G
Gooserider
Guest
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
>> > LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!
>>
>> I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
>> from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
>> steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."
>
> ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?
>
> Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.
>
>> The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
>> of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
>> chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
>> last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
>> one on the bike.
>>
>> This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
>> bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
>> give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.
>
> Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....
>
>> It has
>> clearance for fenders and wide tires.
>
> Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
> enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
> the comfort of fat tires for some speed.
Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
drivetrain cleaner. Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.
> Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
> mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
> (http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?
Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.
>> And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
>> than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
>> 287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
>> this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
>> tires and fenders.
>
> I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
> stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.
Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.
>> Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
>> frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
>> about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
>> too.
>>
>> It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
>> and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
>> anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.
>
> Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
> make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
> posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
> the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
> basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
> pick-up-and-go affair.
Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
have on a road bike.
> Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
> different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
> basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
> seemingly "simple" things are!
Not complicated, really.
>> 20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
>> Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
>> than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
>> and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
>> them after every ride.
>
> OMG...this is bad news....
>
> Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
> 24-spoke wheelset?
Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
wisest choice for a city bike.
>> I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
>> and more trollish to me.
>
> Trollish schmollish.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
> learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
> asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
> person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
> and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
> "attractive" to you for whatever reason.
It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
folks gave you sank in.
> Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
> dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
> asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
> won't be supporting my weight!
>
> What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>
From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
T.
news:[email protected]...
>
> Hank Wirtz wrote:
>> "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Interesting -- a $900 bike that seems like the Mongoose cromos in the
>> > LBS for $300?? Looks like it uses old cantilever brakes, too!
>>
>> I think it was Richard Schwinn who said "If bikes had always been made
>> from Aluminum, Carbon Fiber or Titanium, and they introduced chromoly
>> steel, it would be hailed as a miracle."
>
> ROTFL! Who said the truth has to hurt?
>
> Still...a lighter weight seems an inherent, unarugable good.
>
>> The cheapo steel bikes that are labelled as "chromoly" are usually a mix
>> of chromoly and high-tensile steel. Back in the day, you may have had
>> chromoly main tubes and High-ten stays, but I've heard of bikes in the
>> last 15 years having only a chromoly head tube, which is the shortest
>> one on the bike.
>>
>> This bike is 100% chromoly, and has an intelligent design for a
>> bombproof, comfortable road bike. Shallow angles and long chainstays
>> give a comfortable ride that can better handle uneven pavement.
>
> Don't know about the long chainstay, but the "angles" seem the same....
>
>> It has
>> clearance for fenders and wide tires.
>
> Don't need fenders and wider tires -- like riding in the rain well
> enough, but I don't consciously seek it, and I'm willing to trade in
> the comfort of fat tires for some speed.
Fenders are nice on a commuter, because they keep both you and your
drivetrain cleaner. Fat tires(and by that I mean 700x28 or 700x32) aren't
necessarily slower. I average over 20mph on my Gunnar with 700x28 Panaracer
Ruffy Tuffys, not a race tire. Just pedal.
> Curious, though...what do you think of the $900 front suspension
> mountain bike with dual hydraulic disc brakes
> (http://www.airborne.net/eready/janette/store/05LB-special.asp)?
Fine. Hardtail MTBs are great, and can make good commuters with a tire
change. Discs are good and stop well in poor conditions. You'll pay a weight
penalty, and we know you're a weight weenie.
>> And cantilever brakes stop great. They're better-suited to a road bike
>> than v-brakes because road levers (except a pricey set of Dia-Compe
>> 287s) don't pull enough cable. Cantilevers are also better suited to
>> this bike than sidepulls because they have great clearance for wide
>> tires and fenders.
>
> I don't get it...my experience with V-brakes has always been that they
> stop quicker and more powerfully than cantilevers.
Depends on the cantilever. Again, tourist use them on bikes carrying 60
pounds of gear, so there must be something to them.
>> Yes, fat tires do make for a more comfortable ride. As does relaxed
>> frame geometry. 72 degrees vs. 73 degrees on the size 58, which would be
>> about right for a guy who's 5'11". Wheelbase is longer on the Surly,
>> too.
>>
>> It's one thing to not know how such things affect handling and comfort,
>> and to ask to have them explained, but here you're just mocking what
>> anybody who knows this stuff takes for granted.
>
> Not mocking -- just amused at the idea, that's all! Fat saddles don't
> make for comfy rides, necessarily, but fat tires do...an upright
> posture is comfortable and uncomfortable in different ways, and so too
> the hunched-over one...it's all quite funny to me as a noob who
> basically thought of bikes as, as I keep saying, some simple
> pick-up-and-go affair.
Fat saddles don't make for comfortable rides because they chafe. Pad your
shorts, not your saddle. The tires, of course, are the only suspension you
have on a road bike.
> Don't be put-off...I was this same way upon learning that there were
> different sneakers for different tasks -- walking, running, tennis,
> basketball, etc. Just chuckling here at how "complicated" such
> seemingly "simple" things are!
Not complicated, really.
>> 20 and 24 spokes for a rider weighing 230lbs? Yes, flimsy. Mega-flimsy.
>> Those wheels are designed for racing, where whether they last longer
>> than that race day isn't much of a consideration. I'm about your size,
>> and I prefer 36-spoke wheels, because I'd just as soon not have to true
>> them after every ride.
>
> OMG...this is bad news....
>
> Just curious...what rider weight would you recommend for a 20 and
> 24-spoke wheelset?
Either a lightweight, or someone who uses them on race day only. Not the
wisest choice for a city bike.
>> I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you're looking more
>> and more trollish to me.
>
> Trollish schmollish.
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, but people are just touchy, and I've
> learned to live with it. As I'd explained to the Goose Rider, I'm just
> asking questions...folks ought to learn to separate the idea from the
> person. Presumably you frequent these NGs 'cause you're into bikes,
> and you post based on that interest -- not whether someone here is
> "attractive" to you for whatever reason.
It would have been nice, I suppose, if it seemed like any of the advice
folks gave you sank in.
> Note also that it's taken all this time to finally get to something
> dealing most directly with the point of my initial post, when I'd first
> asked about components and specs...only now do I see that the wheels
> won't be supporting my weight!
>
> What else have y'all been holding back from me? <INSERT SMILELY>
From the start you were advised that your choices were less than ideal.
Specs scmecs. I've pointed out 10 or so bikes which fit your criteria to a
T.