Recommended bike for tall person in urban area

[HeroOfSpielburg]

Hello, I'm not too knowledgable on what the differences are between
various types (road/mountain/etc.) and makers, so I was wondering if
anyone had a suggestion.

I live in Tokyo and love covering the city on my bike. I currently
have what they call a "mama-chari", which essentially is a cheap
aluminum job from China with fenders and a basket. It does ok, but
with constant road construction and bumpy sidewalks, it wears me out
after a while (though I don't feel like my leg muscles are really
getting a good workout).

Anyway, I was looking for a bike that would be well suited for a long
day (8+ hrs) out through the city, over sidewalks, main streets, back
alleys, etc. It's may also worth noting that I am rather tall (almost
190cm) but quite slim. I suppose I want to buy one of the largest
bikes I can find? (what would that be?)

I've read that steel frames and "traditional" geometry ones are more
desirable than aluminum, compact frames. I'm not sure how relevant
this is.

I love the feeling of cruising through the city more than almost
anything, so I'm willing to pay for at least a mid-level bike.

If anyone has a suggestion for a type/maker, or what particular
points/elements I should look for/compare to, I'd be much obliged.
Thank you!!

 

[Claire Petersky]

"HeroOfSpielburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello, I'm not too knowledgable on what the differences are between
> various types (road/mountain/etc.) and makers, so I was wondering if
> anyone had a suggestion.
>
> I live in Tokyo and love covering the city on my bike. I currently
> have what they call a "mama-chari", which essentially is a cheap
> aluminum job from China with fenders and a basket. It does ok, but
> with constant road construction and bumpy sidewalks, it wears me out
> after a while (though I don't feel like my leg muscles are really
> getting a good workout).
>
> Anyway, I was looking for a bike that would be well suited for a long
> day (8+ hrs) out through the city, over sidewalks, main streets, back
> alleys, etc.

Is an "urban" bike available to you in Tokyo? I'm thinking of something like
the REI Buzz:
http://www.rei.com/online/store/Pro...productId=47841647&parent_category_rn=4502048

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Fritz M]

Hero-san asked about what type of bike to ride in Tokyo.

When I lived near Tokyo over 20 years ago it seemed there were
competent frame builders all over the place, although most bikes on the
street were mass-produced but servicable bikes like your mama-chari. I
imagine you could find a real bike shop and they could help you out. I
think I would avoid the depato stores, but my observations are 20 years
out of date.

I was a teen and owned a junky BMX-style kid bike but I often rode my
dad's custom bike, a very sweet road/touring bike. This was on the
junky roads all over the town I lived in. I don't recall there being
sidewalks where I lived. I always rode in the street in conditions that
would horrify most of today's bike lane advocates. My first bike-car
collision was when I was about 12 years old and I mis-judged a gap and
*I* knocked the side mirror off of a car. My friends hurried off while
I muttered gomenesais to the driver as I picked up the mirror and
dropped it through his open window.

I used the mama-chari for shopping trips for bokuno okasan.

For all-day and long distances, nothing beats a touring bike with drop
bars. Mountain, hybrid, and commuter bikes are suited more for shorter
distance riding, though their wider tires means they do better in rough
conditions. In your case, it seems either touring or commuter bikes
would work well in different ways. Personally, I would use a touring
bike with 28mm or wider tires, but that's because I can't handle flat
handlebars for much more than seven or eight miles. Other people have
much better luck with them and a commuter or hybrid works well for
them, even with longer distances.

RFM
http://www.masoner.net/bike/

 

[Super Slinky]

HeroOfSpielburg says...

> Hello, I'm not too knowledgable on what the differences are between
> various types (road/mountain/etc.) and makers, so I was wondering if
> anyone had a suggestion.
>
> I live in Tokyo and love covering the city on my bike. I currently
> have what they call a "mama-chari", which essentially is a cheap
> aluminum job from China with fenders and a basket. It does ok, but
> with constant road construction and bumpy sidewalks, it wears me out
> after a while (though I don't feel like my leg muscles are really
> getting a good workout).
>
> Anyway, I was looking for a bike that would be well suited for a long
> day (8+ hrs) out through the city, over sidewalks, main streets, back
> alleys, etc. It's may also worth noting that I am rather tall (almost
> 190cm) but quite slim. I suppose I want to buy one of the largest
> bikes I can find? (what would that be?)
>
> I've read that steel frames and "traditional" geometry ones are more
> desirable than aluminum, compact frames. I'm not sure how relevant
> this is.
>
> I love the feeling of cruising through the city more than almost
> anything, so I'm willing to pay for at least a mid-level bike.
>
> If anyone has a suggestion for a type/maker, or what particular
> points/elements I should look for/compare to, I'd be much obliged.
> Thank you!!

If you love urban riding, get a full suspension mountain bike and mount
slick tires. Nothing else compares. I don't know what is available, but
I would think that at the very least Giant bikes would be common. Road
bikes are fragile and harsh for urban riding. Hybrids aren't much better
and usually have cheesy components like cheap suspension forks and
suspension seatposts that either don't work or won't last, or both.

 

[maxo]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:54:29 +0000, Super Slinky wrote:

> If you love urban riding, get a full suspension mountain bike and mount
> slick tires. Nothing else compares.

Really now, why do you want to haul around ten pounds of unecessary weight
on a bike that you can't mount a proper rack or fenders onto? Nothing else
compares because nothing else could come close to being as impractical.

I'm going to agree with a lot of folks and recommend the
touring/cyclocross bike route. Get a big frame so that you can get the
bars up to saddle height or higher. I think drop bars are most comfy, but
that's up to you. I like steel bikes better since many of the aluminum
models are overbuilt, giving a harsh ride. That's not to say that there
aren't some nice aluminum models to be found. Jamis makes affordable bikes
in this category.

Mount full coverage fenders and a nice sturdy rack with panniers for all
the tchochkes you'll find pedaling about.

You might want to get a suspension seatpost, but most of your suspension
on such a ride will be from decent tires such as a set of Continental top
tour, or Schwalbe Marathon. 700x35 or therebouts would be a good size.

 

[Fritz M]

Hero-san wrote:

> I've read that steel frames and "traditional" geometry ones are
> more desirable than aluminum, compact frames. I'm not sure how
> relevant this is.

I forgot to address this part of your inquiry in my earlier response.

The geometry is the angles of the tubes in your frame. More relaxed
geometries such as found in touring bikes, commuters, and hybrids
result in a ride that's not as stiff as that in the tighter geometries
of many modern road bikes.

RFM

 

[maxo]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:44:05 -0800, Fritz M wrote:

> The geometry is the angles of the tubes in your frame. More relaxed
> geometries such as found in touring bikes, commuters, and hybrids result
> in a ride that's not as stiff as that in the tighter geometries of many
> modern road bikes.

Not to be contrary...but I thing the geometry has much more to do with how
a bike handles, The more relaxed the angles, the more "comfy" it feels in
the sense that it's less responsive and "twitchy" like a race bike. I'd
say tubing gauge, type, and composition would have more impact on the
amount of road vibrations encountered and the feeling of rigidity.
Rigidity is a double edged sword--it makes the bike less comfortable, but
increases efficiency at time, like when you're standing and hammering it
on a hill. Your energy then goes to the rear wheel, and not into bending
the frame. I'm of the ride a compliant frame and learn to gently spin
school of riding myself.

I was looking at a bunch of bikes on the web the other day, touring,
cyclocross, and road, and it did seem to me that the head and seat angles
were pretty much the same, perhaps with the touring frame a degree
shallower. The biggest difference seemed to be with the wheelbase,
the touring/cyclocross bikes were quite a bit longer in the top tube
and chainstay areas.

 

[Pat]

: I was looking at a bunch of bikes on the web the other day, touring,
: cyclocross, and road, and it did seem to me that the head and seat angles
: were pretty much the same, perhaps with the touring frame a degree
: shallower. The biggest difference seemed to be with the wheelbase,
: the touring/cyclocross bikes were quite a bit longer in the top tube
: and chainstay areas.

my touring bike (an 84 Schwinn) handles like a plow horse; my road bike
(2001 Bianchi Veloce) is like riding a mosquito.
the frame geometry is more relaxed on the touring bike and i can feel it in
the stable ride, resistance to turning, no ability to accelerate, and
climbing difficulty.

pat in TX

 

[maxo]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:10:24 -0600, Pat wrote:

> resistance to turning, no ability to accelerate, and climbing difficulty.

I'll buy your "resistance to turning" since that's the idea--long term
stable comfort with a leisurely turn here and there, but the no ability to
accelerate and difficulty with climbing are pretty subjective. Certainly a
pedal masher will experience maximum efficiency with an extremely rigid
bike, but that same rider could also pedal at a more efficient cadence and
by using technique, pour more energy into speed than into the frame.

I'd be the first guy in class to recommend the super rigid frame to mister
thunderthighs low rpm sprinter dude, that makes sense. I think a lot of
average riders would benefit a lot more from learning to spin more
efficiently, something that's a lot cheaper than just buying the latest
super duper frameset...

 

[Peter Cole]

"maxo" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Not to be contrary...but I thing the geometry has much more to do with
how
> a bike handles, The more relaxed the angles, the more "comfy" it feels in
> the sense that it's less responsive and "twitchy" like a race bike. I'd
> say tubing gauge, type, and composition would have more impact on the
> amount of road vibrations encountered and the feeling of rigidity.
> Rigidity is a double edged sword--it makes the bike less comfortable, but
> increases efficiency at time, like when you're standing and hammering it
> on a hill. Your energy then goes to the rear wheel, and not into bending
> the frame. I'm of the ride a compliant frame and learn to gently spin
> school of riding myself.

Congratulations, every frame myth in one paragraph.

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote

> my touring bike (an 84 Schwinn) handles like a plow horse; my road bike
> (2001 Bianchi Veloce) is like riding a mosquito.
> the frame geometry is more relaxed on the touring bike and i can feel it
in
> the stable ride, resistance to turning, no ability to accelerate, and
> climbing difficulty.

I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
both!).

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:39:00 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

> Congratulations, every frame myth in one paragraph.

Wow, Peter, feeling smug? Thanks for the counter argument.

BTW, the couple dozen bikes that I've personally owned over the years and
every general statement that I made of frames has held true. I've owned
thin walled steel where you could rub the tire against the frame if you
muscled it in an inappropriate gear, but rode rather well. I've had
compact geometry aluminum city bikes with steep angles. Wow, they handled
great, and were spine bruisers even with 37c tires.

But I guess I'm wrong because you said so.

[rolls eyes]

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:42:19 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:

> I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
> both!).

Your responses show a willingness to belittle others without adding a gram
of substance to the thread.

You might enjoy it, but trust me, many of us don't enjoy your digital "na
na boo boos".

 

[Peter Cole]

"maxo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:42:19 +0000, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > I think you have either a tendency to over-imagination or hyperbole (or
> > both!).
>
> Your responses show a willingness to belittle others without adding a
gram
> of substance to the thread.
>
> You might enjoy it, but trust me, many of us don't enjoy your digital "na
> na boo boos".

Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just to say
their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is that
frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
support that opinion. What else have you got?

 

[Pat]

: : Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just to
say
: their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is that
: frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
: It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
: support that opinion. What else have you got?

The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
"science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to accept
that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and it's
not factual and it's not the final answer.

Pat in TX
:
:

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : : Hey, don't take it so personally. It's not "belittling" others just
to
> say
> : their claims are wrong. In case you missed it, my "contribution" is
that
> : frame material/geometry/tubing gauge, etc. doesn't make any difference.
> : It's your opinion that it does, but material science/physics doesn't
> : support that opinion. What else have you got?
>
> The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
> "science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
accept
> that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and
it's
> not factual and it's not the final answer.

This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears yet
another argument.

 

[Pat]

: > The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
: > "science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
: accept
: > that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just that---and
: it's
: > not factual and it's not the final answer.
:
: This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears yet
: another argument.

that's what people have been trying to tell you. nobody looks at you as an
expert. all you do is post something and expect people to think of it as
gospel. we don't.

Pat in TX
:
:

 

[Peter Cole]

"Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> : > The thing is, you never back up anything you say. you just write:
> : > "science/physics doesn't support that opinion" and expect everyone to
> : accept
> : > that---because---YOU said it! rubbish. Your opinion is just
that---and
> : it's
> : > not factual and it's not the final answer.
> :
> : This has been beaten to death so many times in this NG it hardly bears
yet
> : another argument.
>
> that's what people have been trying to tell you. nobody looks at you as
an
> expert. all you do is post something and expect people to think of it as
> gospel. we don't.

It's all been said before. It's harmless enough to believe such bike
magazine science, except that it produces some really dumb frames. If you
want to believe that one frame can "out accelerate" another, fine, just
don't try to present it as a fact without something to back it up. It's
also less than helpful for a newbie looking for advice. Hey, most Americans
believe in creationism too (according to this AM's paper). That doesn't
make it science.

 

[Pat]

:
: It's all been said before. It's harmless enough to believe such bike
: magazine science, except that it produces some really dumb frames. If you
: want to believe that one frame can "out accelerate" another, fine, just
: don't try to present it as a fact without something to back it up. It's
: also less than helpful for a newbie looking for advice. Hey, most
Americans
: believe in creationism too (according to this AM's paper). That doesn't
: make it science.
:

All I did was post personal experience. I named the bikes, even. Personal
experience--not anything else. I'm not the one pretending to be an expert,
here. That would be you.
Pat in TX

 

[Super Slinky]

Peter Cole says...

> Congratulations, every frame myth in one paragraph.

Did you see his post where he said that bikes with larger diameter
wheels were more stable because of gyroscopic forces? That one was a
riot.