Dawes Audax - riding position



J

Jay Hendry

Guest
Hi

I'm looking to get back on a bike after something over 25 years - now 46
and with the middle aged spread and some layer back pain - nothing that I
see the doctor about, well not yet anyway.

Some friends have put forward the idea of doing Lands End to John O Groats
in 2007 so looking to get to a point where I'm fit enough to do it and also
on a bike that is suitable.

I've been looking at the websites and in chatting with the guys wanting to
do it we'd be doing B&B/YH not camping so a light tourer/audax style bike
seems to be a sensible option.

I've seen the Dawes Audax - I haven't got round to visiting a bike shop but
before I get that far want to get a view from any riders of this bike - it
looks OK spec wise and there seem to be some good offers around at the
moment but it also looks like the wheelbase is very short and handlebars
relative to saddle are very low - it doesn't "look" like it would be
comfortable for long periods in the saddle? I'm 6' 2" and have an standover
height of 90cm using the method shown on the St John Street Cycles site.

Any comments please.

Many thanks and Happy New Year to all.

Jay
 
Jay Hendry wrote:

> I'm looking to get back on a bike after something over 25 years - now 46
> and with the middle aged spread and some layer back pain - nothing that I
> see the doctor about, well not yet anyway.
>
> Some friends have put forward the idea of doing Lands End to John O Groats
> in 2007 so looking to get to a point where I'm fit enough to do it and also
> on a bike that is suitable.
>
> I've been looking at the websites and in chatting with the guys wanting to
> do it we'd be doing B&B/YH not camping so a light tourer/audax style bike
> seems to be a sensible option.

A fairly good plan, I'd say, but if you want to do it in genuine comfort
and not suffer from any back pain, how about doing it on something like
this...

http://www.kinetics-online.co.uk/html/speedmachine.shtml

Because the riding position is basically aerodynamic to start with
there's no need to crouch over with your weight on your arms: an order
of magnitude more comfortable over a long ride IME. The Speedmachine
isn't the only choice of recumbent for the job, but it's available with
all sorts of options that make it an incredibly capable fast tourer. It
isn't as light as a standard Audax bike, but OTOH it's more aerodynamic
so you do less work fighting air resistance and get a suspended, comfy
chair to do the work from, which given your concerns about a comfortable
riding position have got to be worth thinking about.

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

>
> I've seen the Dawes Audax - I haven't got round to visiting a bike shop but

It's a nice bike - I used to have one. Visit a shop and try one out.

If you are worried that the bars are too low, then there the bars can be raised
with different stems etc, but only up to a point. It should be possible to
get the bars level with the saddle though.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune
 
Jay Hendry wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm looking to get back on a bike after something over 25 years - now 46
> and with the middle aged spread and some layer back pain - nothing that I
> see the doctor about, well not yet anyway.
>
> Some friends have put forward the idea of doing Lands End to John O Groats
> in 2007 so looking to get to a point where I'm fit enough to do it and also
> on a bike that is suitable.
>
> I've been looking at the websites and in chatting with the guys wanting to
> do it we'd be doing B&B/YH not camping so a light tourer/audax style bike
> seems to be a sensible option.
>
> I've seen the Dawes Audax - I haven't got round to visiting a bike shop but
> before I get that far want to get a view from any riders of this bike - it
> looks OK spec wise and there seem to be some good offers around at the
> moment but it also looks like the wheelbase is very short and handlebars
> relative to saddle are very low - it doesn't "look" like it would be
> comfortable for long periods in the saddle? I'm 6' 2" and have an standover
> height of 90cm using the method shown on the St John Street Cycles site.
>
> Any comments please.
>
> Many thanks and Happy New Year to all.
>
> Jay

I haven't got a Dawes Audax. It is not a tourer and not a racer, kind
of a cross between the two and as such will have a shortish wheel base
but long enough to give mudguard clearances. Bar position is low and
IMHO should be for a bike designed for all day and all night riding,
you will get used to it, you may need to try different heights and
stems to get it spot on but it depends on you and the types of rides
you do. Last year, due to my sudden increase in distance I had to
re-jog the front end of two of my bikes to get them confortable for 20
hours in the saddle, this after riding one for 17 years.

For light touring and Audaxing I think it makes and excellent choice
 
Jay Hendry wrote:
> I've been looking at the websites and in chatting with the guys wanting to
> do it we'd be doing B&B/YH not camping so a light tourer/audax style bike
> seems to be a sensible option.
>
> I've seen the Dawes Audax - I haven't got round to visiting a bike shop but
> before I get that far want to get a view from any riders of this bike - it
> looks OK spec wise and there seem to be some good offers around at the
> moment but it also looks like the wheelbase is very short and handlebars
> relative to saddle are very low - it doesn't "look" like it would be
> comfortable for long periods in the saddle? I'm 6' 2" and have an standover
> height of 90cm using the method shown on the St John Street Cycles site.

I have a friend who has a 60cm Dawes Audax (2005 model I think)
and he's about 6'2" / 6'3" tall. He initially found the riding position
quite long compared to what he was used to, but now he's accustomed to
it he seems quite happy (this includes rides of >100 miles). He's
replaced the saddle and the useless rim tape, apart from that everything
seems fine. I'd fit wider tires if it were my bike though.

Changing stems is a quick and easy job, and comparatively inexpensive
(note that the Audax uses an 31.8mm handle bar clamp though IIRC), so as
long as the fit is close to start with then fine tuning handlebar height
and reach shouldn't be big problem IMHO.

Anthony
 
Anthony Jones wrote:
> ... I'd fit wider tires if it were my bike though.
>

That's interesting because the Galaxy ships with 32mm tyres. Do you
think 32's are better for touring than (say) 25's?

My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.
 
"Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>> ... I'd fit wider tires if it were my bike though.
>>
>
> That's interesting because the Galaxy ships with 32mm tyres. Do you think
> 32's are better for touring than (say) 25's?
>
> My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
> panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.

I'd use 28s for either..

cheers,
clive
 
Chris wrote:
> That's interesting because the Galaxy ships with 32mm tyres. Do you
> think 32's are better for touring than (say) 25's?

Yes. That's just my personal preference though, I'm sure some people are
perfectly happy on narrower tires. I use 28s because they're the largest
size I can use without jumping up to bigger mudgaurds.

> My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
> panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.

My friends Audax came with 23mm tires. I don't really see any advantages
of tires that small unless you're racing, especially if you've got
mudguards (since I assume any aerodynamic advantages of the narrower
tyres are nullified by the mudguards).

Anthony
 
Chris wrote:
> My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
> panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.

Out of interest, what makes you think 25s would be better if you were
not laden?

Anthony
 
Anthony Jones wrote:

> Out of interest, what makes you think 25s would be better if you were
> not laden?

Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance but also less suspension
effect. More load means more suspension effect is a Good Thing.

I always used to ride on 28s, for touring laden or just day rides, and
they seemed to do okay (including some rather unwise MTBing in the
Cairngorms, wheels survived but I wasn't sure if my wrists would!). Now
I ride 1.5" (38mm) Schwalbe Marathons pumped up to 100 psi. You can get
quicker tyres but I like something pretty bombproof that will take the
odd bit of off-road on a tour, gives a bit more scope for route planning.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Anthony Jones wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
>> panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.
>
> Out of interest, what makes you think 25s would be better if you were
> not laden?
>
> Anthony

It's a gut feeling, in a "Wear a helmet, it's just common sense" stylee :)

I have absolutely no evidence to suggest 25s are not suitable for laden
touring!
 
Chris wrote:
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>> ... I'd fit wider tires if it were my bike though.
>
> That's interesting because the Galaxy ships with 32mm tyres. Do you
> think 32's are better for touring than (say) 25's?
>
> My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
> panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.

There is a size in between. 28's take a heavy load of grocery shopping
OK: that's more weight than anyone would take on tour.

I don't go touring as such but gave 32mm tyres a good go on my old Raleigh
Royal tourer. Certainly they're much better for soaking up big bumps and
hopping up and down (shallow) kerbs.

Just a few days ago though, I decided to see what narrower tyres are like
again on this bike: 28mm. Straight away, the bike seems faster and
steering is sprightlier: the whole bike feels right and good. So I think
that means that's the end of my fat-tyre experiment. As a bonus there's
more clearance to allow for a bent rim or a broken spoke, should that ever
happen, and weight is saved too.

Comfort tends to end up about the same when riding on basically good
tarmac with whatever tyres you have because the skinnier or harder your
tyres are, the more bumps and holes you will avoid. With larger softer
tyres, you don't care so much and will ride over any old rubbish...
because you can! But you do experience /some/ discomfort when doing so.

Although it's a different sort of experience, I don't find my other bike
with 23mm high pressure tyres, a shorter wheel base, slightly lower
handlebars and a lot less weight any less comfortable on balance. Being
able to do more miles for less effort is a great kind of comfort in
itself.

~PB
 
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>> Out of interest, what makes you think 25s would be better if you were
>> not laden?
>
> Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance [...]

Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification[1], but what I was getting
at it is that tire width doesn't make that much difference to overall
speed, in theoretical models at least[2] -- hence the question as to the
OP's reasoning behind 25s being 'better'.

Anyway, I don't want to tell anyone what width tires to run, just trying
to dispel the myth that you must necessarily sacrifice large amounts of
speed to gain an increase in comfort.

Anthony

[1] http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.14.html
[2] http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance ...

Other things being equal I believe they have more rather than less. Of
course other things rarely are equal so it's not quite that simple. See
<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html>

--
Dave...
 
Anthony Jones wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Anthony Jones wrote:
>>> Out of interest, what makes you think 25s would be better if you
>>> were not laden?
>>
>> Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance [...]
>
> Well, that's a bit of an oversimplification[1], but what I was getting
> at it is that tire width doesn't make that much difference to overall
> speed, in theoretical models at least[2] -- hence the question as to
> the OP's reasoning behind 25s being 'better'.
>
> Anyway, I don't want to tell anyone what width tires to run, just
> trying to dispel the myth that you must necessarily sacrifice large
> amounts of speed to gain an increase in comfort.
>
> Anthony
>
> [1] http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/8b.14.html
> [2] http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm

I think it's still fair to say narrower tyres are faster on smooth
surfaces when inflated harder, as they naturally should be (when all else
is equal). Might not be a huge gain but there comes a point where I think
it's worthwhile to sacrifice some "comfort" in order to increase speed.

~PB
 
dkahn400 wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance ...
>
> Other things being equal I believe they have more rather than less. Of
> course other things rarely are equal so it's not quite that simple.
> See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html

There's one *major* thing that is *not* equal (normally): air pressure.

This is what Sheldon Brown himself says on
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tyres.html#pressure :

"A common debate among cyclists centers on the issue of whether a
wider tyre has more or less rolling resistance at the same pressure. The
constant pressure is proposed because it appears more scientific to
eliminate this as a variable, but this is not realistic in practice. The
short answer to this question is that, yes, a wider tyre of similar
construction will have lower rolling resistance than a narrower one at the
same pressure. This fact is, however, of no practical value. If you are
comparing two tyres of similar construction, with the same load, and the
same pressure, either the wider tyre is overinflated, or the narrower tyre
is underinflated!"

And I believe this is true despite manufacturer's recommended pressures
often being (wrongly) the same for different widths of the same model.
~PB
 
In message <[email protected]>,
dkahn400 <[email protected]> writes
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> Narrower tyres have less rolling resistance ...
>
>Other things being equal I believe they have more rather than less. Of
>course other things rarely are equal so it's not quite that simple. See
><http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/rolling-resistance.html>
>
Mike burrows did some tests re this which were published in Velovision a
little while back.

ISTR the basic conclusion was that narrower tyres did have less rolling
resistance, and where time might be an issue could be worth the
difference.
--
Chris French
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Anthony Jones wrote:
> >> ... I'd fit wider tires if it were my bike though.
> >>
> >
> > That's interesting because the Galaxy ships with 32mm tyres. Do you
think
> > 32's are better for touring than (say) 25's?
> >
> > My guess would be that 25's would be better if you are not loaded with
> > panniers, but 32's if you are, which is unlikely if you are Audaxing.
>
> I'd use 28s for either..
>
I use 28s on my Galaxy for touring and Audaxing.

I'm 47, fat and fittish having done LEJOG, C2C, W2W and 550km of Audaxing on
top of leisure rides last year. All touring was camping.

The OP should easily cope with LEJOG after a year and a bit's worth of build
up.
 
vernon wrote:
>
> I'm 47, fat and fittish having done LEJOG, C2C, W2W and 550km of Audaxing on
> top of leisure rides last year. All touring was camping.
>
> The OP should easily cope with LEJOG after a year and a bit's worth of build
> up.
>
>
>

Jeez - how can you possibly be fat after all that?

No no, don't answer - I don't want to hijack this thread yet again!
 

> > I'm 47, fat and fittish having done LEJOG, C2C, W2W and 550km of
Audaxing on
> > top of leisure rides last year. All touring was camping.
> >
> > The OP should easily cope with LEJOG after a year and a bit's worth of
build
> > up.
> >
> Jeez - how can you possibly be fat after all that?
>
> No no, don't answer - I don't want to hijack this thread yet again!

Just used the scales to confirm what i already knew - 140kg yep, still fat

Mind you I've had a six week lay off over late November/December that will
account for 5kg :)

I must eat less and move more
I must eat less and move more
I must eat less and move more
I must eat less and move more
I must eat less and move more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Trek Pilot vs Dawes Audax
Replies
22
Views
1K
UK and Europe
daren
D
J
Re: Tyres for Dawes Audax
Replies
0
Views
580
UK and Europe
JBB
J
T
Tyres for Dawes Audax
Replies
6
Views
1K
UK and Europe
JBB
J
T
Quick Spin on new Dawes Audax
Replies
3
Views
800
UK and Europe
Paul Moss
P
M
Dawes Audax & Other new Audax bikes
Replies
2
Views
775
UK and Europe
Malcolm
M
Top Bottom Back