Different bikes, different speeds?

Ok, thanks. That's kind of the advice I wanted - I thought this idea of
getting the Rockhopper + some spare wheels (and using the lockout) might
work - but it's reassuring to have it confirmed by someone more
knowledgeable than I am.

The Giant Trance 3 seems well over a grand, which I think is pushing it for
me.

Sorry for the faffing - we could have wrapped this up in fewer posts if I'd
thought more carefully about what information to include.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Edward Hibbert

(') said:

Quoted message said:

But, at the same time, don't assume that the same bike is going to be
satisfactory on the Glentress Red Route and on the streets of
Edinburgh, because it's not. You wouldn't run a marathon in mountain
boots. You would probably be better off working out what your budget
is, taking 280 off it for an EBC Courier Race
http://www.edinburgh-bicycle.co.uk/catalogue/detail.cfm?ID=22639
to use on the road, and spending the rest on as good a mountain bike
as you can get - possibly (good) second hand or last years' model.

This is sound advice. It's a little complicated for me because there's
a bike-to-work scheme which means my firm would kind of help pay for a
new
bike if I use it to commute to work, something I can't do if I get two.
You weren't to know that, of course.

My commute also takes me along a lot of cobbles, and I find my wrists
are
suffering despite gel mitts. I imagine some of that is down to
posture, but I'm still tempted to get a model with front suspension to
see if that helps.

OK, let's reverse my advice: /do/ get the Rockhopper (but try a Giant
Trance 3, which is about the cheapest decent full suspension bike,
first).

Reasons:

If your firm is paying half the price, then it's worth using the money to
get an expensive bike. A good mountain bike is a lot more expensive than
an equivalent quality road bike. So it would not make sense to get half
the price towards a road bike or hybrid and then have to pay the full
price of the mountain bike.

And in the Edinburgh area there are plenty of places where you can put a
good mountain bike to excellent use.

It does mean that you'll need to use the bike you spend your employer's
money on to cycle to work, and a good mountain bike will be compromised
on the road. But the Rockhopper, at least, comes with good forks with
good lockout, and you can keep a spare pair of cheap wheels with narrow
slick tyres on for urban use, so you can reduce that compromise to the
minimum.

The only thing to watch is that many mountain bikes with the suspension
locked have it locked at the top of its travel, and given that mountain
bike bottom brackets are usually fairly high anyway that tends to mean
it can be quite hard to get a foot down!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

"Edward Hibbert" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Advice please.

I have a hybrid, which is knocking on a bit and I'm thinking of getting
another bike fairly soon. Might get a mountain bike, because I could do
with front suspension (as an aside, so far as I can tell rear suspension
is a bit of a gimmick and not worth it - correct?). But I'm wondering
what effect different types of bike (mountain, hybrid, road) have on the
speed at which you can cycle on a road. I don't want to end up with a
new bike which makes me go noticeably slower on prolonged road rides - at
the moment I do about 11mph on average.

Typically MTBs have longer frames and handlebar stems than hybrids so the
overall distance from saddle to handlebars may be 2 or 3 inches greater.

Being more stretched may help your speed slightly. It will feel odd to
begin with and you may or may not get used to it.

Much is said about suspension sapping the power you put into the pedals but
I
don't find that being a particular issue.

I should add that there is front suspension and front suspension. Mine is
elastomer so fine for kerb jumping (if you like that sort of thing) and it
can take out the sting from potholes [*]. I find it is of little use for
proper off roading, however, because the damping is inadequate and it jars
uncomfortably when it crashes against the end stops.

[*] Because I *can* ride over potholes. There is an alternative way of
avoiding them, of course - go round them. A highly responsive road bike
needn't be uncomfortable.

Quoted message said:

Presumably the tyres matter, but I believe I could get some road wheels
to fit on a mountain bike frame? If I did this, do folk think I would
notice the difference on longer rides?

Absolutely. I have two sets of wheels for a quick change between road and
off-road trim. On the occasions I go off roading I am always taken by
surprise by the drag of the knobblies when I start out.

I would say that there is less considerably difference between road bike
and MTB on road tyres than there is between MTB on road tyres and off-road
tyres.

Quoted message said:

I would say that there is less considerably difference between road
bike and MTB on road tyres than there is between MTB on road tyres and
off-road tyres.

Heh, so speaks a trundly :-)

You're right thobut. It's only above 15mph or so that the better aero
position and lower rolling resistance of the road bike starts to become
noticeable, and at 17mph that it's worth talking about. Once you're
whizzing about at 20mph the difference is pretty big. Above that it's
massive. Ish. Relatively speaking, like. YMMV of course.

Simon Brooke said the following on 19/06/2006 21:31:

Quoted message said:

good lockout, and you can keep a spare pair of cheap wheels with narrow
slick tyres on for urban use,

Just a thought here, and I don't know what the answer is, but are there
alignment problems in swapping disc wheels about? What I was thinking
is that with only about 0.2mm clearance between disc and rotor, the
discs on both wheels have to be pretty much in exactly the same
position. Presumably if the hubs are the same, there shouldn't be a
problem.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said the following on 20/06/2006 08:10:

Quoted message said:

is that with only about 0.2mm clearance between disc and rotor

I meant between pad and rotor :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Mark Thompson" wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I would say that there is less considerably difference between road
bike and MTB on road tyres than there is between MTB on road tyres and
off-road tyres.

Heh, so speaks a trundly :-)

'Trundling' is just a relative matter though, isn't it? What are your
qualifications to claim distance from trundliness?

Quoted message said:

You're right thobut. It's only above 15mph or so that the better aero
position and lower rolling resistance of the road bike starts to become
noticeable, and at 17mph that it's worth talking about. Once you're
whizzing about at 20mph the difference is pretty big. Above that it's
massive. Ish. Relatively speaking, like. YMMV of course.

If you re-read my paragraph, I am making two comparisons. It's like saying
there is less difference between a 100W lightbulb and 60W bulb than between
a 60W bulb and a 10W bulb. Isn't it?

Quoted message said:

'Trundling' is just a relative matter though, isn't it? What are your
qualifications to claim distance from trundliness?

? I don't understand (it's still the morning thobut - brain not working
yet).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're right thobut. It's only above 15mph or so that the better
aero position and lower rolling resistance of the road bike starts to
become noticeable, and at 17mph that it's worth talking about. Once
you're whizzing about at 20mph the difference is pretty big. Above
that it's massive. Ish. Relatively speaking, like. YMMV of course.

If you re-read my paragraph, I am making two comparisons. It's like
saying there is less difference between a 100W lightbulb and 60W bulb
than between a 60W bulb and a 10W bulb. Isn't it?

No, 'cos rolling resistance and (the biggy) wind resistance doesn't go up
in a straight line with speed. I think there're squares involved and stuff
like that.

Do 15mph - easy. Do 30mph - *much* more than twice as hard. The better
aero position on the road bike makes a massive difference.

However, my point was that at trundly speeds it doesn't really matter as
the difference in power needed is much smaller.

It's probable that you already know/meant/said this thobut.

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'Trundling' is just a relative matter though, isn't it? What are your
qualifications to claim distance from trundliness?

? I don't understand (it's still the morning thobut - brain not working
yet).

Try again.

What is your definition of trundly? You might think I am a trundly, but
many people I ride with don't think so, compared to them. You probably
think you are not but what would Lance Amstrong think of you?.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're right thobut. It's only above 15mph or so that the better
aero position and lower rolling resistance of the road bike starts to
become noticeable, and at 17mph that it's worth talking about. Once
you're whizzing about at 20mph the difference is pretty big. Above
that it's massive. Ish. Relatively speaking, like. YMMV of course.

If you re-read my paragraph, I am making two comparisons. It's like
saying there is less difference between a 100W lightbulb and 60W bulb
than between a 60W bulb and a 10W bulb. Isn't it?

No, 'cos rolling resistance and (the biggy) wind resistance doesn't go up
in a straight line with speed. I think there're squares involved and
stuff
like that.

Do 15mph - easy. Do 30mph - *much* more than twice as hard. The better
aero position on the road bike makes a massive difference.

However, my point was that at trundly speeds it doesn't really matter as
the difference in power needed is much smaller.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

It's probable that you already know/meant/said this thobut.

I do. But we're here to make conversation aren't we?

There are times when we are independent of the engine and aero comparisons
can be made. In free descents over 35mph I really don't find that much
difference between the bikes. In fact the highest speed I have ever
recorded was 42mph on the MTB(road); on the same hill the road bike
shimmied so that represented a no show. But, when gravel or a blind corner
appears I can attack it better on the MTB(road); off road tyres are
too mushy and the road bike just fills me with dread - DP brakes are not a
patch on V's and I find drop bars scary and uncomfortable for downhilling.
Oh, and the memory of that shimmy.

Where the road bike is good is when climbing (up to about 1 in 8 or so when
the gearing starts to tell) - so this isn't an air resistance thing. Where
it excels is on long, gentle descents when it can be pedalled
along in high gear from the drop (ie, little weight on the palms compared
to downhilling). For example, I have a GPS plot open of a ride containing a
10km section, a 125 metre descent and covered in 15 minutes.

Quoted message said:

What is your definition of trundly? You might think I am a trundly, but
many people I ride with don't think so, compared to them. You probably
think you are not but what would Lance Amstrong think of you?.

A trundly would trundle about at around 10-12mph on the flat. They aren't
out of breath or working up a sweat and can more than likely carry on
forever, just trundling along at their own pace. It's a combination of the
speed and ability to maintain that pace that makes a trundly.

It's not an insult, just a description of a perfectly pleasant, lovely and
relaxing riding style. I'm an unashamed trundly if left to my own devices
on a long ride as, I suspect, are many of us here.

Mark Thompson said:

A trundly would trundle about at around 10-12mph on the flat. They
aren't out of breath or working up a sweat and can more than likely
carry on forever, just trundling along at their own pace. It's a
combination of the speed and ability to maintain that pace that makes
a trundly.

It's not an insult, just a description of a perfectly pleasant,
lovely and relaxing riding style. I'm an unashamed trundly if left
to my own devices on a long ride as, I suspect, are many of us here.

Its a skill that some of us find difficult to aquire.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is your definition of trundly? You might think I am a trundly, but
many people I ride with don't think so, compared to them. You probably
think you are not but what would Lance Amstrong think of you?.

A trundly would trundle about at around 10-12mph on the flat.

This is considered 'moderate' for some regular riders I know!

Quoted message said:

They aren't
out of breath or working up a sweat and can more than likely carry on
forever, just trundling along at their own pace. It's a combination of
the
speed and ability to maintain that pace that makes a trundly.

Excellent definition. I had never put the two together.

Quoted message said:

It's not an insult, just a description of a perfectly pleasant, lovely
and
relaxing riding style. I'm an unashamed trundly if left to my own
devices
on a long ride as, I suspect, are many of us here.

Of course, get the boring stuff over with and then enjoy the scenic bits.

So, now that I am assured that I can be more than trundly (some of the
time), I feel pretty good that the assertion I made when I entered this
thread has some substance.

Quoted message said:

So, now that I am assured that I can be more than trundly (some of the
time), I feel pretty good that the assertion I made when I entered this
thread has some substance.

Yep - for definate.