Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700

Warren Ginn

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/...odel-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

David Kerber

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/...odel-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).

Warren Ginn

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/...odel-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

Rocketman

"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/...odel-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

David Kerber

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).

Warren Ginn

"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/...odel-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

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

David Kerber

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).

DRS

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.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Steven M. Scharf

"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/

Art

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

Rocketman

"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

Rocketman

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:Ylxfc.11565$A_4.6135@newsread1.news.pas.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

Warren Ginn

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

Art

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