Choosing the right bike advice wanted

[Chris]

I would really appreciate a little advice on buying a bike. I am male 55, 6' and 15stone-8lb having
recently lost 2 stone and hoping to continue. I live on East Kent Coast and want to try a bike for
enjoyment and exercise. The council has opened a cost cycle route and I would like to do this as
well as road and off road routes. I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide what is
best. I thought to spend about £200 but would spend more if necessary. I am torn between a Hybrid or
Mountain bike. I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but uncool) Giant
Boulder FS (super forks non adjustable stem means bars are a bit low) GSR Alux FS (Adjustable stem &
cheaper) Giant Cypress DX (Alivio gears 700x40 tyres sprung seat pin and Forks Comfortable) Sorry
for long post any advice appreciated and names of good shops near Thanet Chris

 

[Peter Clinch]

Chris wrote:
> I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide what is best. I thought to spend about
> =A3200 but would sp=
end
> more if necessary. I am torn between a Hybrid or Mountain bike.=20

A MTB is absolutely the greatest *if* you primarily want to cover rough=20 and/or muddy ground as
fast and capably as its possible for you to do.=20 If you're not worried too much to do those then
they're relatively=20 clunky rides on the road and there's not much to be gained on easier=20 tracks
or those travelled at a relatively sedate trundle.

As a rule of thumb, the better a bike is at the road the worse it is for =

serious offroad and vice versa. Any compromise bike will lose out to a=20 "pure" one on the relevant
ground, but at least it will do both passably =

well (a very important factor if you're riding miles on roads to get to=20 the off-road).

> I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but uncool) =

I'm intrigued by the concept of "cool". It usually seems to mean=20 "basically the same as everyone
else, but a little bit better". I'm far =

more interested in the best tool for the physical job in hand, and my=20 particular needs don't
include conforming to what everyone else does. It is currently "cool" (AFAICT) to wear flared
trousers. In a few=20 years, probably well within the lifetime of a decent bike, the fashion=20
victims sporting them now will probably be cringing about their current=20 taste. "Cool" is a
relative thing and a movable feast. If sitting in an=20 uncomfortable position on an
uncomfortable bike is "cool" today it may=20 well not be next year and your back and **** won't
thank you even if it i=
s.In summary, I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're the sort that =

won't be seen dead in the "wrong" brand of jeans (and if you are then=20 the "right bike" is
whatever is "cool" right now).

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:29:44 +0100, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I would really appreciate a little advice on buying a bike. I am male 55, 6' and 15stone-8lb having
>recently lost 2 stone and hoping to continue. I live on East Kent Coast and want to try a bike for
>enjoyment and exercise. The council has opened a cost cycle route and I would like to do this as
>well as road and off road routes. I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide what is
>best. I thought to spend about £200 but would spend more if necessary. I am torn between a Hybrid
>or Mountain bike. I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but uncool)
>Giant Boulder FS (super forks non adjustable stem means bars are a bit low) GSR Alux FS (Adjustable
>stem & cheaper) Giant Cypress DX (Alivio gears 700x40 tyres sprung seat pin and Forks Comfortable)
>Sorry for long post any advice appreciated and names of good shops near

Hi Chris

For the sort of riding you mention - on-road and (presumably mild) off-road I'd suggest a rigid
mountain bike with widish tyres.

I, myself, have an old, rigid (no springy bits) Trek 4300 for my regular trundle-around-town riding.
Whenever I feel the need for a bit of gentle off-road riding, which isn't too often, I replace the
slim, slick tyres with wider, more knobly treads.

I'll admit that having front forks is probably far more comfortable for the off-road stuff.
Conversely, having the rigid front fork is far more suitable for the on-road riding as the bike is
quite a bit lighter, all other things being equal.

I'm unsure how easy it is to get hold of rigid MTB-style bikes these days.

FWIW, when I started cycling again about ten years ago, I weighed in at a hefty 18 stones. The Trek
970 (I think) I had at the time was quite adequate and well capable of supporting my bulk.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Chris]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Chris wrote:
> I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide what is best. I thought to spend about £200
> but would spend more if necessary. I am torn between a Hybrid or Mountain bike.

A MTB is absolutely the greatest *if* you primarily want to cover rough and/or muddy ground as fast
and capably as its possible for you to do. If you're not worried too much to do those then they're
relatively clunky rides on the road and there's not much to be gained on easier tracks or those
travelled at a relatively sedate trundle.

As a rule of thumb, the better a bike is at the road the worse it is for serious offroad and vice
versa. Any compromise bike will lose out to a "pure" one on the relevant ground, but at least it
will do both passably well (a very important factor if you're riding miles on roads to get to the
off-road).

> I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but uncool)

I'm intrigued by the concept of "cool". It usually seems to mean "basically the same as everyone
else, but a little bit better". I'm far more interested in the best tool for the physical job in
hand, and my particular needs don't include conforming to what everyone else does. It is currently
"cool" (AFAICT) to wear flared trousers. In a few years, probably well within the lifetime of a
decent bike, the fashion victims sporting them now will probably be cringing about their current
taste. "Cool" is a relative thing and a movable feast. If sitting in an uncomfortable position on an
uncomfortable bike is "cool" today it may well not be next year and your back and **** won't thank
you even if it is. In summary, I really wouldn't worry about it unless you're the sort that won't be
seen dead in the "wrong" brand of jeans (and if you are then the "right bike" is whatever is "cool"
right now).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ Thansk for your helpful response well as a mechanical engineer, I
normally take a fit for purpose view but that doesn't mean I want it to be inelegant.
I.K.Brunel and the like seemed to manage both elegance and function. On reflection "Ugly" would have
been a better word than "uncool". Chris

 

[Chris]

"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 11:29:44 +0100, "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I would really appreciate a little advice on buying a bike. I am male
55,
> >6' and 15stone-8lb having recently lost 2 stone and hoping to continue.
I
> >live on East Kent Coast and want to try a bike for enjoyment and
exercise.
> >The council has opened a cost cycle route and I would like to do this as well as road and off
> >road routes. I tried a few bikes at the local shop
but
> >cant decide what is best. I thought to spend about £200 but would spend more if necessary. I am
> >torn between a Hybrid or Mountain bike. I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and
> >adjustable but uncool)
Giant
> >Boulder FS (super forks non adjustable stem means bars are a bit low)
GSR
> >Alux FS (Adjustable stem & cheaper) Giant Cypress DX (Alivio gears 700x40 tyres sprung seat pin
> >and Forks Comfortable) Sorry for long post any advice appreciated and names of good shops near
>
> Hi Chris
>
> For the sort of riding you mention - on-road and (presumably mild) off-road I'd suggest a rigid
> mountain bike with widish tyres.
>
> I, myself, have an old, rigid (no springy bits) Trek 4300 for my regular trundle-around-town
> riding. Whenever I feel the need for a bit of gentle off-road riding, which isn't too often, I
> replace the slim, slick tyres with wider, more knobly treads.
>
> I'll admit that having front forks is probably far more comfortable for the off-road stuff.
> Conversely, having the rigid front fork is far more suitable for the on-road riding as the bike is
> quite a bit lighter, all other things being equal.
>
> I'm unsure how easy it is to get hold of rigid MTB-style bikes these days.
>
> FWIW, when I started cycling again about ten years ago, I weighed in at a hefty 18 stones. The
> Trek 970 (I think) I had at the time was quite adequate and well capable of supporting my bulk.
>
> James
>
> --
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg
Thanks for advice James sounds very sound! I may try a rigid and see what it is like CHris

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, James Hodson
<[email protected]> writes
>I'll admit that having front forks is probably far more comfortable for the off-road stuff.

LOL No probably about it. Having front forks is _definitely_ far more comfortable for the off-road
stuff (and on-road too).

You weren't thinking of a unicycle were you?

;-)
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Pete Clinch <[email protected]> writes
>What's ugly about the Trek Navigator, excatly (or rather, what's ugly about it that isn't ugly
>about just about any other MTB/hybrid)?

I think it looks ugly, too. I don't know if it's the fact that the Xbar seems to slope too much, or
the saddle in the pictures looks set too low, or the way the stem seems to point vertically but it
does look distinctly uncool. More the sort of thing I would expect to see an aged aunt riding (or a
six year old).

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Pete Clinch]

Chris ([email protected]) wrote:

: Thansk for your helpful response well as a mechanical engineer, I normally take a fit for purpose
: view but that doesn't mean I want it to be inelegant.
: I.K.Brunel and the like seemed to manage both elegance and function. On reflection "Ugly" would
: have been a better word than "uncool". Chris

What's ugly about the Trek Navigator, excatly (or rather, what's ugly about it that isn't ugly about
just about any other MTB/hybrid)?

I just don't see there's very much difference, to be honest (OTOH I ride one of these...
http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/details_e.html so have a rather different idea than
most people about what a bike might look like and how engineers might solve the various
problems involved)

On James's point about front forks, it's not just weight but the way they absorb pedalling energy
when you're really pushing down hard (like hill clibs and sprints). They also tend to dive under
heavy braking. More upmarket telescopic suspension forks can be locked out on the fly so that
doesn't affect climbing, but you're into the realms or Real Money for that at the moment AFAICT.

My MTB dates back to '97 when suspension was appreciably more expensive than now so I got a rigid
MTB as it was all I could afford. And I've never had any particular trouble with limits as to what
the bike could actually manage, though on downhill, rocky stretches it's certainly the case that the
wrists talk quite a beating. This isn't really much of an issue on roads and smooth tracks but for
serious offroad use it makes a big difference.

Pete.

--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Paul Kelly]

"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, James Hodson
> <[email protected]> writes
> >I'll admit that having front forks is probably far more comfortable for the off-road stuff.
>
> LOL No probably about it. Having front forks is _definitely_ far more comfortable for the off-road
> stuff (and on-road too).

I'd always been unconvinced about front suspension till I did the south downs way last year on my
rigid Specialized - I got back and bought a front sus bike the next week - it took a week for my
arms to stop shaking and my fingers to be able to hold a pen!

One piece of advice, don't be seduced by this years' fancy new models at this years' fancy new
price, go for a deeply discounted last year or even the year before model - much better value
for money.

pk

 

[Tenex]

Paul Kelly wrote:

> One piece of advice, don't be seduced by this years' fancy new models at this years' fancy new
> price, go for a deeply discounted last year or even the year before model - much better value
> for money.
>
> pk

There don't seem to many earlier year models around with dealers, perhaps it's too late in the year?

 

[Peter Clinch]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> I think it looks ugly, too. I don't know if it's the fact that the Xba=
r=20
> seems to slope too much, or the saddle in the pictures looks set too=20 low,=20

I wonder if these are a side effect of a smaller frame being=20 illustrated, assuming you're looking
at the Trek website?

> distinctly uncool. More the sort of thing I would expect to see an age=
d=20
> aunt riding (or a six year old).

Seems like the sort of argument going through the mind of the kids that=20 laugh at my Brompton[1],
presumably because it looks like the sort of=20 thing an aged aunt or a sprog would ride, what with
its wee wheels. But =

since they're appropriately geared wee wheels with 100 psi road tyres=20 those laughing from
their clunky suspension bikes very rapidly get left=20 in its wake, which they seem to have
trouble working out... I imagine=20 they'd laugh at =A35K worth of New Series Moulton too, since
"everybody=20 knows" that small wheels must mean it's slow and ****, right? ;-/ (and=20 what
about that space frame? proper bikes wouldn't use that when they=20 can have a weaker, heavier
single tube!)

Pete.

[1] they don't laugh if you fold/unfold in front of them though: then,=20 after the debris from
their minds being blown has settled, it's suddenly =

*amazingly* cool... --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical
Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[W K]

"Tenex" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:f%[email protected]...
> Paul Kelly wrote:
>
> > One piece of advice, don't be seduced by this years' fancy new models at this years' fancy new
> > price, go for a deeply discounted last year or even the year before model - much better value
> > for money.
> >
> > pk
>
> There don't seem to many earlier year models around with dealers, perhaps it's too late in
> the year?

The first ones are going cheap in autumn. Many shops will have no 2003 models by the start of
december, and will be full of 2004's. I didn't manage to get a "last years" when I looked one
january (acutally 2002, looking for 2001), but they may be about in some bargain specialists.

 

[W K]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Michael MacClancy wrote:

> distinctly uncool. More the sort of thing I would expect to see an aged aunt riding (or a six
> year old).

ME: They are a bit upright and policeman-ish. The sort of thing Nick Maclaren would ride.

in its wake, which they seem to have trouble working out... I imagine they'd laugh at £5K worth of
New Series Moulton

MF: I wouldn't laugh, but thats a silly amount of money to spend on something without distinct
advantages.

PS: that thing with your posts has happened again.

 

[M.W.J.Wright]

Hi

Nobody has ever accused my Trek 200 of being uncool! It's taken me from Glasgow to North Wales,
it's taken me across Dartmoor and along coastal paths. It's a good 'all-round' bike and well worth
it's price.

Maybe it's me that's uncool?

Martin

Chris wrote:
>
> I would really appreciate a little advice on buying a bike. I am male 55, 6' and 15stone-8lb
> having recently lost 2 stone and hoping to continue. I live on East Kent Coast and want to try a
> bike for enjoyment and exercise. The council has opened a cost cycle route and I would like to do
> this as well as road and off road routes. I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide
> what is best. I thought to spend about £200 but would spend more if necessary. I am torn between a
> Hybrid or Mountain bike. I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but
> uncool) Giant Boulder FS (super forks non adjustable stem means bars are a bit low) GSR Alux FS
> (Adjustable stem & cheaper) Giant Cypress DX (Alivio gears 700x40 tyres sprung seat pin and Forks
> Comfortable) Sorry for long post any advice appreciated and names of good shops near Thanet Chris

--

Martin Wright School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies Fron Heulog Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor,
Gwynedd, LL57 2EF

email [email protected] 01248 383180

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> writes
>Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
>> I think it looks ugly, too. I don't know if it's the fact that the Xbar seems to slope too much,
>> or the saddle in the pictures looks set too low,
>
>I wonder if these are a side effect of a smaller frame being illustrated, assuming you're looking
>at the Trek website?

Yes I was looking at the Trek website. It's not just a side effect of a smaller frame, this is a
'comfort bike' and is deliberately set up to have a more upright position. Nothing wrong with that
but I do think its ugly and more suited to aged aunts.
>
>> distinctly uncool. More the sort of thing I would expect to see an aged aunt riding (or a six
>> year old).
>
>Seems like the sort of argument going through the mind of the kids that laugh at my Brompton[1],
>presumably because it looks like the sort of thing an aged aunt or a sprog would ride, what with
>its wee wheels. But since they're appropriately geared wee wheels with 100 psi road tyres those
>laughing from their clunky suspension bikes very rapidly get left in its wake, which they seem to
>have trouble working out... I imagine they'd laugh at £5K worth of New Series Moulton too, since
>"everybody knows" that small wheels must mean it's slow and ****, right? ;-/ (and what about that
>space frame? proper bikes wouldn't use that when they can have a weaker, heavier single tube!)
>

Not really the same sort of argument at all. (Still, never let an opportunity to brag about a
Brompton pass by, eh? ;-))

There's nothing in Trek's comfort range that would persuade me to buy one in preference to something
from their recreational mountain bike range (800, 820, 4100 etc.). The suspension seat post and
upright position of the Navigator might make for more comfort but I don't need that right now.

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Michael Macclan]

In message <[email protected]>, Chris <[email protected]> writes
>I would really appreciate a little advice on buying a bike. I am male 55, 6' and 15stone-8lb having
>recently lost 2 stone and hoping to continue. I live on East Kent Coast and want to try a bike for
>enjoyment and exercise. The council has opened a cost cycle route and I would like to do this as
>well as road and off road routes. I tried a few bikes at the local shop but cant decide what is
>best. I thought to spend about £200 but would spend more if necessary. I am torn between a Hybrid
>or Mountain bike. I have considered a Trek Navigator 200 (very comfy and adjustable but uncool)
>Giant Boulder FS (super forks non adjustable stem means bars are a bit low) GSR Alux FS (Adjustable
>stem & cheaper) Giant Cypress DX (Alivio gears 700x40 tyres sprung seat pin and Forks Comfortable)
>Sorry for long post any advice appreciated and names of good shops near Thanet Chris
>
>
The Germans have a good expression 'eierlegende Wolle-Milch-Sau' (egg-laying-wool-milk-sow) for an
animal that can do everything and responding to requests like yours can often mean looking for the
bicycle equivalent. Unfortunately you have to make some compromises somewhere and the balance you
seem to be looking for is between coolness, comfort and the ability to handle road and off-road. If
you think you're going to be doing mostly roads and smooth gravel paths then a hybrid bike would
appear to be right. If you're doing rough off-road stuff then a mountain bike. Myself, I'd be
happier riding a mountain bike on the road than a hybrid bike off-road.

I've been riding a Giant Sierra Sport for some years now both on and off-road. It's a mountain bike
with a rigid fork and no seat post suspension. It's given me great satisfaction climbing many alpine
passes and descending very bumpy mountain paths. I would have no hesitation in buying another but I
can't because they don't do it anymore and almost all their mountain bikes now come with front
suspension. If I was buying at around the £200 mark I'd probably go for an Alluxx FS1 or Rincon.

I'm sure that all the bikes you're looking at are perfectly good at their respective price points.
It seems to me that you get what you pay for with bikes as with most things and if you're willing to
pay more you get something better. The single most important factor is probably to buy a bike that
you think you will enjoy riding because you will then ride that bike more. This means making sure
that the bike is set up to fit you (saddle height, handle bar reaches). Finding a good bike shop is
who can help you find a bike that fits is probably more important than the bike itself (if you see
what I mean ;-))
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 14:29:53 +0100, Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, James Hodson
><[email protected]> writes
>>I'll admit that having front forks is probably far more comfortable for the off-road stuff.
>
>LOL No probably about it. Having front forks is _definitely_ far more comfortable for the off-road
>stuff (and on-road too).
>
>You weren't thinking of a unicycle were you?
>

What? You can't wheelie everywhere?

Front forks are for wimps. I stop on my stem, missus.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Chris]

"Pete Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Chris ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> : Thansk for your helpful response well as a mechanical engineer, I
normally
> : take a fit for purpose view but that doesn't mean I want it to be
inelegant.
> : I.K.Brunel and the like seemed to manage both elegance and function. On reflection "Ugly" would
> : have been a better word than "uncool". Chris
>
> What's ugly about the Trek Navigator, excatly (or rather, what's ugly about it that isn't ugly
> about just about any other MTB/hybrid)?
>
> I just don't see there's very much difference, to be honest (OTOH I ride one of these...
> http://www.hpvelotechnik.com/produkte/sm/gt/details_e.html so have a rather different idea than
> most people about what a bike might look like and how engineers might solve the various problems
> involved)
>
> On James's point about front forks, it's not just weight but the way they absorb pedalling energy
> when you're really pushing down hard (like hill clibs and sprints). They also tend to dive under
> heavy braking. More upmarket telescopic suspension forks can be locked out on the fly so that
> doesn't affect climbing, but you're into the realms or Real Money for that at the moment AFAICT.
>
> My MTB dates back to '97 when suspension was appreciably more expensive than now so I got a rigid
> MTB as it was all I could afford. And I've never had any particular trouble with limits as to what
> the bike could actually manage, though on downhill, rocky stretches it's certainly the case that
> the wrists talk quite a beating. This isn't really much of an issue on roads and smooth tracks but
> for serious offroad use it makes a big difference.
>
> Pete.
>
>
> --
> Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
> Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
> http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Pete thanks for that. Wow that is one functional looking assembly of bike parts! I seem to recall
that the design form was banned from racing sometime in the 1930's due to its efficiency! I do think
it must have a lot of street cred though lol Chris

 

[James Hodson]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:50:31 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Kelly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'd always been unconvinced about front suspension till I did the south downs way last year on my
>rigid Specialized - I got back and bought a front sus bike the next week - it took a week for my
>arms to stop shaking and my fingers to be able to hold a pen!
>

Hi Paul

Kudos to you, sir. However, I don't think Chris is taking about doing a 100 miler yet. But
then again ...

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

[Peter Clinch]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> Yes I was looking at the Trek website. It's not just a side effect of a smaller frame, this is a
> 'comfort bike' and is deliberately set up to have a more upright position. Nothing wrong with that
> but I do think its ugly and more suited to aged aunts.
<snip>
> Not really the same sort of argument at all. (Still, never let an opportunity to brag about a
> Brompton pass by, eh? ;-))

Since a Brompton is deliberately set up to have a more upright riding position (in addition to
having small wheels), actually it's remarkably similar. Fact is, you *do* get laughed at a lot on a
Brompton by kids you pass. Can't think of any reason other than Bromptons not looking "cool", but
despite that you imply they're something to brag about
(i.e., there's far more to them than initial perceptions which is more important than "cool").

> There's nothing in Trek's comfort range that would persuade me to buy one in preference to
> something from their recreational mountain bike range (800, 820, 4100 etc.). The suspension seat
> post and upright position of the Navigator might make for more comfort but I don't need that
> right now.

I don't *need* as much comfort as I have, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate having it. I
certainly value it more than conforming to the perception of Mr. and Mrs. J Publics' idea that
"proper" bikes should have me leaning so far forwards that my default view is just beyond the front
wheel and my arms and back are aching after 50 miles. I don't *need* anything more comfortable than
the floor in my sitting room, but I still prefer to use armchairs... Comfort is a tangible, positive
benefit, even when it goes far beyond what is required to merely get from A to B without active
discomfort. There is, of course, the matter of psychological comfort and if you feel a numpty that
will reduce riding pleasure. But it doesn't bother me, and as a result the side effects of
conforming to other peoples' expectations don't have to matter to my backside, back, neck and arms
after a long ride, or the security of my hack bike when I get to the pub.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/