tracks inna sustrans stylee, excellent commuting bike though.
Consider also the Dawes Discovery 401 (I have nevcer been disappointed
with a Dawes). Here's AW's page of hybrids:

http://www.awcycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s18p0

One othjer difference between hybrids and hardtail MTBs (apart fomr
the wheel size) is that most hardtail MTBs come with a granny gear,
and a lot of hybrids don't.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul D

(') said:

Although I carry some shopping on the short trips, I'd rather manage
with carrier bags on the h/b's

Really seriously don't do that. If the bag swings into the front wheel
you go over the bars and do a face plant in the road. That's unpleasant
at the best of times but in traffic the following car will go straight
over you.

Quoted message said:

All on roads / towpath quality surfaces. No off road other than
tow-path.

So a rigid fork hybrid, possibly with slightly fatter than ultrafast
tyres (28mm-32mm), is what you want (assuming you _really_ don't want
drops).

Quoted message said:

I know I need a 21/22" frame, and I need higher gearing than my
outgoing MTB.

Be careful about specifying frame sizes. As frames get more and more
'compact' (i.e. the top tube slopes more and more), so the nominal size
of the frame gets smaller, and a 21" from one manufacturer can easily
be bigger than a 26" from another. I have four bikes: a 17", a 19", a
24" and a 25.5". They all fit me, and, what's more, they're all the
same size.

Quoted message said:

I'd prefer harder tyres than typical 40/60 psi MTB tyres, provided
they are not more prone to puncture.

On the whole, like for like, higher pressure means fewer punctures. Some
brands of tyres are more puncture proof than others, but you'll need
other people's advice on this - I tend to buy my tyres more for speed
than for durability.

Quoted message said:

I always change gears 2 at a time (i.e. I use 1/2/5/7), so I don't
think I need 24 speed.
I suspect that 700 wheels would be better for me than 26".

Almost certainly.

Quoted message said:

Can anyone give me any pointers?

Have a look at the Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op own brands, particularly
their Revolution Courier Race - it seems to me exactly what you want.
Simple gearing (no front deraileur), 700C wheels, rigid fork, V brakes,
in the middle of your budget.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 20:29:25 GMT, [email hidden] (Paul D) wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For that money you can get a decent front-sus mountain bike or a
hybrid. The MTB is probably better value, it's very competitive out
there at present.

Quoted message said:

That is what I have at the moment.
It needs some work: 3 broken spokes, new cassette and chain (Actually, I'm not
sure if it is a cassette - I though that's what the cogs at the back were called
until I read your reply where you seem to differentiate between a cassette and
screw on freewheel. Suspect I may have the latter, because the guy in the LBS
called it a freewheel.)

OK, to fix that lot at my fettler of choice (Bob Bristow, Reading's
premier blind bike mechanic) would probably cost under forty quid.

Quoted message said:

I also wanted the chainring replaced, because the thing has always had too low
gearing.

Easier to change the sprockets, really, but are you sure? I like to
turn the pedals at not leas than 95rpm and preferably between 100 and
105 rpm. Most people pedal far too slowly.

Quoted message said:

I got quoted about £90, to do the work, and I now realise that the rims I have
will take narrower tyres (and presumably one that work at a higher pressure?).

Is that including new rings? If so I'd leave that and try for higher
cadence, unless you are already pedalling quickly. Apart from that,
if the bike is a good one (please name the make & model) it's probably
worth doing, otherwise not.

You can also do some of it yourself. Changing a freewheel involves a
vice and a tool costing under a fiver (plus the freewheel of course).
Chains for 7-speed are as cheap as chips, and 8 speed not much dearer.
A good chain tool (e.g. Park CT-5) is £10-£15 and will last a
lifetime.

A copy of Zinn and the art of mountain bike maintenance, or the Haynes
bike book, could pay for itself with a single repair!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul D

(') said:

I also wanted the chainring replaced, because the thing has always had
too low gearing.

You can _usually_ replace the chainrings with larger ones. Some mountain
bikes, however, have the chain stay (the tube from the bottom bracket
to the rear hub) shaped around the chainring, and some of these won't
allow a road-size (say 52 tooth) chainring to fit. So check it will fit
before you buy. Although you can buy individual rings it's probably
cheaper to buy a new chainset.

You may also need a new bottom bracket, and you may need a new front
deraileur because the radius of the lower edge of the front deraileur
cage needs to be a fairly close match for the radius of the large
chainring. Take the advice of your LBS.

Quoted message said:

I got quoted about £90, to do the work, and I now realise that the
rims I have will take narrower tyres (and presumably one that work at
a higher pressure?).

Yes and yes. While you're at it, slick tyres (with little or no tread)
are significantly faster on roads and also grip better than knobbly
ones.

Quoted message said:

So would I be batter off having those changes done to my current bike?

Does it fit? Is it comfortable? Do you like it?

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

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:13:41 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Really seriously don't do that. If the bag swings into the front wheel
you go over the bars and do a face plant in the road. That's unpleasant
at the best of times but in traffic the following car will go straight
over you.

Trust me, you won't notice if it does. We are talking tweeting birds
flying around your head, here. One of the many reasons I prefer
'bents...

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Zog The Undeniable said:

Paul D wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that 700 wheels would be better for me than 26".

Probably not, given the towpath requirement.

He could be after a 29"er 😉.

TBH, my mate has a 700c bike, and I have a couple of mountain bikes. The
road bikes' a shopper style thing, and it wasn't unbearable off road for
rougher stuff than a towpath.

doki said:

He could be after a 29"er 😉.

What happened to those? If you were fool enough to buy one can you
still get tyres for them?

Tony

Tony Raven said:

doki said:

He could be after a 29"er 😉.

What happened to those? If you were fool enough to buy one can you
still get tyres for them?

They still seem to be making them, so I'd assume so.

Paul D said:

The uses the bike will be put to:

Winter 2 x 10 min runs a day, occasional hour run.
Summer average of 1.5 hrs a day
Although I carry some shopping on the short trips, I'd rather manage with
carrier bags on the h/b's than clutter the bike up with paniers, and I'd prefer
to fit a basic "just good enough" rear mudguard than have the full size road
bike front/rear type.

All on roads / towpath quality surfaces. No off road other than tow-path.

That sounds very like a hybrid bike to me. At that level of use even a
fairly basic model should last for years with minimal but regular
maintenance. Two suggestions though - go for the full mudguard set and
forget entirely about carrying shopping bags on the bars.

I happen to like the Claude Butler hybrid I have at present but there
are many similar ranges on offer. Go for one of the "known" makes from
a good bike shop.

--
Brian G

Quoted message said:

This is nice:

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=20816

I currently own and run four bikes, but if I ever had to cut that down
to just one <fx>shiver run down spine</fx>, the one I'd keep is my
Edinbugh Courier.

It's the model from a few years back, and although is thought of as my
commuting hack bike (daily 6 mile commute all year round), it has also
coped with 50+ mile road trips and brief forays around custom built
mountain bike paths. My road bike is much more capable on the road and
my mountain bike(s) are again much better off road, but the Courier is
my one bike I'd say was capable of either.

So if you do decide to buy new rather than repair, I'd say your bias
towards road use means a hybrid would suit your needs. With a mountain
bike you'd be hard pushed to find one without front suspension, which is
not a necessity, and on balance can add more weight when on road than
comfort when off road.

But if you do choose a mountain bike (because I can't deny I get a lot
of pleasure using them for what they're built to do), conversely I'd
suggest buying a better frame at the expense of the other bits hanging
off it. These can be upgraded when they need replacing. But avoid disc
brakes and rear suspension.

And I'd strongly repeat the 'no carrier bags hanging on handlebars' advise.

Stross (in no way affiliated with Edin Bike Coop).

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:22:49 +0100, Stross

mail@REMOVETHISstevenrossDOTplusDOTcom said:

Quoted message said:

This is nice:

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=20816

That does look like a very nice bike, but it doesn't have a chain ring 'set' at
all.

Although I don't want close spaced gears, I do want a good enough range that I
can keep peddling down hills and with a following wind, and get up reasonably
steep hills.

I can't imagine an eight speed rear cassette achieving that, given that my
current 21 speed can't achieve it.

"Paul D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Although I don't want close spaced gears, I do want a good enough range

that I

Quoted message said:

can keep peddling down hills and with a following wind, and get up

reasonably

Quoted message said:

steep hills.

I can't imagine an eight speed rear cassette achieving that, given that my
current 21 speed can't achieve it.

It might be useful to have some numbers here.

On the bike with the top gear you were happy with, how many teeth do the
chainrings (front) and sprockets (back) have? What size wheel?

Ditto for the bike you've currently got with insufficient gearing.

Do you need the lowest of the bottom gears on the current bike with three
rings?

An aside:

You're probably not going to like this, but did you know that for the same
speed pedalling quickly is better for you than pedalling slowly?
When I got my first tourer, I thought the top gear was too low. (46/12,
previously I'd had 52/12). After a while I got used to pedalling quicker,
and found it was better. This top gear now only comes in use over 35mph (ie
downhill).

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:59:04 +0100, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It might be useful to have some numbers here.

On the bike with the top gear you were happy with, how many teeth do the
chainrings (front) and sprockets (back) have? What size wheel?

Ditto for the bike you've currently got with insufficient gearing.

Unfortunately, I don't have the first bike, and the current one is in for repair
at the moment.

Quoted message said:

Do you need the lowest of the bottom gears on the current bike with three
rings?

Only very rarely.

Quoted message said:

An aside:

You're probably not going to like this, but did you know that for the same
speed pedalling quickly is better for you than pedalling slowly?
When I got my first tourer, I thought the top gear was too low. (46/12,
previously I'd had 52/12). After a while I got used to pedalling quicker,
and found it was better. This top gear now only comes in use over 35mph (ie
downhill).

I know that this is general wisdom, but I'm not at all happy pedalling fast. I
tried it a lot last summer, and I just exhausted myself. I could get the bike up
to 25 mph, but even with a strong wind behind me, or going downhill, I faded
after about 30 seconds. I had a definite feeling that it was just spinning the
pedals that was doing it, backed up by the fact that I could achieve the same
speed on the flat with no wind for about 20 seconds.

I can't remember exactly, but I think I had a cadance of 120 at that speed. I'm
definitely happiest at a cadence of around 85-90.

I think the current bike does around 17mph at a cadence of 85, and I'm not
really putting much 'push' effort in at that speed.

"Paul D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're probably not going to like this, but did you know that for the

same

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speed pedalling quickly is better for you than pedalling slowly?
When I got my first tourer, I thought the top gear was too low. (46/12,
previously I'd had 52/12). After a while I got used to pedalling quicker,
and found it was better. This top gear now only comes in use over 35mph

(ie

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

downhill).

I know that this is general wisdom, but I'm not at all happy pedalling

fast. I

Quoted message said:

tried it a lot last summer, and I just exhausted myself. I could get the

bike up

Quoted message said:

to 25 mph, but even with a strong wind behind me, or going downhill, I

faded

Quoted message said:

after about 30 seconds. I had a definite feeling that it was just spinning

the

Quoted message said:

pedals that was doing it, backed up by the fact that I could achieve the

same

Quoted message said:

speed on the flat with no wind for about 20 seconds.

There's a difference between pedalling fast and riding fast - it's the
choice of gear which does it. If your normal speed is 17mph, and you're
going at 25, then of course it's going to be tiring!

What I mean by 'pedalling quickly' is change down a gear, but keep your road
speed the same.

Quoted message said:

I can't remember exactly, but I think I had a cadance of 120 at that

speed. I'm

Quoted message said:

definitely happiest at a cadence of around 85-90.

I think the current bike does around 17mph at a cadence of 85, and I'm not
really putting much 'push' effort in at that speed.

If your current bike has a compact MTB triple at the front (big ring = 42
teeth), but an old-style freewheel at the back (spallest sprocket = 14
teeth), then that's believable. The thing is, compact MTB triples are
designed to be used with a smallest sprocket of 11 or 12 teeth. For a 14t
small sprocket, you probably want to be looking at a 52t front ring. (same
top gear as 'racers' in the 80s). Or a different freewheel/cassette.

This is where you need to know what you've currently got :-)

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:35 +0100, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

There's a difference between pedalling fast and riding fast - it's the
choice of gear which does it. If your normal speed is 17mph, and you're
going at 25, then of course it's going to be tiring!

Yes, I do understand the physics.

17mph is what I can do easily and continuously with zero wind, on the flat. I
feel as if I could easily generate more power without tiring myself out.

25mph is a speed at which I find the sheer effort of pedalling that fast enough
to tire me quickly. i.e. if the bike would coast at 24mph downhill, I'd still
not be able to keep peddling to get it to do 25 for any length of time.

Quoted message said:

What I mean by 'pedalling quickly' is change down a gear, but keep your road
speed the same.

As I said, I do understand the physics.

Quoted message said:

If your current bike has a compact MTB triple at the front (big ring = 42
teeth), but an old-style freewheel at the back (spallest sprocket = 14
teeth), then that's believable. The thing is, compact MTB triples are
designed to be used with a smallest sprocket of 11 or 12 teeth. For a 14t
small sprocket, you probably want to be looking at a 52t front ring. (same
top gear as 'racers' in the 80s). Or a different freewheel/cassette.

This is where you need to know what you've currently got :-)

Unfortunately, I don't get it back until Thursday.

However, I do know that the largest chainring is 42, and the guy at the LBS said
that there wasn't a smaller rear gear (it does look very small, but I haven't
counted the cogs.) The bike has 26" wheels.

On the other hand, the maths doesn't work out for 17mph at 85rpm with those
figures.

Will have to wait until I get the bike back.

"Paul D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:47:35 +0100, "Clive George"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a difference between pedalling fast and riding fast - it's the
choice of gear which does it. If your normal speed is 17mph, and you're
going at 25, then of course it's going to be tiring!

Yes, I do understand the physics.

17mph is what I can do easily and continuously with zero wind, on the

flat. I

Quoted message said:

feel as if I could easily generate more power without tiring myself out.

25mph is a speed at which I find the sheer effort of pedalling that fast

enough

Quoted message said:

to tire me quickly. i.e. if the bike would coast at 24mph downhill, I'd

still

Quoted message said:

not be able to keep peddling to get it to do 25 for any length of time.

Have you tried 17mph but in a lower gear? I'm afraid I can only comment on
what you write, so if you write confusing things, expect unhelpful answers!

Quoted message said:

Will have to wait until I get the bike back.

Indeed.

However if it has a freewheel, this neatly illustrates the advantages of
spending just a little bit more money. Currently decent cheap cassette hubs
are suitable for 8 or 9 speeds, and the cassettes themselves are widely
available. However if you've bought into a 7 speed system (mostly shifters),
this means you'll need to change that too. Whereas if you get a bike with
the current stuff on in the first place, changing things in the future is
easier.

Personally I wouldn't get anything less than a 9sp system these days - and
the main reason is as above, viz parts availability. However I have the
luxury of a less constrained budget.
(The car OTOH has a much more constrained budget, partly because of the
self-imposed rule that it should be cheaper than any of the bikes. I think
the brompton may have been upgraded sufficiently (SON) that I'm now abiding
by the rules - but it was close for a while).

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:23:50 +0100, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Have you tried 17mph but in a lower gear? I'm afraid I can only comment on
what you write, so if you write confusing things, expect unhelpful answers!

No, and I think that actually illustrates my point. It was patently obvious to
me that I was being constrained by peddling speed rather that peddling effort -
so much so that it would have been pointless to even try the experiment.

Quoted message said:

Personally I wouldn't get anything less than a 9sp system these days - and
the main reason is as above, viz parts availability. However I have the
luxury of a less constrained budget.
(The car OTOH has a much more constrained budget, partly because of the
self-imposed rule that it should be cheaper than any of the bikes. I think
the brompton may have been upgraded sufficiently (SON) that I'm now abiding
by the rules - but it was close for a while).

I'm leaning towards the idea of extending the budget to £450 and getting a
Ridgeback Supernova.

But I'm going to keep asking questions.

Such as what, apart from an extra speed on the rear cogs, does £150 buy me going
from an RB Velocity to an RB Supernova.