N
Nick Kew
Guest
Looking to buy a new bike. In the absence of adequate storage
space, that'll be just one bike. So it'll want to serve both
for reasonably fast on-road, carrying of modest loads (not
necessarily full touring or supermarket load), and hacking
across the moors on the rough. Should have mudguard and
rear rack. Oh, and drop handlebars preferred.
From past experience, a tourer offers the best compromise
between all those needs. Discussing this in the LBS, they
had a couple of contrasting candidates in stock, which I
took out for a test spin: one classic tourer[1], and a
sportier little number classified as "cyclocross"[2].
I first tried the cyclocross. An aluminium frame with
carbon forks, and rather short wheelbase. Impressively
light to the touch, it was indeed a lively ride. I found
its 34/25 bottom gear hard work on a stretch of uphill that
is by no means the hardest in the area, and it became a
bit of a boneshaker at speed - on a properly made road
not noted for roughness! Comfortable on the drops or
the hoods, but the bars seemed to dig into my hands when
in the upright position. And I could feel it telling me
"you fat slob, how dare you presume to ride "me"?
Get into shape NOW!"
The comparison with the tourer was chalk and cheese. It was
a Reynolds 725 frame and a longer wheelbase than the other.
It was also significantly heavier than the other, though that
was in significant part due to the fact that it has all the
accessories as standard. On the same uphill, I had no need
of the bottom gears, yet remained within the comfort zone.
The ride on top was a little smoother, shaking the bones a
lot less. But going offroad on the grass was harder than
I'm accustomed to. The positions were different too: down
on the drops was less comfy than the other, but the upright
position was better. One difficulty was the brakes, as I
had to make a conscious effort to stretch the hands out
far enough to grab the levers. But the message it whispered
was one of comfort: "don't worry, I'll always give you an
easy life. Have another cream cake".
That leaves me a harder choice than before. A bike to challenge
me and force me to get fit (or leave it to languish unloved),
or one to comfort me in flabby decline? Or look further afield
for other options.
Hmmm ....
[1] http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/index.php?seriesID=41&show_bike=TRUE
[2] http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/index.php?bikeID=34&show_bike=TRUE
--
not me guv
space, that'll be just one bike. So it'll want to serve both
for reasonably fast on-road, carrying of modest loads (not
necessarily full touring or supermarket load), and hacking
across the moors on the rough. Should have mudguard and
rear rack. Oh, and drop handlebars preferred.
From past experience, a tourer offers the best compromise
between all those needs. Discussing this in the LBS, they
had a couple of contrasting candidates in stock, which I
took out for a test spin: one classic tourer[1], and a
sportier little number classified as "cyclocross"[2].
I first tried the cyclocross. An aluminium frame with
carbon forks, and rather short wheelbase. Impressively
light to the touch, it was indeed a lively ride. I found
its 34/25 bottom gear hard work on a stretch of uphill that
is by no means the hardest in the area, and it became a
bit of a boneshaker at speed - on a properly made road
not noted for roughness! Comfortable on the drops or
the hoods, but the bars seemed to dig into my hands when
in the upright position. And I could feel it telling me
"you fat slob, how dare you presume to ride "me"?
Get into shape NOW!"
The comparison with the tourer was chalk and cheese. It was
a Reynolds 725 frame and a longer wheelbase than the other.
It was also significantly heavier than the other, though that
was in significant part due to the fact that it has all the
accessories as standard. On the same uphill, I had no need
of the bottom gears, yet remained within the comfort zone.
The ride on top was a little smoother, shaking the bones a
lot less. But going offroad on the grass was harder than
I'm accustomed to. The positions were different too: down
on the drops was less comfy than the other, but the upright
position was better. One difficulty was the brakes, as I
had to make a conscious effort to stretch the hands out
far enough to grab the levers. But the message it whispered
was one of comfort: "don't worry, I'll always give you an
easy life. Have another cream cake".
That leaves me a harder choice than before. A bike to challenge
me and force me to get fit (or leave it to languish unloved),
or one to comfort me in flabby decline? Or look further afield
for other options.
Hmmm ....
[1] http://www.ridgeback.co.uk/index.php?seriesID=41&show_bike=TRUE
[2] http://www.genesisbikes.co.uk/index.php?bikeID=34&show_bike=TRUE
--
not me guv
