"Rocketman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<tpnfc.135872$gA5.1600658@attbi_s03>...
> "Warren Ginn" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
news:[email protected]...
> > David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > In article
> > > <
[email protected]>,
> > >
[email protected] 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