Where Choice Begins...

daren said:

Comments please?

Yes. Don't ride down any dark alleys near me.

in message <[email hidden]>,

daren (') said:

Dear all,

The finance director has approved the purchase of a new bike
(conditional on asset disposal - one of the tandems is going). This
will be my "do it all, fab bike(TM)", mainly for audax/long comfy fast
rides and a pointer towards a SR series next year. it will replace an
aged road bike (531ST frame) and a commuter (531 MTB with drops).

I have narrowed down to three choices and you will see that they fall
into three (distinct) flavours:
Roberts Compact Audax (Nivacrom steel poss S&S, Veloce, Mavic Kysrium)
Specialized Roubaix (Carbon fibre, 105/Ultegra, Bontranger mix)
Airbourne Valkyrie (Titanium as per Roberts)

frame weights are about 4.5, 3 and 3.5 lbs respectively. Budget is
(ahem) as near to 1500 as possible.

Pros:
Roberts: Cachet, custom, lovely paint jobs, S&S option (but +400!)
Specialized: Weight, damping, fab reviews, can test ride
Airbourne: Weight, Titanium, last forever, can return if don't like

Cons:
Roberts: Weight, can't test ride, delivery time.
Specialized: dropped frame (£700), no lugs for frame/guards.
Airbourne: Can't think of any other than frame decals :-)

I have discounted other steel makers because I don't believe they
offer anything over Roberts. For fully custom, all three would have
the same frame geometry, just different materials. All things being
equal the Roberts would weigh about 1.5lbs more. The Compact audax in
Roberts shop comes out at about 22.5lbs which is too much. To get the
weight down would require serious additional spend (wheels and CF
seatpost) making it about 2000.

I have an aquaintance who has both a Roberts CA and an Aluminium
Specialized Roubaix. He has more or less stopped riding the Roberts on
the grounds that the Roubaix is so light and fast but just as comfy.
This has lead me down the Airbourne route, which I think will offer
both.

I can't advise you what to do, but I can tell you what I've done and why
I like it. What I've done is buy a Terry Dolan carbon monocoque time
trial frame, fit it with medium level Campag kit and a bar bag. It
makes a most excellent and comfortable fast audax bike, and I love it
to bits.

<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_12.html>

After my last audax I wrote:

I rode (or course) the Dolan. And while I bought the Dolan frame as an
impulse purchase driven more by aesthetics than practicality, I've
built it up and equipped it primarily as an audax bike. This was it's
first real audax: how did it perform? Well, brilliantly. Apart from
minor trouble with the front deraileur, no mechanical problems.
Despite my ongoing uncertainty about the ultra-light SLR saddle (and
other people's mockery of the 20mm tyres), no comfort problems, apart
from slight stiffness in my lower back. Leaving the mudguards off
proved, as the day turned out, to be a mistake - but not a critical
one. Leaving the taillight on was a good decision - I had it on in
flashing mode all the way from Straiton to Moniaive, and more than one
person said it improved visibility. We didn't encounter any hill I
couldn't manage with the double chainring, although Tynron Brae was
definitely the limit and people with triples clearly benefitted there;
in retrospect, it would have been worth fitting a 13-29 cassette for
this occasion.

The Dolan is sitting now, unbelievably filthy, in the dining room,
still awaiting the clean I meant to give it today. But it has proved
itself. It's not only a ridiculously beautiful bike; it's also one I
can ride in comfort for any distance.

<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/story/article_25.html>

I have friends with both the Specialized Roubaix and Specialized Tarmac
frames. Both are very nice frames, although I definitely wouldn't swap.
I'm completely persuaded of the merits of carbon fibre as a frame
building material.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a+ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

daren said:

The finance director has approved the purchase of a new bike
(conditional on asset disposal - one of the tandems is going). This
will be my "do it all, fab bike(TM)", mainly for audax/long comfy fast
rides

Quoted message said:

Comments please?

None of your suggested bikes are actually anywhere near as comfy as a
good recumbent, What you'll get for £1,500 in a 'bent will certainly
weigh more, but OTOH the aerodynamics will be better (which is actually
more significant than weight at speed) and the comfort will be an order
of magnitude better.

And the default view is where you're going, rather than tarmac, which
IME adds considerable pleasure to long rides. A semi-low like a
Challenge Hurricane or Optima Stinger just might be the perfect thing
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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

daren said:

The finance director has approved the purchase of a new bike
(conditional on asset disposal - one of the tandems is going). This
will be my "do it all, fab bike(TM)", mainly for audax/long comfy fast
rides

Quoted message said:

Comments please?

None of your suggested bikes are actually anywhere near as comfy as a
good recumbent, What you'll get for £1,500 in a 'bent will certainly
weigh more, but OTOH the aerodynamics will be better (which is actually
more significant than weight at speed) and the comfort will be an order
of magnitude better.

And the default view is where you're going, rather than tarmac, which
IME adds considerable pleasure to long rides. A semi-low like a
Challenge Hurricane or Optima Stinger just might be the perfect thing
for what you want...

And there is the Hurricane SL at under 10kg for the weight weenies. As
far as weight goes, I can scarcely justify a bike lighter than the
amount of weight I should get shot of though I am being tempted by the
dark side. The local tip had a FS frame in on saturday which I was
tempted to salvage with a view to a Project..

...d

David Martin <[email hidden]> wrote:

: And there is the Hurricane SL at under 10kg for the weight weenies. As

And very nice it is too. Still, 10kg is quite porky for a road bike these
days.

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

daren <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Airbourne: Weight, Titanium, last forever, can return if don't like

I've been very happy with my Zepplin and the customer service I've got
from Airborne.

My clubmate has a Valkerier audax (with the mudguards and rack) and it's
a very nice bike indeed.

For my money, I'd go for either the Roberts or the Airborne.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

Thanks for all the comments,

If you want weight, I'll see your recumbent and raise you a tandem -
"The Flying Banana" kiddyback tandem weighs about 30kg (without the kid
on the back). You can see why I'm after something a little lighter.
Incidenly that's about 10kg heavier than the stripped down Dawes Super
Galaxy Tandem I'll be selling soon. My Poyner fixed gear weighs about
8kg, and I'd like something with gears that's about that heavy (and
more relaxing geometry).

A recumbent is planned for 2007, and I expect it to have three wheels.
Right now I want an upright very light fast do just about everything
bike. The lean towards Airbourne is getting stronger.

Arthur what is the "real world" weight difference between the Valkyrie
and your Zepplin? Did your friend's bike still have that "light feel"?

regards,
daren
--
remove outer garment for reply

daren said:

A recumbent is planned for 2007, and I expect it to have three wheels.
Right now I want an upright very light fast do just about everything
bike. The lean towards Airbourne is getting stronger.

It won't do just about everything, because nothing does. Your values of
"everything" are probably more limited and don't include, for instance,
MTB descent courses, but for roads there are plenty of 'bents that will
do that sort of "anything".

Light is only a means to an end. A lot of the emphasis on lightness is
because since the UCI regulations prevent any major changes in bike
design then paring grammes off is the only way to improve things much.
But note how the e2e record is held on a machine which had weight very
deliberately /added/ to it (the fairing) in order to improve its
aerodynamic performance.

Don't think of "a recumbent" as a class of bike. It isn't, it's a
description of the layout. Recumbents come in the same functional
flavours as uprights, and an Audaxy 'bent has far more in common with
what you're looking at in uprights than it has with something like a
compact city 'bent like the BikeE. So what do you have in mind for the
2007 'bent? What will it actually *do* that your existing cycles won't?
Are 3 wheels necessary to do that? If you're not averse to the idea
of a 'bent in general (and it seems like you aren't if you're planning
to get one) then it makes a lot of sense to get some test riding in now,
because one might well be ideal for what you have in mind (a good
machine for fast and comfortable rides). This might well just convince
you your original choice is best, of course, in which case go for it,
but bearing in mind folk use 'bents (2 and 3 wheel) for exactly your
stated purpose, I'd say it makes a lot of sense to more actively
consider them now, even if to rule them out by first hand experience.

Really Good Reasons to stay upright is you want to rush up hills as fast
as possible on a very frequent basis (and don't mind being slower down
the other side), and/or (to me the significant one) you want to go out
in a pack and boost your cycling by working in a group, which really
means everyone being on something similar. Beyond that, most of what
you get by staying upright is conforming (more or less) to pages of
baroque requirements for racing that needn't affect you...

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I'm holding out for a <\url http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/trikes_s.htm> for
my "40th-time-for-a-sportscar" moment. Fast and long distance, but not
really sociable, as you say. I don't want my friends looking down on me
more than they do already :-)

Values of everything exlude off road, but most other things, including
light touring.

I think there is requirement for a minimum of five bikes:
1) fast light road
2) folding
3) fixed
4) recumbent
5) tandem
+
6) MTB if that's your thing

I'm up to 3/5 already (plus assorted others). Obviously there must be a
market for a S&S coupled titanium folding fixed wheel recumbent,
although I'm unaware of such a beast.

regards
--
Daren
remove outer garment for reply

daren said:

I'm holding out for a <\url http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/trikes_s.htm> for
my "40th-time-for-a-sportscar" moment. Fast and long distance, but not
really sociable, as you say. I don't want my friends looking down on me
more than they do already :-)

Values of everything exlude off road, but most other things, including
light touring.

I think there is requirement for a minimum of five bikes:
1) fast light road
2) folding
3) fixed
4) recumbent
5) tandem

Too few tandems error. Redo from start.

Tim

Tim Hall said:

daren said:

I'm holding out for a <\url http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/trikes_s.htm> for
my "40th-time-for-a-sportscar" moment. Fast and long distance, but not
really sociable, as you say. I don't want my friends looking down on me
more than they do already :-)

Values of everything exlude off road, but most other things, including
light touring.

I think there is requirement for a minimum of five bikes:
1) fast light road
2) folding
3) fixed
4) recumbent
5) tandem

Too few tandems error. Redo from start.

Also missing:

freight/utility bike
touring bike

...d

daren said:

I'm holding out for a <\url http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/trikes_s.htm> for
my "40th-time-for-a-sportscar" moment.

But you've already got a sportscar at that point in time...

Note that Guy Chapman went to buy a Windcheetah, money in pocket ready
to spend, and came away with a Stinger. Without trying things out,
especially things where there are such big differences between designs
as with recumbents, it just doesn't make sense to decide on a model
years in advance.

Quoted message said:

Fast and long distance, but not
really sociable, as you say. I don't want my friends looking down on me
more than they do already :-)

My point about riding in packs wasn't particularly about social riding,
but chain gang riding which, although it has a social element, is mainly
a practical thing. If you're not actively drafting or breaking trail
then riding a 'bent in mixed company has no reason to be antisocial, any
more than tandem riding (tandems tend to be a bit slower up hills and
quicker down them and on the flats, just like 'bents, but I've never
come across people objecting to tandems because they're too different in
their performance envelope).

Quoted message said:

Values of everything exlude off road, but most other things, including
light touring.

I think there is requirement for a minimum of five bikes:
1) fast light road
2) folding
3) fixed
4) recumbent
5) tandem
+
6) MTB if that's your thing

I'm up to 3/5 already (plus assorted others). Obviously there must be a
market for a S&S coupled titanium folding fixed wheel recumbent,
although I'm unaware of such a beast.

But there certainly exist fast performance 'bents (actually quite light
too, these days, look at the Challenge SLs and M5 titanium models, for
example) and 'bent tandems. Some folders too, though not much to write
home about yet.

Recumbent is simply not a useful category for a bike. It is a
description of the seating position. Something like "fixer" implies all
sorts of things beyond a fixed gear: you wouldn't make a Raleigh 20 or
RSW16 a fixer, for example. Not the case with recumbents. I don't see
any particular reason a 'bent would be in a must have list unless it was
functionally the right thing for a certain job. The one I ride is
because it's an excellent tourer and I wanted an excellent touring bike.
The fact that it's a recumbent is really a side issue to it being a
tourer with ride characteristics I liked more than anything else. And
so it should be with any recumbent.

Your must have list seems to be lacking a unicycle and a good freight
machine, btw... ;-)

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 06/20/2005 10:30:21 'daren said:

Thanks for all the comments,

Quoted message said:

If you want weight, I'll see your recumbent and raise you a tandem - "The
Flying Banana" kiddyback tandem weighs about 30kg (without the kid on the
back). You can see why I'm after something a little lighter. Incidenly
that's about 10kg heavier than the stripped down Dawes Super Galaxy Tandem
I'll be selling soon. My Poyner fixed gear weighs about 8kg, and I'd like
something with gears that's about that heavy (and more relaxing geometry).

Quoted message said:

A recumbent is planned for 2007, and I expect it to have three wheels.
Right now I want an upright very light fast do just about everything bike.
The lean towards Airbourne is getting stronger.

Quoted message said:

Arthur what is the "real world" weight difference between the Valkyrie and
your Zepplin? Did your friend's bike still have that "light feel"?

Quoted message said:

regards, daren

Give in to the dark side, search your feelings.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Touring - that'll be under accessories (Yak/BOB/Burley). Carrying my
kids on the tandem sometimes feels like freight :-)
...d2

daren <[email hidden]> wrote:

: Arthur what is the "real world" weight difference between the Valkyrie
: and your Zepplin? Did your friend's bike still have that "light feel"?

It's a fair bit, but his has mudguards, a larger bag, touring wheels and
chunky tyres on.

I suspect that if you removed the 'guards and put light tyres and wheels on
the difference would be not noticable.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

Actually (see meaningless words)... Raleigh 20's make great fixers :-)
Q Sheldon...

<\url http://sheldonbrown.org/raleigh-twenty.html#r20folderfixed>

I believe he has a fixed Moulton, which must trump a RSW16 anyday.

As for trying in advance...I tried an ice and liked it. I also like the
fact that you can't fall off after 400km. Mind you I can't really think
of a bike I tried and didn't like (except perhaps a Moulton Mini).

You have to specify years in advance when leaving propaganda around for
the financial director. Those without kids won't understand the subtle
pecking order that bike expenditure comes under. Sadly food, clothes,
shoes, Star Wars toys etc seem to be far above new capital expediture.

We do however have a KMX fund for the boys :-)

regards,
daren

When I pick up a bike I tend to have a preconceived idea of what it
should weigh. Something that is less, I would term "light". I had to
hold down a litespeed blade yesterday as we stopped in on a TT.

Anything under 20lbs for a road is light to me. Under 17lbs for a road
going track bike with tubs. Under 20 kilos isn't bad for a tandem :-)

Thanks,
d.

in message <[email hidden]>, daren

(') said:

I'm holding out for a <\url http://www.ice.hpv.co.uk/trikes_s.htm> for
my "40th-time-for-a-sportscar" moment. Fast and long distance, but not
really sociable, as you say. I don't want my friends looking down on
me more than they do already :-)

Values of everything exlude off road, but most other things, including
light touring.

I think there is requirement for a minimum of five bikes:
1) fast light road
2) folding
3) fixed
4) recumbent
5) tandem
+
6) MTB if that's your thing

Uh-uh.

6) Light full suspension mountain bike for long off road trips or lots
of technical stuff
7) Hard tail for climbing as fast as possible while retaining some
technical ability
8) Rigid (and possibly single-speed) bike for high speed on less
demanding cross-country routes (straight or drop bars to preference)
9) Ultra-strong full suspension bike for downhill loonies

And that's just for starters. Six bikes? Pshaw.

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

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

daren said:

Dear all,

The finance director has approved the purchase of a new bike (conditional
on asset disposal - one of the tandems is going). This will be my "do it
all, fab bike(TM)", mainly for audax/long comfy fast rides and a pointer
towards a SR series next year. it will replace an aged road bike (531ST
frame) and a commuter (531 MTB with drops).

I have narrowed down to three choices and you will see that they fall into
three (distinct) flavours:
Roberts Compact Audax (Nivacrom steel poss S&S, Veloce, Mavic Kysrium)
Specialized Roubaix (Carbon fibre, 105/Ultegra, Bontranger mix) Airbourne
Valkyrie (Titanium as per Roberts)

frame weights are about 4.5, 3 and 3.5 lbs respectively. Budget is (ahem)
as near to 1500 as possible.

Pros:
Roberts: Cachet, custom, lovely paint jobs, S&S option (but +400!)
Specialized: Weight, damping, fab reviews, can test ride Airbourne:
Weight, Titanium, last forever, can return if don't like

Cons:
Roberts: Weight, can't test ride, delivery time. Specialized: dropped
frame (£700), no lugs for frame/guards. Airbourne: Can't think of any
other than frame decals :-)

I have discounted other steel makers because I don't believe they offer
anything over Roberts. For fully custom, all three would have the same
frame geometry, just different materials. All things being equal the
Roberts would weigh about 1.5lbs more. The Compact audax in Roberts shop
comes out at about 22.5lbs which is too much. To get the weight down would
require serious additional spend (wheels and CF seatpost) making it about
2000.

I have an aquaintance who has both a Roberts CA and an Aluminium
Specialized Roubaix. He has more or less stopped riding the Roberts on the
grounds that the Roubaix is so light and fast but just as comfy. This has
lead me down the Airbourne route, which I think will offer both.

I'd like a final bike that is sub 20lbs, can take a Tubus Fly rack and
guards (I'd accept SKS race blades if these are deemed a reasonable
compromise for our climate) and is comfy and fast. I am absolutely average
proportions 5' 10.5", 70kg and normally proportioned. Size will be a 56cm
(level) top tube and I like bars 1" below saddle. Saddle will be Brookes
B17 Ti so need to keep other bits reasonably light :-)

Luggage is Nelson Longflap but may use a rack bag with the Fly rack or
panniers for light touring.

Comments please?

"Where choice begins, paradise ends..." Arthur Miller

regards,
Daren

Am I the only one who loves my Softride??? Fits all the above, and sooooo
comfortable.

Steve