need advice on: Trek 1600 or Felt z70?

[[email protected]]

Hello,

I am interested in buying a new street/road/racing bicycle. I looked
around some of the local shops in my area (louisville) and test road a
couple as well.

At the first shop, which is about 2 miles to my house, I test rode a
Felt z70. The sales man said he was going to give it to me @ $1050.

At the second shop, which is about 10 miles from my house, I looked at
two bycicles though, I test rode only one.. they are Trek 1600 priced
at $1000 and Trek 2.1 priced $1150.

I like the Trek1600 as well as the Felt z70. I wanted to know how the
brands compare against each other and which one would be a better
purchase or should I pay slightly higher and get a better one. I do
not want to go over the $1000 mark by too much.

My primary reason is to enjoy the bike (casual riding in the evenings)
and commute to work which is about 10 miles away. My heart is set on a
racing bicycle .. and must admit that I am very excited about this
purchase.

I want to make the better investment here. Which is the newer/better
model, reliable, better parts used is what I would like to know. I
appreciate (and am looking forward to) your comments.

Thank you.

Zee.

 

[Will]

On May 13, 8:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Felt z70.
> Trek 1600 priced
> Trek 2.1

> Surly Crosscheck?

Before you buy, you might want to also look at, test ride, a Surly
Crosscheck. There should be a couple of dealers in Louisville. You can
leave it completely stripped for the go-fast mode... Ten miles is a
sweet spot commute. Not too long and not too short. But I'm not sure
I'd want to be locked into really narrow racing rubber. Been there
before. As your commuting experience evolves, you might wish for
additional clearance in the stay/fork areas. This allows for fine
tuning the ride. That's problematic on full bore racing units.

 

[SMS]

Will wrote:
> On May 13, 8:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Felt z70.
>> Trek 1600 priced
>> Trek 2.1
>
>> Surly Crosscheck?
>
> Before you buy, you might want to also look at, test ride, a Surly
> Crosscheck. There should be a couple of dealers in Louisville. You can
> leave it completely stripped for the go-fast mode... Ten miles is a
> sweet spot commute. Not too long and not too short. But I'm not sure
> I'd want to be locked into really narrow racing rubber. Been there
> before. As your commuting experience evolves, you might wish for
> additional clearance in the stay/fork areas. This allows for fine
> tuning the ride. That's problematic on full bore racing units.

That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
advantages over the Treks and the Felt.

1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum

2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact frame,
but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames

3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or use
the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.

However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
triple crankset. That's probably $300 extra once you change the
derailleurs, crankset, and spindle. For that reason I'd get the Long
Haul Trucker instead, however it's nearly impossible to buy one because
the waiting list is so long. Also, about the narrowest tire you can go
to on the LHT is 25mm, with the wider Adventurer rims.

Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here. Is
this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?

I know that QBP is trying to keep the number of "complete bike" Surly's
down to a manageable level, but offering a Crosscheck Complete Triple
would be a welcome addition.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 13, 12:19 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Will wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> Felt z70.
> >> Trek 1600 priced
> >> Trek 2.1
>
> >> Surly Crosscheck?
>
> > Before you buy, you might want to also look at, test ride, a Surly
> > Crosscheck. There should be a couple of dealers in Louisville. You can
> > leave it completely stripped for the go-fast mode... Ten miles is a
> > sweet spot commute. Not too long and not too short. But I'm not sure
> > I'd want to be locked into really narrow racing rubber. Been there
> > before. As your commuting experience evolves, you might wish for
> > additional clearance in the stay/fork areas. This allows for fine
> > tuning the ride. That's problematic on full bore racing units.
>
> That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
> advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
>
> 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>
> 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact frame,
> but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames
>
> 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
> 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or use
> the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.
>
> However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
> triple crankset. That's probably $300 extra once you change the
> derailleurs, crankset, and spindle. For that reason I'd get the Long
> Haul Trucker instead, however it's nearly impossible to buy one because
> the waiting list is so long. Also, about the narrowest tire you can go
> to on the LHT is 25mm, with the wider Adventurer rims.
>
> Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
> price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here. Is
> this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?
>
> I know that QBP is trying to keep the number of "complete bike" Surly's
> down to a manageable level, but offering a Crosscheck Complete Triple
> would be a welcome addition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Will and SMS,

Thank you for your comments. I will look around for the Surly
Crosscheck before I make the purchase (i am getting itchy fingers
though ). I think the Trek 1600 was last years model.

 

[catzz66]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for your comments. I will look around for the Surly
> Crosscheck before I make the purchase (i am getting itchy fingers
> though ). I think the Trek 1600 was last years model.

The Trek 1600 doesn't seem to be available in our local shops anymore,
so you are probably correct. You ought to be able to compare the specs
online between all the bikes you are looking at, but for me it always
boils down to which one I like the best, especially if there's not much
difference in the price.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

| That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
| advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
|
| 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum

This is an advantage because?

| 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact frame,
| but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames

Have you looked at a 2.1 or a Pilot-series Trek? They're not "compact" in
the sense most people think. It's a traditional frame that slopes *UP* to
the front, allowing the bars to be 3cm higher than a "traditional" flat top
tube bike. And given that they come in umpteen-different sizes, it's not as
if they're doing something to simplify stock at the expense of fit.

| 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
| 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or use
| the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.

True. If you need 32c tires, a Crosscheck is the better bet. If 28c will do,
the 1600 or 2.1 will do fine.

| However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
| triple crankset. That's probably $300 extra once you change the
| derailleurs, crankset, and spindle. For that reason I'd get the Long
| Haul Trucker instead, however it's nearly impossible to buy one because
| the waiting list is so long. Also, about the narrowest tire you can go
| to on the LHT is 25mm, with the wider Adventurer rims.
|
| Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
| price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here. Is
| this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?

The 1600 is an '07; it doesn't exist in the '08 line. Trek went to
upward-sloping tubes for virtually all models below $3k, and even above
that, you have a choice. Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
change, and for the time being, change for the better).

| I know that QBP is trying to keep the number of "complete bike" Surly's
| down to a manageable level, but offering a Crosscheck Complete Triple
| would be a welcome addition.

Agreed. But there's this thing about bicycle product managers. They tend to
design bikes for themselves, and someone designing a cross bike is going to
put a double on it becuase real 'cross riders wouldn't be seen with a
triple. Sigh.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Will wrote:
| > On May 13, 8:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
| >> Hello,
| >>
| >> Felt z70.
| >> Trek 1600 priced
| >> Trek 2.1
| >
| >> Surly Crosscheck?
| >
| > Before you buy, you might want to also look at, test ride, a Surly
| > Crosscheck. There should be a couple of dealers in Louisville. You can
| > leave it completely stripped for the go-fast mode... Ten miles is a
| > sweet spot commute. Not too long and not too short. But I'm not sure
| > I'd want to be locked into really narrow racing rubber. Been there
| > before. As your commuting experience evolves, you might wish for
| > additional clearance in the stay/fork areas. This allows for fine
| > tuning the ride. That's problematic on full bore racing units.
|
| That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
| advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
|
| 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
|
| 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact frame,
| but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames
|
| 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
| 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or use
| the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.
|
| However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
| triple crankset. That's probably $300 extra once you change the
| derailleurs, crankset, and spindle. For that reason I'd get the Long
| Haul Trucker instead, however it's nearly impossible to buy one because
| the waiting list is so long. Also, about the narrowest tire you can go
| to on the LHT is 25mm, with the wider Adventurer rims.
|
| Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
| price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here. Is
| this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?
|
| I know that QBP is trying to keep the number of "complete bike" Surly's
| down to a manageable level, but offering a Crosscheck Complete Triple
| would be a welcome addition.

 

[Will]

On May 13, 11:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
> triple crankset.

I had to laugh here. One of the things I was going to grouse about was
the triple. I mean... how often do you drop to the little ring? I'll
stand on the peddles first... and I am a dedicated spinner. But to
have the triple, you carry around that extra half pound. Might as well
have bullet proof 32's on the rims (or heaven forbid.... fenders)

It seems to me, if you're testing go-fasts, you've either got legs...
or plan to get them.

 

[SMS]

Will wrote:
> On May 13, 11:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> However the disadvantage of the CrossCheck Complete is that it lacks a
>> triple crankset.
>
> I had to laugh here. One of the things I was going to grouse about was
> the triple. I mean... how often do you drop to the little ring?

Me personally?

I'll
> stand on the peddles first...

No such thing as peddles.

> It seems to me, if you're testing go-fasts, you've either got legs...
> or plan to get them.

Perhaps, though there are many roads around my area where I suspect that
all but strongest riders would welcome a triple.

 

[SMS]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> | That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
> | advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
> |
> | 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>
> This is an advantage because?

You are well aware of the advantages.

>
> | 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact frame,
> | but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames
>
> Have you looked at a 2.1 or a Pilot-series Trek? They're not "compact" in
> the sense most people think. It's a traditional frame that slopes *UP* to
> the front, allowing the bars to be 3cm higher than a "traditional" flat top
> tube bike. And given that they come in umpteen-different sizes, it's not as
> if they're doing something to simplify stock at the expense of fit.

Yes this is true.

> | 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
> | 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or use
> | the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.
>
> True. If you need 32c tires, a Crosscheck is the better bet. If 28c will do,
> the 1600 or 2.1 will do fine.

> | Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
> | price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here. Is
> | this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?
>
> The 1600 is an '07; it doesn't exist in the '08 line. Trek went to
> upward-sloping tubes for virtually all models below $3k

That's too bad.

Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
> these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
> people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
> change, and for the time being, change for the better).

IYO.

 

[Will]

On May 13, 2:00 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> No such thing as peddles.

Time to sell the Google stock. The spell checker missed it. Both
times. I guess there is something called a "peddles". Maybe it's a
verb.

As for the little ring... I can see it for loaded touring. But on
bikes with carbon forks and carbon seat stays??? That's design
confusion... (or maybe the Marketing V.P. got his way).

 

[[email protected]]

Both are standard made in china aluminum bikes. For a great
alternative to commute and ride for fun fitness etc is the Bianchi
Volpe. The steel frame will be more comfortable . But of the two I'd
take the trek---what the heck's a "felt"? I have similar wheels on my
Lemond and they have remained perfectly true since 2002!!!!
The trek just looks better.


On May 13, 9:46 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am interested in buying a new street/road/racing bicycle. I looked
> around some of the local shops in my area (louisville) and test road a
> couple as well.
>
> At the first shop, which is about 2 miles to my house, I test rode a
> Felt z70. The sales man said he was going to give it to me @ $1050.
>
> At the second shop, which is about 10 miles from my house, I looked at
> two bycicles though, I test rode only one.. they are Trek 1600 priced
> at $1000 and Trek 2.1 priced $1150.
>
> I like the Trek1600 as well as the Felt z70. I wanted to know how the
> brands compare against each other and which one would be a better
> purchase or should I pay slightly  higher and get a better one. I do
> not want to go over the $1000 mark by too much.
>
> My primary reason is to enjoy the bike (casual riding in the evenings)
> and commute to work which is about 10 miles away. My heart is set on a
> racing bicycle .. and must admit that I am very excited about this
> purchase.
>
> I want to make the better investment here. Which is the newer/better
> model, reliable, better parts used is what I would like to know. I
> appreciate (and am looking forward to) your comments.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Zee.

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:
> Both are standard made in china aluminum bikes. For a great
> alternative to commute and ride for fun fitness etc is the Bianchi
> Volpe. The steel frame will be more comfortable . But of the two I'd
> take the trek---what the heck's a "felt"? I have similar wheels on my
> Lemond and they have remained perfectly true since 2002!!!!
> The trek just looks better.

According to Mike J., The Trek 1600 is discontinued. Too bad, as he said
it was the last of the standard geometry frames from Trek until you go
up to the >$3000 range.

Yes, the Volpe would be an excellent choice for the original poster.
Cro-Mo frame, standard geometry, and triple crankset. I think you can go
down to 700x25mm tires minimum with those rims.

OTOH, the original poster has his heart set on a racing bike. The Trek
1600, other than the frame, is a pretty good deal at $1000. The frame
does have a lifetime warranty, but as you stated, it won't be as
comfortable. There are very few steel frame racing bicycles under $1000
still around. Most of the CroMo models are more like the Volpe and
Crosscheck, or full touring bicycles like the Long Haul Trucker. The
Crosscheck is especially impressive as they're using the more expensive
tubing than most of the CroMo models which are using 520.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> | 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>>
>> This is an advantage because?
>
> You are well aware of the advantages.


Indulge me again. Why is it that a virtually impossible-to-kill aluminum
frame (we're not talking something on the bleeding edge of lightness) is a
bad choice. How is it an advantage that you can replace a tube in a steel
frame for more than the cost of a new frame. And explain how it is that a
steel frame is somehow more comfortable when the compliance of a 28c tire
renders differences in frame compliance irrelevant because it's so many
orders of magnitude greater.

Steel is all about fashion. Which is fine! People should just be willing to
admit it.

> Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
>> these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
>> people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
>> change, and for the time being, change for the better).
>
> IYO.

Well, yes. You don't like the trend towards higher handlebars? Sure, you can
go too far (it generally becomes more difficult to climb as bars raise above
the level of the saddle, particularly for taller folk), but for most people,
the only thing "wrong" with standard road bikes has been their
nose-in-the-gravel bar vs seat positioning.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> | That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
>> | advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
>> |
>> | 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>>
>> This is an advantage because?
>
> You are well aware of the advantages.
>
>>
>> | 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact
>> frame,
>> | but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames
>>
>> Have you looked at a 2.1 or a Pilot-series Trek? They're not "compact" in
>> the sense most people think. It's a traditional frame that slopes *UP* to
>> the front, allowing the bars to be 3cm higher than a "traditional" flat
>> top tube bike. And given that they come in umpteen-different sizes, it's
>> not as if they're doing something to simplify stock at the expense of
>> fit.
>
> Yes this is true.
>
>> | 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
>> | 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or
>> use
>> | the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.
>>
>> True. If you need 32c tires, a Crosscheck is the better bet. If 28c will
>> do, the 1600 or 2.1 will do fine.
>
>> | Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
>> | price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here.
>> Is
>> | this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?
>>
>> The 1600 is an '07; it doesn't exist in the '08 line. Trek went to
>> upward-sloping tubes for virtually all models below $3k
>
> That's too bad.
>
> Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
>> these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
>> people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
>> change, and for the time being, change for the better).
>
> IYO.

 

[[email protected]]

Tires are a SMALL part of a bike's "ride" . Steel is by far the more
cofortable frame. There may be no way to scientifically prove
differences in ride quality but they are real for a cyclist. I dont
car about replacing tubes etc. Bike gets trashed its an excuse for a
new one!!!! I put the same tire 700x37 on my Bianchi san jose steel
frame /fork and on my Cannondale xr800 al frame/carbonfork (the oe
alum fork shook my fillings) and by far the san jose is more plush and
comfortable (brooks b17 on both) same handlebars etc. The frame
material does matter. Dont let anyone tellyou otherwise. Sizing and
fit are #1 but allthings equal a steel bike will be more comfortable.


On May 13, 7:41 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> | 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>
> >> This is an advantage because?
>
> > You are well aware of the advantages.
>
> Indulge me again. Why is it that a virtually impossible-to-kill aluminum
> frame (we're not talking something on the bleeding edge of lightness) is a
> bad choice. How is it an advantage that you can replace a tube in a steel
> frame for more than the cost of a new frame. And explain how it is that a
> steel frame is somehow more comfortable when the compliance of a 28c tire
> renders differences in frame compliance irrelevant because it's so many
> orders of magnitude greater.
>
> Steel is all about fashion. Which is fine! People should just  be willing to
> admit it.
>
> > Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
> >> these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
> >> people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
> >> change, and for the time being, change for the better).
>
> > IYO.
>
> Well, yes. You don't like the trend towards higher handlebars? Sure, you can
> go too far (it generally becomes more difficult to climb as bars raise above
> the level of the saddle, particularly for taller folk), but for most people,
> the only thing "wrong" with standard road bikes has been their
> nose-in-the-gravel bar vs seat positioning.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >> | That's good advice. The Surly Crosscheck Complete has several very big
> >> | advantages over the Treks and the Felt.
> >> |
> >> | 1. 4130 CroMoly versus aluminum
>
> >> This is an advantage because?
>
> > You are well aware of the advantages.
>
> >> | 2. Non-compact frame (the 1600 appears to also have a non-compact
> >> frame,
> >> | but the 2.1 and the z70 have compact frames
>
> >> Have you looked at a 2.1 or a Pilot-series Trek? They're not "compact" in
> >> the sense most people think. It's a traditional frame that slopes *UP* to
> >> the front, allowing the bars to be 3cm higher than a "traditional" flat
> >> top tube bike. And given that they come in umpteen-different sizes, it's
> >> not as if they're doing something to simplify stock at the expense of
> >> fit.
>
> > Yes this is true.
>
> >> | 3. More versatile. With the rims on the Crosscheck you can put on some
> >> | 700x23 tires for a "racing bike" for centuries or long road rides or
> >> use
> >> | the 700x32 tires for commuting or leisurely rides.
>
> >> True. If you need 32c tires, a Crosscheck is the better bet. If 28c will
> >> do, the 1600 or 2.1 will do fine.
>
> >> | Of the three original choices, I'd get the Trek 1600. $1000 is a good
> >> | price, that's usually the end-of-the-year closeout price around here.
> >> Is
> >> | this for the latest model, or last years model (not that it matters)?
>
> >> The 1600 is an '07; it doesn't exist in the '08 line. Trek went to
> >> upward-sloping tubes for virtually all models below $3k
>
> > That's too bad.
>
> > Higher handlebar positions are becoming in style
> >> these days (they were always more practical for many, but "style" kept
> >> people from wanting to ride that way... thankfully, "style" is subject to
> >> change, and for the time being, change for the better).
>
> > IYO.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[SMS]

[email protected] wrote:
> Tires are a SMALL part of a bike's "ride" . Steel is by far the more
> cofortable frame. There may be no way to scientifically prove
> differences in ride quality but they are real for a cyclist. I dont
> car about replacing tubes etc. Bike gets trashed its an excuse for a
> new one!!!! I put the same tire 700x37 on my Bianchi san jose steel
> frame /fork and on my Cannondale xr800 al frame/carbonfork (the oe
> alum fork shook my fillings) and by far the san jose is more plush and
> comfortable (brooks b17 on both) same handlebars etc. The frame
> material does matter. Dont let anyone tellyou otherwise. Sizing and
> fit are #1 but allthings equal a steel bike will be more comfortable.

Let's not mince words here, the reason the manufacturers went to
aluminum is because it's very cheap. I remember Sheldon Brown saying
that an aluminum frame from China costs around $8. I think the cost of a
4130 steel frame, mass produced, was around $25.

It's not that buyers would be unwilling to spend the extra $17 or so,
it's that the wholesale cost difference ends up being a lot more, then
the retail cost increases it again. $15 turns into $75, and since most
buyers don't understand the difference in materials the retailer really
can't charge more for comparably equipped models. So the steel frame
turns into a boutique item, sold by companies like Rivendell or Lemond
(Trek).

 

[Aeek]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:38:20 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Crosscheck is especially impressive as they're using the more expensive
>tubing than most of the CroMo models which are using 520.

Barends are much cheaper than integrated shifters and very nearly as
easy to use.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d8aad44b-25c7-43bf-8de4-9a23654fed92@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| On May 13, 2:00 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| > No such thing as peddles.
|
| Time to sell the Google stock. The spell checker missed it. Both
| times. I guess there is something called a "peddles". Maybe it's a
| verb.
|
| As for the little ring... I can see it for loaded touring. But on
| bikes with carbon forks and carbon seat stays??? That's design
| confusion... (or maybe the Marketing V.P. got his way).

Triples aren't just about "touring." It's a style of riding. Probably 90% of
the road bikes we sell have triples, as the only real disadvantage anymore
is about 6 ounces extra weight.

By "style" of riding, I mean that they're very useful for those who would
rather stay seated on a long climb, *or* those who imagine finding some
super-steep climb that might otherwise be impossible to get up. They're also
useful for those who like to vary their cadence and/or effort to keep things
from getting monotonous on a long climb. Still, it's wrong to believe that,
if you have a low-enough gear, you can climb all day and not get tired. You
still need to be in shape.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Will" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:d8aad44b-25c7-43bf-8de4-9a23654fed92@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> | On May 13, 2:00 pm, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

> Triples aren't just about "touring." It's a style of riding. Probably 90% of
> the road bikes we sell have triples, as the only real disadvantage anymore
> is about 6 ounces extra weight.
>
> By "style" of riding, I mean that they're very useful for those who would
> rather stay seated on a long climb, *or* those who imagine finding some
> super-steep climb that might otherwise be impossible to get up. They're also
> useful for those who like to vary their cadence and/or effort to keep things
> from getting monotonous on a long climb. Still, it's wrong to believe that,
> if you have a low-enough gear, you can climb all day and not get tired. You
> still need to be in shape.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Okay Mike, essay time: triple or compact double, and why?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."