Which Bike?

"Simon Dean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As I've said earlier though, im just a little put off by the 700c tyres of
hybrids. I just get concerned in case I decide to do anything out of the
ordinary. I live in Hall Green, Birmingham. There's a few smallish hills,
but lots of parkland, rivers, some mud and dirt tracks and things. I'm not
sure if there are any cycle paths or anything, but I do envisage some sort
of uneven, bumpy ground, with some protruding stones, slight hills and
river crossings are a distinct possibility.

At your level of porkiness I doubt that you could abuse tyres as much as my
porkiness plus a full camping set up on tyres ranging from 700c x 23 through
to 700c x 32 on surfaces ranging from top quality tarmacadam to the
sometimes pot holed, cinder/mashed rubble that formed some of the C2C cycle
route. You'd be surprised at how resilient and forgiving tyres can be.

Quoted message said:

Sincerely hoping therefore that those tyres on a hybrid would be suitable,
because I don't see that you can change them for anything chunkier if
needs be.

You could probably fit cyclo cross tyres if you want a gripper tyre in
muddy conditions.

Quoted message said:

I am put off by the thought that the hybrid could be limiting to what I
might want to do. And Im also not necessarily put out by the thought that
a MTB is going to be more cumbersome.

A hybrid/city bike will not limit your aspirations. MTBs aren't necessarily
more cumbersome they just aren't as suited to your planned activities.

Quoted message said:

But I understand vernon says that hybrid tyres will be fine, and he uses
his for what I have in mind. So. fair enough. Decision made :-)

Today, for instance, I was riding a road bike on a 100km Audax. I have 700c
x 25 road tyres fitted. Some of the ride (4-5km) was on a byway with loose
gravel forming its surface and a further 5-6km was unmettalled cyclepath.
Most of the bikes that I spotted were fitted with road or touring tyres
including the handful of hybrids. There was one full blown mountain bike
and that had slicks fitted.I had no qualms about my 'skinny' tyres coping.
I might try my hybrid on a 100km Audax I've ridden it to Darlington a few
times and that's around 8km short of 100km.

Go for it and enjoy. You'll probably always have doubtsb about the wisdom
of your purchase and that will lead to the next stage of bike ownership -
multiple bike ownership :-)

HTH

-=V=-

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

vernon said:

A lot of your friends are likely to have only ridden mountain
bikes and have not experienced any of the alternative choices. A
hybrid will meet your needs perfectly.

Just to put one issue to bed if I may, if we were back 12 years
ago, with the MTB designs from back then, where there were solid
forks, V Brakes, straight(er) frames, and smaller tyres, would an
MTB have been the perfect choice in that situation?

No. The MTBs of twelve years ago were mainly (with some wonderful
exceptions) gas-pipe specials, much heavier than they needed to be;
and their geometry was not adapted to road use.

Geometry? Is that the tubular angles? I always preferred that straight
bar on the top. But if those weren't any good for road use, Im at a loss
again. I found that bike then perfectly adequate to my needs for the
things I wanted to do.

That's why I was thinking of a similar MTB to replace it, because I do
not like breaking the mould so to speak, and I do enjoy breeding with
contempt. (familiarity breeds)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Im just trying to figure out what's changed and why they had to
mess with a good product. I have a lot of nostalgia!

I've ridden gas-pipe specials up (and down) mountains. It's feasible,
but it's hard work, and there will be lots of sections you can't ride
so you either have to run pushing the bike or stick it on your
shoulder ina cyclocross stylee. My fairly modern full suspension
mountain bike is much lighter, has better traction, better
transmission, better handling, and consequently is fairly easy to
ride through sections and up slopes which would be impossible for
someone of my skill on a gaspipe special.

Modern mountain bikes are genuinely very, very good - at this kind of
thing:
7stanes.gov.uk7stanes2.wmvOpen ↗
(this is my local track). If you want to do this:
http://www.7stanes.gov.uk/multimedia/killo1.wmv/$file/killo1.wmv (my
favourite track) you need a mountain bike. If you don't, you don't.

That looks like good fun actually. I probably wouldn't want to do the
boulder and rocky bits, but the gravelly muddy bit would be my kind of
thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the risk of repeating myself too many times: A hybrid, a
hybrid, a hybrid, a hybrid, a hybrid, a hybrid will do the job.

:-)

A hybrid you reckon then? :-)

Yup.

Thanks

Simon

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Rob Morley

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Rob
Morley ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

> Except that a single-chainring setup has a worse chainline in the
> low and high gears than a double or triple.

People who are new to cycling frequently spend a great deal of time
either in small-small or large-large combinations, because they don't
understand about chainline. Nothing on a single chainring setup is
anywhere near as bad as large-large or small-small.

The laat time I looked, new bikes came with a manual that told you how
to use the gears.

Yup. Which gets chucked either in the bin or the back of the filing
cabinet. Watch 'ordinary' cyclists actually cycling, and observe how
often you see small-small or large-large combinations. I pretty much
guarantee that, on an ordinary street, a third of the cyclists you see
will be in one or the other.

That doesn't alter the fact that the chainline is worse in low and high
gears for a single ring bike than one with double or triple rings.

in message <[email hidden]>, Simon Dean

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

No. The MTBs of twelve years ago were mainly (with some wonderful
exceptions) gas-pipe specials, much heavier than they needed to be;
and their geometry was not adapted to road use.

Geometry? Is that the tubular angles? I always preferred that straight
bar on the top. But if those weren't any good for road use, Im at a
loss again. I found that bike then perfectly adequate to my needs for
the things I wanted to do.

The sloping top tube is partly to protect your balls when you come off
(which, on a mountain bike, is frequently), and partly because, with
modern seatposts being stronger, a 'compact' (sloping top tube) frame
will fit more different sizes of people, so the manufacturers can make
fewer sizes of frame.

The differences that make a difference on a mountain bike frame are that
the seat and head tube angles are 'slacker' (less vertical) leading to a
bike which is not as sensitive in its steering, and that the bottom
bracket is typically higher off the ground, making it more difficult to
get a foot down.

Quoted message said:

That's why I was thinking of a similar MTB to replace it, because I do
not like breaking the mould so to speak, and I do enjoy breeding with
contempt. (familiarity breeds)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Im just trying to figure out what's changed and why they had to
mess with a good product. I have a lot of nostalgia!

Modern mountain bikes are genuinely very, very good - at this kind of
thing:
7stanes.gov.uk7stanes2.wmvOpen ↗
(this is my local track). If you want to do this:
http://www.7stanes.gov.uk/multimedia/killo1.wmv/$file/killo1.wmv (my
favourite track) you need a mountain bike. If you don't, you don't.

That looks like good fun actually. I probably wouldn't want to do the
boulder and rocky bits, but the gravelly muddy bit would be my kind of
thing.

It is fun, believe me.

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

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Simon Dean (') said:

Quoted message said:

A friends suggested about getting an MTB and just fitting
smaller tires, which I figure might give me some flexibility
in case I did change my mind?

Quoted message said:

People who don't know much about bikes do frequently suggest this
sort of nonsense.

Edinburgh Bicycle Co-op
Cycling Plus magazine
What Mountainbike magazine

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/news/reviews/edin_courier.html

All of the above recommend the Edinburgh Revolution Courier as practical
urban transport. The Edinburgh Revolution Courier is a rigid mountainbike
(that uses the same frame as the Cuillin mountain bike from the same stable)
with slick tyres and a reduced range of gears.

James Thomson

"Simon Dean" <[email hidden]> a écrit:

Quoted message said:

Just to put one issue to bed if I may, if we were back 12 years ago, with
the MTB designs from back then, where there were solid forks,
V Brakes, straight(er) frames, and smaller tyres, would an MTB have
been the perfect choice in that situation?

Quoted message said:

Im just trying to figure out what's changed and why they had to
mess with a good product. I have a lot of nostalgia!

For my money, the better rigid mountain bikes of the early-mid nineties were
among the most versatile, useful bikes ever made, and probably perfect for
your requirements today. My own two most regular rides are a 1992
Specialized Stumpjumper and a 1994 Kona Kilauea.

The problem is that fashions in mountain biking have led designs in a more
extreme direction. Modern frames are normally designed for long travel
suspension forks and disk brakes, neither of which will be of benefit to
you. The good news is that some of the bikes now being sold as hybrids have
a lot in common with the bikes you got on well with a dozen years ago,
including geometry, and in some cases 26" wheels.

Look at the Sub range from Scott:

http://www.scottusa.com/product.php?UID=7538

The Edinburgh Revolution Courier:

http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=22732

The Marin Urban range:

http://www.marinbikes.com/bicycles_2006/html/bikes/bike_specs/specs_muirwoods.html

You'll have to research UK prices.

On your budget, I'd personally be looking for a mid-nineties rigid
Specialized Rockhopper, Kona Lava Dome or Cinder Cone, Trek 950, Marin Pine
Mountain or similar. You know you got on well with this kind of bike in the
past, and there's no reason you shouldn't again.

James Thomson

In article said:

vernon said:

"Simon Dean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

A friends suggested about getting an MTB and just fitting smaller
tires, which I figure might give me some flexibility in case I did
change my mind?

A lot of your friends are likely to have only ridden mountain bikes
and have not experienced any of the alternative choices. A hybrid
will meet your needs perfectly.

Just to put one issue to bed if I may, if we were back 12 years ago,
with the MTB designs from back then, where there were solid forks, V
Brakes, straight(er) frames, and smaller tyres, would an MTB have been
the perfect choice in that situation?

Im just trying to figure out what's changed and why they had to mess
with a good product. I have a lot of nostalgia!

Largely, mountain bikes have got more specialized, so something that
might have been labelled a mountain bike 12 years ago is now more
likely to be seen as a hybrid in between a road bike and a "proper"
mountain bike. But even then a mountain bike probably wasn't _perfect_
for what you describe, even if it did a perfectly adequate job.
I'm sure if you did buy a hardtail mountain bike and put some thinner
slick tyres on it, it would do the job. But a hybrid would do it better.

But if you think you might want to play off-road too and don't want to buy
another bike for that, then the slick tyred mountain bike might be a better
buy after all.

(It must be about 15 years since my sister and I had a conversation that
went: "I've just bought a new bike". "Is it a mountain bike?"
"No". "Why not?" "Because there are no mountains in Cambridge".
"But mountain bikes are trendy". "That was the other good reason for not
buying one".)

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

vernon said:

"Simon Dean" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

>A friends suggested about getting an MTB and just fitting smaller
>tires, which I figure might give me some flexibility in case I did
>change my mind?

A lot of your friends are likely to have only ridden mountain bikes
and have not experienced any of the alternative choices. A hybrid
will meet your needs perfectly.

Just to put one issue to bed if I may, if we were back 12 years ago,
with the MTB designs from back then, where there were solid forks, V
Brakes, straight(er) frames, and smaller tyres, would an MTB have been
the perfect choice in that situation?

Im just trying to figure out what's changed and why they had to mess
with a good product. I have a lot of nostalgia!

Largely, mountain bikes have got more specialized, so something that
might have been labelled a mountain bike 12 years ago is now more
likely to be seen as a hybrid in between a road bike and a "proper"
mountain bike. But even then a mountain bike probably wasn't _perfect_
for what you describe, even if it did a perfectly adequate job.
I'm sure if you did buy a hardtail mountain bike and put some thinner
slick tyres on it, it would do the job. But a hybrid would do it better.

Why did you have to go and confuse me again!

So Hybrids are closer to what Mountain Bikes were 10 years ago than
Mountain Bikes are today? MTB's have evolved and more focused towards
Mountains and Hybrids have plugged the gap.

I must say, there's too many styles.

Road, Road Race, Urban, Hybrid, Town and Country, XC, Comfort, Mountain
and more in between! I think I've even seen Street bikes.

Quoted message said:

But if you think you might want to play off-road too and don't want to buy
another bike for that, then the slick tyred mountain bike might be a better
buy after all.

Eek.

It strikes me that there's a probable better selection of tyres in the
26" variety over the 700c variety.

Quoted message said:

(It must be about 15 years since my sister and I had a conversation that
went: "I've just bought a new bike". "Is it a mountain bike?"
"No". "Why not?" "Because there are no mountains in Cambridge".
"But mountain bikes are trendy". "That was the other good reason for not
buying one".)

Heh good conversation. Let me just say, I drive a Nissan! But in terms
of adequacy, it's not perfect, but it does it's job spectacularly well
and is suitable for my needs.

I'll most likely almost definitely probably possibly potentially :-)
buying a Hybrid. Just, can someone point me in the direction of tyres,
in case I need to get something a bit meatier?

Cheers
Simon

Simon Dean said:

I'll most likely almost definitely probably possibly potentially :-)
buying a Hybrid. Just, can someone point me in the direction of tyres,
in case I need to get something a bit meatier?

Depends what you want - Specialized Armadillos are pretty good (I use them)
and you can get them in up to a 38mm width if you want a fairly wide tyre.
Or if you are going more off-road you might want to look at a cyclo-cross
tyre like that Specialized Borough CX (which doesn't look too knobbly for
general use).

Also remember you don't have to have the same width tyre front and back
or even the same type. You can have a wider tyre with a bit more tread
pattern on front and a narrower, slicker tyre on the back.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Simon Dean said:

I'll most likely almost definitely probably possibly potentially :-)
buying a Hybrid. Just, can someone point me in the direction of tyres,
in case I need to get something a bit meatier?

www.wiggle.co.uk

~PB