I was in your shoes two days ago. I went to 6 different LBSs and one sports store and tried 9
different entry level bikes. I selected for the first bike I tried out, the Jamis Aurora, and
changed out to 25 mm tires (from 30) for free thanks to the LBS. The Raleigh Grand Sport was the
only bike that came close to the ride (in my opinion), but they couldn't come close to the Jamis
price. The fitting by an experienced LBS owner (Bluto's first issue) is the MOST IMPORTANT thing!
Don't spend hours upon hours trying to resolve issue 13 (see below in Bluto's email). After going
through all the BS I did, I can say, Bluto's issues 1-8 (and 15!
are satisfied, buy it!
"Bluto" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dennis Vaughn" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I realize this may get a lot of whys but I will ask anyway. Looking to purchase a new bike. I
> > have eliminated aluminum bikes except for Klein.
>
> Hmm.
>
> > Looking for either steel (chromoly I think they call it now) cause I
like
> > the smoothness of the ride,
>
> Uh...
>
> > or carbon fiber (composite depending on the manufacture). My question is this: is it worth it to
> > buy a carbon bike
over
> > steel? The prices for carbon are outrageous (I think) but I do like the ride. Any help would
> > be nice.
>
> The words and issues you choose in asking your question indicate that you have been listening to
> people who know a lot more about selling bikes than they know about bikes.
>
> For instance, did you know that steel is 3 times stiffer than aluminum? Or that carbon fiber
> reinforced plastics have no intrinsic properties that could allow them to have a
> characteristic "ride"?
>
> I will not get into it except to say this: The design of a specific bike frame will have more to
> do with its "ride" than will the material in it. And the components used to build up the bike will
> have more affect on the "ride" than the frame does. Tires alone can transform the ride and
> handling qualities of a bike far more than any possible permutations of tubing material, shape,
> and diameter in a bike frame.
>
> The issues to consider in rough order of importance go something like this:
>
> 1. Rider fit
> 2. Suitability for intended use
> 3. Cost
> 4. Dealer support
> 5. Warranty
> 6. Reasonably foreseeable durability
> 7. Parts compatibility
> 8. Weight relative to comparable bikes
> 9. Spoke count
> 10. Paint color
> 11. Riding buddies' opinions
> 12. Country of origin
> 13. Perceived/anticipated ride quality
> 14. Quality of handlebar tape
> 15. Any residual odors on saddle
> 16. Mom's opinion
> 17. Intactness of nubbles on tires
> 18. Wife's opinion and so forth....
>
> If you get hung up trying to make you decision based on factor #13, you may blow it with regard to
> one or more of those top five issues. So try to do a more thorough job of sorting out what works
> best for you on those criteria that will actually affect how well you will ride, how much you will
> ride, and how much value you will get from your bike.
>
> Pretty much all comparisons based on criteria like soft vs. hard ride, stable vs. nimble handling,
> vibration damping etc., are straight-up ********. Folks who frame the choice in those terms, be
> they magazine writers, salesmen, or whatever, are trying to manipulate you into making a decision
> contrary to what your own top five criteria might suggest.
>
> So don't let extraneous details like frame material or worse yet, the ride qualities you
> erroneously ascribe to a given frame material, muddy your decision-making process. Reckon what you
> need in a bike, what you would like anyway, and how much you wish to spend. If you wind up with a
> bike that needs bigger tires to deliver the "silky smooth yet responsive, stiff yet compliant,
> stable yet nimble ride" you crave, well you were going to need new treads sooner or later anyway.
>
> Chalo Colina