L
landotter
Guest
On Aug 18, 2:39 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > James <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Does any bike manufacturer make and sell a light, fast commuter road
> >> bike? Here's what I want in a commuter-road:
> >> - actually be a road bike
> >> - eyelets, front and back, for fenders in winter
> >> - brakes that can clear fenders
> >> - fairly lightweight (18 or 19 lbs without fenders)
> >> - 700 23 tires
> >> - reasonably fast geometry (in 56cm wheelbase under 1000mm)
> >> Can't seem to find anything like this here in the United States.
> >> The audax bikes in the U.K. seem to match my specs
> >> (http://www.setavento.com/img/AudaxBike.jpg)
> >> I'm surprised commuter-roads are so rare. All of the commuters I see
> >> in the shops are either hybrids or 25 lbs tourers.
> landotter wrote:
> > And your problem is? 25# is what normal people consider a light
> > commuter, especially if it's equipped with fenders, a proper amount of
> > spokes, real tires, and strong rims. If it's slow, then it's because
> > you're a *****. 23mm tires on a "commuter bike"? Can somebody please
> > refresh the carbide in the stupid beacon? Thanks!
>
> I don't know that tire width is a problem, depending on the route. My
> 22mm tubs fit nicely under the steel mudguards of my 29lb commuter*.
> Haven't found a better ride in many years of daily commuting. ?!
I'm sure it rides great--but you're a master wrench who can likely
change one in the pouring rain upside down while reciting quips from
Lenny Bruce's classic guide to life..
>
> A rider in SoCal may not need mudguards. I do. Some riders can't use
> tires smaller than 35mm. I can. Some need/want luggage capacity, I
> seldom have more than a newspaper in a rubber band across my bars.
> I agree about "18lbs". Surely weight is non-critical to a commuter in
> most cases.
>
The only time I've wanted for a very light bike is when I lived in a
third floor walkup in the city. I used a 35# bike usually anyway,
because it was such a great beast, but did have a single speed that
weighed in at 20#.
I've got a 23mm tired bike beside me at the moment, and it's probably
going to get craiglisted soon. Indeed, it's light at 19#--but in the
end, it's all about the geometry, as you say. The thing rides way too
nervously with the silly amount of fork rake. Plus, I've taken to the
philosophy that a guy's gotta be able to cut into the woods
occasionally and jump curbs...and amusingly enough, the heavier ride
is faster, because it inspires confidence. Same thing with my old 35#
commuter--it inspired Jobstian cornering.
> > James <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Does any bike manufacturer make and sell a light, fast commuter road
> >> bike? Here's what I want in a commuter-road:
> >> - actually be a road bike
> >> - eyelets, front and back, for fenders in winter
> >> - brakes that can clear fenders
> >> - fairly lightweight (18 or 19 lbs without fenders)
> >> - 700 23 tires
> >> - reasonably fast geometry (in 56cm wheelbase under 1000mm)
> >> Can't seem to find anything like this here in the United States.
> >> The audax bikes in the U.K. seem to match my specs
> >> (http://www.setavento.com/img/AudaxBike.jpg)
> >> I'm surprised commuter-roads are so rare. All of the commuters I see
> >> in the shops are either hybrids or 25 lbs tourers.
> landotter wrote:
> > And your problem is? 25# is what normal people consider a light
> > commuter, especially if it's equipped with fenders, a proper amount of
> > spokes, real tires, and strong rims. If it's slow, then it's because
> > you're a *****. 23mm tires on a "commuter bike"? Can somebody please
> > refresh the carbide in the stupid beacon? Thanks!
>
> I don't know that tire width is a problem, depending on the route. My
> 22mm tubs fit nicely under the steel mudguards of my 29lb commuter*.
> Haven't found a better ride in many years of daily commuting. ?!
I'm sure it rides great--but you're a master wrench who can likely
change one in the pouring rain upside down while reciting quips from
Lenny Bruce's classic guide to life..
>
> A rider in SoCal may not need mudguards. I do. Some riders can't use
> tires smaller than 35mm. I can. Some need/want luggage capacity, I
> seldom have more than a newspaper in a rubber band across my bars.
> I agree about "18lbs". Surely weight is non-critical to a commuter in
> most cases.
>
The only time I've wanted for a very light bike is when I lived in a
third floor walkup in the city. I used a 35# bike usually anyway,
because it was such a great beast, but did have a single speed that
weighed in at 20#.
I've got a 23mm tired bike beside me at the moment, and it's probably
going to get craiglisted soon. Indeed, it's light at 19#--but in the
end, it's all about the geometry, as you say. The thing rides way too
nervously with the silly amount of fork rake. Plus, I've taken to the
philosophy that a guy's gotta be able to cut into the woods
occasionally and jump curbs...and amusingly enough, the heavier ride
is faster, because it inspires confidence. Same thing with my old 35#
commuter--it inspired Jobstian cornering.
