Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700

Hi Folks,

I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be
doing my first century on this. I like these hybrids because
I think the geometry and handlebar setups are more
comfortable for me.

Could somebody help me to compare the components between
these two bikes?

http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/c...del-4HS1Y.html

http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/7700.jsp

I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to
switch it out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could
lock it out on the fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice
Ultra does that). I mostly ride on the road, but I think I
want the front suspension.

I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one
has a larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the
rear cassette and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair
assessment?

I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you
can't lock out the front suspension. Any opinions about
these component sets or the bikes in general?

Thanks,

Warren

In article
<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>,
warrenginn@erols.com says...
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be
> doing my first century on this. I like these hybrids
> because I think the geometry and handlebar setups are more
> comfortable for me.
>
> Could somebody help me to compare the components between
> these two bikes?
>
> http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/c...del-4HS1Y.html
>
> http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/7700.jsp
>
> I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want
> to switch it out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I
> could lock it out on the fly (I don't think the HeadShok
> Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride on the road, but I
> think I want the front suspension.

Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go
on moderately rough trails as well?

> I think that the gearing is about the same on both since
> one has a larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range
> in the rear cassette and vise vera on the other. Is this a
> fair assessment?

No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's
granny is MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem
like a lot of difference, but believe me, it is if you have
many steep hills, or take it off road.

The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.

> I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that
> you can't lock out the front suspension. Any opinions
> about these component sets or the bikes in general?

The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower
gearing and much larger tires. With the fat tires, you
probably wouldn't need the front susp at all, unless you are
taking it on trails.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.1ae75c1c2b5d54c89896c4@news.east.cox.net>...
> In article
> <27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>,
> warrenginn@erols.com says...
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be
> > doing my first century on this. I like these hybrids
> > because I think the geometry and handlebar setups are
> > more comfortable for me.
> >
> > Could somebody help me to compare the components between
> > these two bikes?
> >
> > http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/c...del-4HS1Y.html
> >
> > http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/7700.jsp
> >
> > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would
> > want to switch it out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra
> > DL so I could lock it out on the fly (I don't think the
> > HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride on the
> > road, but I think I want the front suspension.
>
> Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go
> on moderately rough trails as well?
>
>
> > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since
> > one has a larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range
> > in the rear cassette and vise vera on the other. Is this
> > a fair assessment?
>
> No. They both have about the same high gear, but the
> Trek's granny is MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may
> not seem like a lot of difference, but believe me, it is
> if you have many steep hills, or take it off road.
>
> The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
>
>
> > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that
> > you can't lock out the front suspension. Any opinions
> > about these component sets or the bikes in general?
>
> The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower
> gearing and much larger tires. With the fat tires, you
> probably wouldn't need the front susp at all, unless you
> are taking it on trails.

Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the
roads are terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I want
a more rugged bike than what I see as a traditional road
bike with skinny rims and a slight frame. Even if it cost me
a little speed. I have a 15 year old Giant Iguana that I use
on tours now and there's no suspension, but I can keep pace
with the B riders at a solid 13-14 mph avs.

I just want to move into something a little better for the
road, but I don't want the skinny tires and drop handle
bars. I'm always seeing the guys who race past me on their
high-end road bikes a few miles futher doen the road
changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. As for the
drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks
like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of
different hand positions and plenty of control. I'm just not
a "tucked in" as someone on a traditional road bike.

Thanks for the advice.

Warren

"Warren Ginn" <warrenginn@erols.com> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com...
> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1ae75c1c2b5d54c89896c4@news.east.cox.net>...
> > In article
> > <27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>,
> > warrenginn@erols.com says...
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would
> > > be doing my first century on this. I like these
> > > hybrids because I think the geometry and handlebar
> > > setups are more comfortable for me.
> > >
> > > Could somebody help me to compare the components
> > > between these two bikes?
> > >
> > > http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/cusa/model-
> > > 4HS1Y.html
> > >
> > > http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/7700.jsp
> > >
> > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would
> > > want to switch it out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra
> > > DL so I could lock it out on the fly (I don't think
> > > the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride on
> > > the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> >
> > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally
> > go on moderately rough trails as well?
> >
> >
> > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both
> > > since one has a larger 3-gear front chainring but
> > > lesser range in the rear cassette and vise vera on the
> > > other. Is this a fair assessment?
> >
> > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the
> > Trek's granny is MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That
> > may not seem like a lot of difference, but believe me,
> > it is if you have many steep hills, or take it off road.
> >
> > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> >
> >
> > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact
> > > that you can't lock out the front suspension. Any
> > > opinions about these component sets or the bikes in
> > > general?
> >
> > The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower
> > gearing and much larger tires. With the fat tires, you
> > probably wouldn't need the front susp at all, unless you
> > are taking it on trails.
>
> Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the
> roads are terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I
> want a more rugged bike than what I see as a traditional
> road bike with skinny rims and a slight frame. Even if it
> cost me a little speed. I have a 15 year old Giant Iguana
> that I use on tours now and there's no suspension, but I
> can keep pace with the B riders at a solid 13-14 mph avs.
>
> I just want to move into something a little better for the
> road, but I don't want the skinny tires and drop handle
> bars. I'm always seeing the guys who race past me on their
> high-end road bikes a few miles futher doen the road
> changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. As for the
> drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks
> like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of
> different hand positions and plenty of control. I'm just
> not a "tucked in" as someone on a traditional road bike.

Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a
cyclocross bike. Why? Because they do everything you want
them to do. They have enough clearance for big tires
(knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll
see). Touring and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many
ways, which is why I group them together. However, some "CX"
(cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific. The touring bike
will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have
"slack" geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride
quality. Cyclocross bikes will probably have 32c knobby
tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll feel more like a
road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
(which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-
weather commuting, training, etc.)

Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes,
including Fuji, Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and
others. Prices are all over the map; but you should be able
to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek 520 touring
is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want
something lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better
choice. Test ride a few, and see if they work for you.

Cheers,

Rocketman

In article
<27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com>,
warrenginn@erols.com says...

...

>
> > The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower
> > gearing and much larger tires. With the fat tires, you
> > probably wouldn't need the front susp at all, unless you
> > are taking it on trails.
>
> Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the
> roads are terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I
> want a more rugged bike than what I see as a traditional
> road bike with skinny rims and a slight frame. Even if it
> cost me a little speed. I have a 15 year old Giant Iguana
> that I use on tours now and there's no suspension, but I
> can keep pace with the B riders at a solid 13-14 mph avs.
>
> I just want to move into something a little better for the
> road, but I don't want the skinny tires and drop handle
> bars. I'm always seeing the guys who race past me on their
> high-end road bikes a few miles futher doen the road
> changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. As for the
> drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks
> like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of
> different hand positions and plenty of control. I'm just
> not a "tucked in" as someone on a traditional road bike.

The C-Dale's 25mm tires are pretty skinny to be using on
rough roads, though with the suspension it might work ok,
but tires are easy to change anyway, as long as it will
take the size you want to use. It sounds like the Trek
might fit your needs just a bit better, since you know it
will take the tires. You probably won't be using the low
gears, though.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

"Rocketman" <rocketman@bikerider.com> wrote in message news:<tpnfc.135872$gA5.1600658@attbi_s03>...
> "Warren Ginn" <warrenginn@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com...
> > David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1ae75c1c2b5d54c89896c4@news.east.cox.net>...
> > > In article
> > > <27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>,
> > > warrenginn@erols.com says...
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I
> > > > would be doing my first century on this. I like
> > > > these hybrids because I think the geometry and
> > > > handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > > >
> > > > Could somebody help me to compare the components
> > > > between these two bikes?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/04/cusa/model-
> > > > 4HS1Y.html
> > > >
> > > > http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2004/citybike/7700.j-
> > > > sp
> > > >
> > > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would
> > > > want to switch it out for a HeadShok Super Fatty
> > > > Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the fly (I don't
> > > > think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly
> > > > ride on the road, but I think I want the front
> > > > suspension.
> > >
> > > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you
> > > occasionally go on moderately rough trails as well?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both
> > > > since one has a larger 3-gear front chainring but
> > > > lesser range in the rear cassette and vise vera on
> > > > the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> > >
> > > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the
> > > Trek's granny is MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That
> > > may not seem like a lot of difference, but believe me,
> > > it is if you have many steep hills, or take it off
> > > road.
> > >
> > > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact
> > > > that you can't lock out the front suspension. Any
> > > > opinions about these component sets or the bikes in
> > > > general?
> > >
> > > The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its
> > > lower gearing and much larger tires. With the fat
> > > tires, you probably wouldn't need the front susp at
> > > all, unless you are taking it on trails.
> >
> > Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the
> > roads are terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I
> > want a more rugged bike than what I see as a traditional
> > road bike with skinny rims and a slight frame. Even if
> > it cost me a little speed. I have a 15 year old Giant
> > Iguana that I use on tours now and there's no
> > suspension, but I can keep pace with the B riders at a
> > solid 13-14 mph avs.
> >
> > I just want to move into something a little better for
> > the road, but I don't want the skinny tires and drop
> > handle bars. I'm always seeing the guys who race past me
> > on their high-end road bikes a few miles futher doen the
> > road changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. As
> > for the drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar
> > which looks like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip
> > with lots of different hand positions and plenty of
> > control. I'm just not a "tucked in" as someone on a
> > traditional road bike.
>
> Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a
> cyclocross bike. Why? Because they do everything you want
> them to do. They have enough clearance for big tires
> (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop
> handlebars, which gives you much better top speeds (try
> 'em and you'll see). Touring and cyclocross bikes are very
> similar, in many ways, which is why I group them together.
> However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-
> specific. The touring bike will have a longer frame, to
> give your heels clearance when the rear rack is fully
> loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack" geometry,
> which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross
> bikes will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly
> racy geometry. They'll feel more like a road-racing bike;
> but may also have rack and fender mounts (which I highly
> recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
> training, etc.)
>
> Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross
> bikes, including Fuji, Giant, Cannondale, Trek,
> Specialized and others. Prices are all over the map; but
> you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000.
> The Trek 520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring
> bike. If you want something lighter, a cyclocross bike
> might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and see if they
> work for you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocketman

Thanks, Rocketman. I'll take a look.

Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop
bars? My perception is that the weight distribution for drop
bars is like you're doing "push-ups" while riding whereas
using bars that place more weight on the seat like the ones
I use keep me from placing too much stress on my shoulders
in exchange for possibly a sore butt on long rides. Is this
your impression?

Warren

Warren Ginn <warrenginn@erols.com> wrote in message
27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com
> David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1ae75c1c2b5d54c89896c4@news.east.cox.net>...

[...]

>> The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower
>> gearing and much larger tires. With the fat tires, you
>> probably wouldn't need the front susp at all, unless you
>> are taking it on trails.
>
> Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the
> roads are terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I
> want a more rugged bike than what I see as a traditional
> road bike with skinny rims and a slight frame.

You're talking yourself into the Trek. That it comes with
700x35 tyres says its got wider and stronger rims than
the Cannondale (it's got more spokes, too). I don't agree
in the slightest that the Trek is somehow off-road
oriented, though. It's very similar to my Shogun hybrid
which came with 700x38 tyres and "double-strength" rims.
My tyres are Cheng Shin OEM rubbish which hopefully are
going to be replaced next pay, but the point is they're
not "off-road" in any way, shape or form. They're just
bloody wide and heavy.

Both the Trek (48/38/28) and the Cannondale (52/42/30) have
bigger front rings than mine (44/32/22) so they're both
clearly aimed at touring rather than the dirt. The closest
I'd ever take my hybrid to "off-road" is the gravel bike
path around the lake near where I live and I can't see these
two being any different.

Make sure you ride both and fiddle with the suspension
settings. I have my suspension play almost down to nil
because otherwise anytime I want to get some power going
(like taking off at the lights) the front end bobs up and
down a lot. Suspension without good damping is basically
just dead weight, which means low end suspensions aren't
worth crap (which means I'm considering junking mine).

[...]

> I just want to move into something a little better for the
> road, but I don't want the skinny tires and drop handle
> bars. I'm always seeing the guys who race past me on their
> high-end road bikes a few miles futher doen the road
> changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. As for the
> drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks
> like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of
> different hand positions and plenty of control. I'm just
> not a "tucked in" as someone on a traditional road bike.

I replaced the riser bar with a flat MTB bar and added Spinacci-
style clip-on mini-aero bars, so I have the upright town
position and a pseudo-tuck position for the open road. I
reckon it's the best of both worlds for what I do.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

In article
<27f93351.0404150545.486e92e8@posting.google.com>,
warrenginn@erols.com says...

...

> Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop
> bars? My perception is that the weight distribution for
> drop bars is like you're doing "push-ups" while riding
> whereas using bars that place more weight on the seat like
> the ones I use keep me from placing too much stress on my
> shoulders in exchange for possibly a sore butt on long
> rides. Is this your impression?

I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many
different hand positions that drop bars give me, whether or
not I use the drops to get down out of the wind (though that
certainly helps in many situations).

I also second his suggestion that you at least consider
touring bikes. They usually don't have suspensions, but
they do have longer wheel bases and will accept larger
tires, both of which make the ride more comfortable on
rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with
32mm tires, with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35 or
38, though I haven't tried). It has drop bars, but they are
mounted up fairly high (even with the seat by default), and
has a threaded stem, so it's easy to raise them up even
more if you want.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).

"Warren Ginn" <warrenginn@erols.com> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com...
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be
> doing my first century on this. I like these hybrids
> because I think the geometry and handlebar setups are more
> comfortable for me.

IMVAIO these are not good choices for a century ride. There
are several road bikes available with the handlebar set-ups
that would meet your desires.

In the $1000 range, look at the Trek-Lemond Wayzata, and the
Motobecane Cafe Noir. Both of these bicycles have chro-moly
frames, while both of the models you mentioned are aluminum.
Even the Motobocane Café Latte is a better choice than the
Trek or Cannondale.

You may want to add a headset extender (or Speedlifter), for
a more upright position.

Suspension is unnecessary on road bikes, especially on
century rides.

Personally, I'd spend the $1000 on one Motobocane Café Latte
($550) or Bianchi Brava ($510), and one KHS Crest ST 2003
($400). You'll get two mid-range bicycles, each well-suited
to its particular purpose, rather than one hybrid which is
not well suited for either century rides or for off-road.

Steve http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec/

warrenginn@erols.com (Warren Ginn) wrote in message news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>...
> I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that
> you can't lock out the front suspension. Any opinions
> about these component sets or the bikes in general?
>
>
I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700
for the last few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike, but
as has been pointed out by others, it's not a road bike. If
speed's your thing, this isn't your bike. Its weight will
keep you from the head of the pack. But with the Kevlar
belted wide tires, light suspension fork and wide gearing,
you'll be able to go places no roadie would ever tread. This
isn't meant as a "my bike is better than your bike" rant,
just my opinion. One thing that I did get rid of on the 7700
was the suspension seat post. Just didn't seem necessary.
Good luck, Art

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ae862a4ba56ced19896c6@news.east.cox.net...
> In article
> <27f93351.0404150545.486e92e8@posting.google.com>,
> warrenginn@erols.com says...
>
> ...
>
> > Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop
> > bars? My perception is that the weight distribution for
> > drop bars is like you're doing "push-ups" while riding
> > whereas using bars that place more weight on the seat
> > like the ones I use keep me from placing too much stress
> > on my shoulders in exchange for possibly a sore butt on
> > long rides. Is this your impression?
>
> I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many
> different hand positions that drop bars give me, whether
> or not I use the drops to get down out of the wind (though
> that certainly helps in many situations).
>
> I also second his suggestion that you at least consider
> touring bikes. They usually don't have suspensions, but
> they do have longer wheel bases and will accept larger
> tires, both of which make the ride more comfortable on
> rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
> aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with
> 32mm tires, with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35
> or 38, though I haven't tried). It has drop bars, but they
> are mounted up fairly high (even with the seat by
> default), and has a threaded stem, so it's easy to raise
> them up even more if you want.

Exactly. David has made a good point which addresses your
concerns about handlebar height. *Any* bike - road, MTB, you
name it - can have higher handlebars if you want them. I
ride my road racing bike with the top of the handlebars even
with the top of the saddle. That's about 3" higher than most
"racer" handlebar positions. Does it affect my speed? Not
that you'd notice. But what it does do is help distribute
more weight off of my hands, and gets my head up higher,
with less neck and back strain. For my aging body, that's
just what the doctor ordered.

I also have a new "commuter" bike (essentially, a
cyclocross/touring bike with sloping top tube and MTB-style
handelbars) that is a lot of fun. It will be my loaded
touring bike this summer. It's not nearly as fast as my road
bike, despite being fairly light, and having road bike
wheels and skinny-ish tires. Why is it slow? The wide, flat
handlebars put me in a more upright riding position, and I
catch too much wind. Plus, the more "open" riding position
(not "tucked") is less powerful. Try it and you'll see what
I mean. There's a reason why road racing bikes are designed
the way that they are, and not longer and lower to "open up"
the riding position. I've ridden "open position" lowracer
recumbents, and I couldn't develop the same kind of speed
that I can on an upright road racing bike - even with the
huge aero advantage of the lowracer design (almost lying
flat on your back, pedals out front).

Hope this is helpful info. Best of luck choosing your new
bike. Try everything you can, and buy the one that feels
right. Don't look at the price tags. Quality, fit and
service are remembered long after price is forgotten.

Rocketman

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:Ylxfc.11565$A_4.6135@newsread1.....earthlink.net...
> "Warren Ginn" <warrenginn@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com...
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be
> > doing my first century on this. I like these hybrids
> > because I think the geometry and handlebar setups are
> > more comfortable for me.
>
> IMVAIO these are not good choices for a century ride.
> There are several
road
> bikes available with the handlebar set-ups that would meet
> your desires.
>
> In the $1000 range, look at the Trek-Lemond Wayzata, and
> the Motobecane
Cafe
> Noir. Both of these bicycles have chro-moly frames, while
> both of the
models
> you mentioned are aluminum. Even the Motobocane Café Latte
> is a better choice than the Trek or Cannondale.
>
> You may want to add a headset extender (or Speedlifter),
> for a more
upright
> position.
>
> Suspension is unnecessary on road bikes, especially on
> century rides.
>
> Personally, I'd spend the $1000 on one Motobocane Café
> Latte ($550) or Bianchi Brava ($510), and one KHS Crest ST
> 2003 ($400). You'll get two mid-range bicycles, each well-
> suited to its particular purpose, rather
than
> one hybrid which is not well suited for either century
> rides or for off-road.
>
> Steve http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec/

Well said, Steve. Personally, I'm not in favor of the "cafe
racer" road bikes with flat handlebars. I have one, well
actually two, of them that I built up from old road frames.
They work fine for commuting; but they're neither here nor
there. Road bikes are great because they're light and aero.
Hybrids are great because they're decently fast, can carry
loads, accept fenders and racks, and are sturdy and built
for rough roads and rough service. They are *not* fast,
however - even the slick ones like the Trek 7500FX or 7700FX
(which are beautiful bikes nonetheless...) Take the same
rider and put 'em on a real road bike (like the Bianchi
Brava - and excellent value BTW) and that hybrid rider will
gain noticeable top speed. There are reasons for it. Weight
is part of the equation; but there's much more to it than
weight, of course. Light wheels, skinny tires, closed riding
position, aero advantage, short chainstays - all of that and
more contribute to efficient, fast riding.

There's nothing like a real road racing bike. I recommend
the Bianchi Brava unconditionally as an excellent value (I
own one of those, too...) It won't hold you back in any way,
and I think they still put fender and rack eyelets on 'em.

Cheers,

Rocketman

agonzz328@yahoo.com (Art) wrote in message news:<bbd762a7.0404151702.24d391ae@posting.google.com>...
> warrenginn@erols.com (Warren Ginn) wrote in message
> news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.com>...
> > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that
> > you can't lock out the front suspension. Any opinions
> > about these component sets or the bikes in general?
> >
> >
> I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700
> for the last few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike,
> but as has been pointed out by others, it's not a road
> bike. If speed's your thing, this isn't your bike. Its
> weight will keep you from the head of the pack. But with
> the Kevlar belted wide tires, light suspension fork and
> wide gearing, you'll be able to go places no roadie would
> ever tread. This isn't meant as a "my bike is better than
> your bike" rant, just my opinion. One thing that I did get
> rid of on the 7700 was the suspension seat post. Just
> didn't seem necessary. Good luck, Art

Hey Art,

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you like the 7700. One of
the reasons I have been looking at it is for the wide gear
range, the sturdy frame and tires that are less likely to
get flats (which I notice a lot of these road bikes on the
side of the road changing tires...).

By the way, did your bike come with the thinner Shimano HG53
chain? I heard that there used to be some problems with
chatter on the crossover gears and that it was fixed by
using the narrower chain. What's your experience?

I'm not interested in racing, I just want to keep up. On the
bike I have now (an old Giant Iguana), I have really good
granny gears and let me tell you, they have saved my ass
more than a few times when humping my way through Palisades
Park in New Jersey (major hills). It's also better on the
parts of the ride where I hit potholes and gravel (I wlways
feel thankfull for my old bike at times like that).

But I wanted a little more top end speed on the flats and
the I belive I will get that with the 11-32 9-spd and the
48/38/28 front chainring (although I wouldn't mind if the 48
was a 52). If I could cruise comfortably on the flats at
about 18-21 mph, that would be good. But I'm willing to
trade a little speed for versatility.

I don't think I want the suspension even though my
chiropractor told me I should because I have slight pinch in
my right shoulder. He said that I could jam it again and
that's why I prefer more of my weight in the seat to take
the load off my shoulders and neck. If that wasn't an issue,
I would have already gotten a good touring bike, but I
believe that a MTB-type setup would be better for me.

I even looked at using a drop bar with aero bar clip-ons to
allow me to lift me up and stretch out. But I don't think
that would be a good idea. I prefer the MTB-type gear levers
and brake handles.

Thanks to everyone's comments. I'll keep you up to date with
what I choose.

Warren

warrenginn@erols.com (Warren Ginn) wrote in message
>
> By the way, did your bike come with the thinner Shimano
> HG53 chain? I heard that there used to be some problems
> with chatter on the crossover gears and that it was fixed
> by using the narrower chain. What's your experience?

Warren, Frankly, I'm not sure what type of chain came with
the bike. It could have been the HG93, but can't swear by
it. Regardless, I've not had any problems with chattering in
any of the gears. Except for the humming of the tires on the
road, the bike is as quiet as you would expect a bike to be.

Art

"Rocketman" <rocketman@bikerider.com> wrote in message
news:n9Lfc.151735$K91.399841@attbi_s02... <snip>

> Well said, Steve. Personally, I'm not in favor of the
> "cafe racer" road bikes with flat handlebars.

Well I think that part of the reason that there are more of
these appearing, is because many of the "real" road bikes
have abnormally low handlebars, which results in a very
uncomfortable riding position. You can fix this with
extenders and adjustable stems, but most people don't.

> There's nothing like a real road racing bike. I recommend
> the Bianchi
Brava
> unconditionally as an excellent value (I own one of those,
> too...) It
won't
> hold you back in any way, and I think they still put
> fender and rack
eyelets
> on 'em.

The Bianchi Brava is indeed an excellent value. They're
going to have to wreck it somehow because it's too good of a
deal, and buyers recognize this! I was at one of the premier
shops in my area during a recent sale, and they were selling
the Bravas like crazy at $510, but even at $600 they're a
good deal. Trek, Specialized, and Canon have nothing to
compete with it. The 2003 Marin Portofino (http://gallery.b-
central.com/Gallery/ProductDetails.aspx?GID=4038672&PID=189
7932&page=1&sortOrder=0) is similar to the Brava.

I must have sold about fifteen Bianchi Bravas to colleagues
that have inquired about road bikes to buy after being
frustrated with the Trek, Specialized, and Cannondale
offerings. They see the classic road bike I ride to work,
and want to know where they can buy something like it.

Maybe next year Bianchi can go to an aluminum frame, compact
geometry, and a threadless headset.

But the bottom line is that the original poster is not going
to have a good time on a century ride with either of the two
choices he's looking at. He'll be much happier with a Brava,
and a mid-range mountain bike such as the 2003 KHS Crest ST,
and will spend about the same money, maybe less.

Steve http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec/