relevant importance of variables when choosing a new bike



M

Mark W

Guest
Howdy

Having not cycled for 30 years, having had a couple of 3speed bikes
as a teenager, I bought a bike earlier this summer. I wasn't sure that
i was going to make much use of it, so bought a very cheap (sub £100)
'mountain bike'.

Good news is that I've been out a lot on it, enjoying it hugely. I now
know that mountain biking isn't for me, as I like to give it some
wellie on the road.

Bad news is of course, I need to buy a racer/road bike. The MTB is
fine for round the town, but out on the flat country roads around
Colchester I get into 'top' gear on the flat and just can't get any
more resistance on the pedals to go faster. And coming downhill
there's no resistance until I've slowed down a lot. I -never- get into
1st gear, and only drop to 2nd gear on steep hills (not many around
here!)

So I'm wondering what the relevant things I should be looking for, and
how to balance them

1 - a much lighter bike (the one I've got is chunky tyres, chunky
frame)

2 - a much lighter me (the one I've got is chunky)

3 - very thin tyres

4 - better gears

5 - better fit bike (this one is I believe 19" frame and just feels a
bit too small, as I have to push my backside off the back of the seat
to get into a good position to push the pedals)

6 - get a better riding position (I get the feeling I'm suited to what
I believe is the Superman time trialling position - stretched out and
pumping those pedals)

Any suggestions? URLs I should be looking at?


Mark
 
Mark W wrote:
> Howdy
>
> Having not cycled for 30 years, having had a couple of 3speed bikes
> as a teenager, I bought a bike earlier this summer. I wasn't sure that
> i was going to make much use of it, so bought a very cheap (sub £100)
> 'mountain bike'.
>
> Good news is that I've been out a lot on it, enjoying it hugely. I now
> know that mountain biking isn't for me, as I like to give it some
> wellie on the road.
>
> Bad news is of course, I need to buy a racer/road bike. The MTB is
> fine for round the town, but out on the flat country roads around
> Colchester I get into 'top' gear on the flat and just can't get any
> more resistance on the pedals to go faster. And coming downhill
> there's no resistance until I've slowed down a lot. I -never- get into
> 1st gear, and only drop to 2nd gear on steep hills (not many around
> here!)

Unless you have a particularly low top gear -- and that is possible on a
very cheapo bike with a stupid mix of components -- I suspect your cadence
may be rather slow and you could and should go faster simply by spinning
your legs round faster: something that you can gradually build up to and get
used to. You don't need a great deal of "resistance".

How many teeth on the largest chainring on the front and the smallest cog on
the rear?

If you have 44 / 11 or a similar ratio, that's more than high enough for
flat road cycling.

> So I'm wondering what the relevant things I should be looking for, and
> how to balance them
>
> 1 - a much lighter bike (the one I've got is chunky tyres, chunky
> frame)

That'll be nice and will help overall, but won't necessarily increase top
speed.

> 2 - a much lighter me (the one I've got is chunky)

That might involve going on a diet -- something I have no experience of! :)

> 3 - very thin tyres

A bit thinner would help. Don't have to be the thinnest. Slick or slickish
is definitely good though.

> 4 - better gears

Yes it's important to have gears that suit you, but they can be customised
if the bike you want doesn't come with them. Well worth doing, in my
experience.

> 5 - better fit bike (this one is I believe 19" frame and just feels a
> bit too small, as I have to push my backside off the back of the seat
> to get into a good position to push the pedals)

Make this the top priority.

> 6 - get a better riding position (I get the feeling I'm suited to what
> I believe is the Superman time trialling position - stretched out and
> pumping those pedals)

Potential for a better riding position will of course come with a bike that
fits better.

A road bike may well be for you, but you won't know until you'be bought one
and given it a good chance (ie. a couple of hundred miles at least). I
suggest finding a good bike shop asap and taking their advice. Best of
luck.

~PB
 
Mark W <surely@home>typed


> 1 - a much lighter bike (the one I've got is chunky tyres, chunky
> frame)

Within reason. You can pay a huge amount for something *very* light and
this last kilo or so won't make as much difference as the first few kg.

Try to reduce rotating weight as this has more effect on the effort
needed both to start and stop the bike.

> 2 - a much lighter me (the one I've got is chunky)

Go for it but don't expect anything overnight. Don't defer getting your
road bike until you're lighter cos you may never get and enjoy it.

> 3 - very thin tyres

Go for slicker tyres, rather than knobblies; thin ones make less
difference. Make sure you pump up your tyres *hard*. This makes a huge
difference to rolling resistance at minimal cost.

> 4 - better gears

Go for range as well as good engineering. If your current gears work OK,
don't rush to change them.

> 5 - better fit bike (this one is I believe 19" frame and just feels a
> bit too small, as I have to push my backside off the back of the seat
> to get into a good position to push the pedals)

> 6 - get a better riding position (I get the feeling I'm suited to what
> I believe is the Superman time trialling position - stretched out and
> pumping those pedals)

> Any suggestions? URLs I should be looking at?


My personal preference is to prioritise 5 & 6, which go together really.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Mark W wrote:
> Howdy
>
> Having not cycled for 30 years, having had a couple of 3speed bikes
> as a teenager, I bought a bike earlier this summer. I wasn't sure that
> i was going to make much use of it, so bought a very cheap (sub £100)
> 'mountain bike'.
>
> Good news is that I've been out a lot on it, enjoying it hugely. I now
> know that mountain biking isn't for me, as I like to give it some
> wellie on the road.
>
> Bad news is of course, I need to buy a racer/road bike. The MTB is
> fine for round the town, but out on the flat country roads around
> Colchester I get into 'top' gear on the flat and just can't get any
> more resistance on the pedals to go faster. And coming downhill
> there's no resistance until I've slowed down a lot. I -never- get into
> 1st gear, and only drop to 2nd gear on steep hills (not many around
> here!)
>
> Any suggestions? URLs I should be looking at?
>
> Mark

If you want to go fast on-road, but not do (mainstream) competition,
take a look at recumbents - www.bentrideronline.com - several places in
the UK do tuition / try-out sessions (DTek and Future Cycles to name
but 2).
For all things (regular) bike it has to be http://sheldonbrown.com/
(http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to start)
Have fun :)
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark W
('surely@home') wrote:


> 1 - a much lighter bike (the one I've got is chunky tyres, chunky
> frame)

Yes

> 2 - a much lighter me (the one I've got is chunky)

This will follow. Not inevitably, and possibly not as much as you'd
expect - muscle is heavier than fat (but usually more shapely).

> 3 - very thin tyres

Yes

> 4 - better gears

Yes

> 5 - better fit bike (this one is I believe 19" frame and just feels a
> bit too small, as I have to push my backside off the back of the seat
> to get into a good position to push the pedals)

Yes

> 6 - get a better riding position (I get the feeling I'm suited to what
> I believe is the Superman time trialling position - stretched out and
> pumping those pedals)

Yes

> Any suggestions? URLs I should be looking at?

This depends on what you want to spend. Where I would start is a
mass-market racer - something like a Specialized Allez series, Claud
Butler Milano, Vicenza or Strada, Giant OCR series. These are things in
the £300-£1,000 area - if you want to spend more, read on. Get advice on
sizing, which essentially means find a /good/ local bike shop to help
you select the size you need. Someone here can recommend a good LBS in
your area.

Essentially the name on the bike is usually only the name of the frame
maker or assembler; equally important is the component set. Prefer a
bike with a full groupset from either Shimano or Campagnolo (or, now,
SRAM) over one with an anonymous collection of bits and pieces; at least
all the transmission components (shifters, front derailleur, rear
derailleur, crankset, cassette, chain) should ideally be part of the
same groupset.

I would /slightly/ recommend Campagnolo over Shimano. Obviously the top
of the range Shimano kit is better than the bottom of the range
Campagnolo kit, but Campagnolo ergonomics are a bit better across the
range and at any given price point I think the Campagnolo components are
a bit better. Significantly, you can get /any/ spare part for Campagnolo
components; with Shimano you can usually only get complete components.
However, neither Campagnolo nor SRAM produce very cheap components,
so 'entry level' road bikes will tend to have Shimano.

Things which are worth extra are

* Carbon forks - greatly improve comfort over aluminium ones, slightly
over steel ones;
* Carbon seat-stays - ditto;
* Full carbon monocoque frame - nice if you can afford it, but gets
pricey;

For your use I think you want a double chainset rather than a triple -
you are in a fairly flat part of the world and say you don't use your
low gears.

If you want to try a time trial position you can add 'clip on' aerobars
like these: http://www.wiggle.co.uk/Default.aspx?ProdID=4000000916
You could also go the whole hog and replace your handlebars with a full
aero set, but that gets expensive and most people don't find them
comfortable for ordinary riding so you'd be better trying clip-ons
first.

If you find that time-trialling is what you enjoy - and personally, I
enjoy it - then specialist time trial machinery is out there. One of the
things I like about cycling is that you can afford to own a bike
identical to what the top pros are racing - the equivalent of a Maclaren
F1 car - but particularly in time trial the prices can get eye-watering.

If you're serious, time trial bikes don't come full built up - you choose
your components. Frames to look at include

Cervelo P3C
Isaac Joule
Dolan Pallotola

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

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.
 
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:32:42 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Unless you have a particularly low top gear -- and that is possible on a
>very cheapo bike with a stupid mix of components -- I suspect your cadence
>may be rather slow and you could and should go faster simply by spinning
>your legs round faster: something that you can gradually build up to and get
>used to. You don't need a great deal of "resistance".


Thing is, if I'm on the flat, and not in top gear, my little legs
whizz round much faster, but don't give me extra speed - less so in
fact. I do get my legs going round pretty fast in top gear.

And coming down a hill, whenit starts to level out, even in top gear,
I physically can't pedal because the wheels spin round so fast, but
give absolutely no extra speed (and I look like a ***)

>
>How many teeth on the largest chainring on the front and the smallest cog on
>the rear?
>If you have 44 / 11 or a similar ratio, that's more than high enough for
>flat road cycling.

It appears to be 42 on the big one at the front and 14 on the little
one at the rear.


Mark
 
On 7 Sep 2006 00:18:26 -0700, "squeaker" <[email protected]> wrote:


>If you want to go fast on-road, but not do (mainstream) competition,
>take a look at recumbents - www.bentrideronline.com - several places in
>the UK do tuition / try-out sessions (DTek and Future Cycles to name
>but 2).

Ahh, I forgot to mention, I prefer not to look like a ***! ;-)

>For all things (regular) bike it has to be http://sheldonbrown.com/
>(http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to start)
>Have fun :)

These are really useful - thanks :)

Mark
 
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:58:09 +0100, Mark W <surely@home> wrote:

>On 7 Sep 2006 00:18:26 -0700, "squeaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>>For all things (regular) bike it has to be http://sheldonbrown.com/
>>(http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to start)
>>Have fun :)
>
>These are really useful - thanks :)
>


Actually, particularly useful on the Sheldon Brown pages are the
mention that whilst 20years ago the design of bikes was such that
having the seat just high enough to get a tippytoe on the floor when
at a stand, the design of bikes is such that this isn't the case now,
and that seats should be higher. (I had wondered why some cyclists
seem to have seats way higher than I would have expected - I thought
that maybe they had exceptionally long legs!)

Mark
 
Mark W wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:32:42 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Unless you have a particularly low top gear -- and that is possible
>> on a very cheapo bike with a stupid mix of components -- I suspect
>> your cadence may be rather slow and you could and should go faster
>> simply by spinning your legs round faster: something that you can
>> gradually build up to and get used to. You don't need a great deal
>> of "resistance".
>
> Thing is, if I'm on the flat, and not in top gear, my little legs
> whizz round much faster, but don't give me extra speed - less so in
> fact. I do get my legs going round pretty fast in top gear.
>
> And coming down a hill, whenit starts to level out, even in top gear,
> I physically can't pedal because the wheels spin round so fast, but
> give absolutely no extra speed (and I look like a ***)

Up to a point, it is possible to increase the speed you can physically whizz
your legs round through practice, but I see from what you say below that
your gears are indeed what I call stupid, so I can't blame you!....

>> How many teeth on the largest chainring on the front and the
>> smallest cog on the rear?
>> If you have 44 / 11 or a similar ratio, that's more than high enough
>> for flat road cycling.
>
> It appears to be 42 on the big one at the front and 14 on the little
> one at the rear.

They've given you a modern style crankset that's designed to be used with a
modern cassette that start at 11 teeth, but with an old style freewheel
that's normally used with larger chainrings. You won't get that nonsense
with a better bike -- a road or mountain one.

~PB
 
Mark W wrote:
> Ahh, I forgot to mention, I prefer not to look like a ***! ;-)

As the group's resident recumbent riders will tell you, the comments
they get from passers-by are usually of the "cool bike" kind.

And as someone who has struggled to keep up with one of the group's
resident recumbent riders, I can vouch for how fast they are on the flat
- even when they have an extra wheel to slow them down.

d.
 
Mark W wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:58:09 +0100, Mark W <surely@home> wrote:
>
>> On 7 Sep 2006 00:18:26 -0700, "squeaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> For all things (regular) bike it has to be http://sheldonbrown.com/
>>> (http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to start)
>>> Have fun :)
>> These are really useful - thanks :)
>>
>
>
> Actually, particularly useful on the Sheldon Brown pages are the
> mention that whilst 20years ago the design of bikes was such that
> having the seat just high enough to get a tippytoe on the floor when
> at a stand, the design of bikes is such that this isn't the case now,
> and that seats should be higher. (I had wondered why some cyclists
> seem to have seats way higher than I would have expected - I thought
> that maybe they had exceptionally long legs!)
>

Eh? isn't that a bit dangerous? (My bike is over 20 years old)
 
Response to davek:
> > Ahh, I forgot to mention, I prefer not to look like a ***! ;-)
>
> As the group's resident recumbent riders will tell you, the comments
> they get from passers-by are usually of the "cool bike" kind.


Almost invariably, IME. Besides, it's quite possible that you'll be
having so much fun that you won't give the faintest damn what you might
think other people might think you look like.


--
Mark, UK
"You've no idea what a poor opinion I have of myself, and how little I
deserve it."
 
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> 2 - a much lighter me (the one I've got is chunky)
>>
>> This will follow. Not inevitably, and possibly not as much as you'd
>> expect - muscle is heavier than fat (but usually more shapely).
>
> It may also be worth bearing in mind that a cheap bike that makes you work
> harder will also make you lose weight quicker. A sleek, lightweight road
> bike is almost too easy to ride!

Against that a nice bike encourages you to ride, so you may find you
actually work harder on it.

(works for me anyway)

cheers,
clive
 
in message <[email protected]>, Mark W
('surely@home') wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 23:32:42 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Unless you have a particularly low top gear -- and that is possible on
>>a very cheapo bike with a stupid mix of components -- I suspect your
>>cadence may be rather slow and you could and should go faster simply by
>>spinning your legs round faster: something that you can gradually build
>>up to and get
>>used to. You don't need a great deal of "resistance".
>
> Thing is, if I'm on the flat, and not in top gear, my little legs
> whizz round much faster, but don't give me extra speed - less so in
> fact. I do get my legs going round pretty fast in top gear.
>
> And coming down a hill, whenit starts to level out, even in top gear,
> I physically can't pedal because the wheels spin round so fast, but
> give absolutely no extra speed (and I look like a ***)
>
>>How many teeth on the largest chainring on the front and the smallest
>>cog on the rear?
>>If you have 44 / 11 or a similar ratio, that's more than high enough
>>for flat road cycling.
>
> It appears to be 42 on the big one at the front and 14 on the little
> one at the rear.

In the arcane measurements of cycling, that's a 78" gear. Which is, as
you said before, way too low for road riding at any reasonable speed.
53/13 (110") is a normal top gear for road bikes. Pete's right that one
of the things inexperienced cyclists often get wrong is to pedal at too
low a cadence (RPM) in too high a gear. You should aim to pedal at at
least 80 rpm. However, you do need a bike with more reasonable gears.

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

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous
 
in message <[email protected]>, Marcus Red
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Mark W wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:58:09 +0100, Mark W <surely@home> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Sep 2006 00:18:26 -0700, "squeaker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> For all things (regular) bike it has to be http://sheldonbrown.com/
>>>> (http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to
>>>> start) Have fun :)
>>> These are really useful - thanks :)
>>
>> Actually, particularly useful on the Sheldon Brown pages are the
>> mention that whilst 20years ago the design of bikes was such that
>> having the seat just high enough to get a tippytoe on the floor when
>> at a stand, the design of bikes is such that this isn't the case now,
>> and that seats should be higher. (I had wondered why some cyclists
>> seem to have seats way higher than I would have expected - I thought
>> that maybe they had exceptionally long legs!)
>
> Eh? isn't that a bit dangerous? (My bike is over 20 years old)

No, not in the least. I can't get both tippie-toes down on /any/ of my
bikes.

Not unrelated, stand-over height is generally better with modern frames,
so if you need to get both feet down you slip off the saddle.

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

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Marcus Red
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Mark W wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 09:58:09 +0100, Mark W <surely@home> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7 Sep 2006 00:18:26 -0700, "squeaker" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> For all things (regular) bike it has to be
>>>>> http://sheldonbrown.com/
>>>>> (http://sheldonbrown.com/beginners/index.html is a good place to
>>>>> start) Have fun :)
>>>> These are really useful - thanks :)
>>>
>>> Actually, particularly useful on the Sheldon Brown pages are the
>>> mention that whilst 20years ago the design of bikes was such that
>>> having the seat just high enough to get a tippytoe on the floor when
>>> at a stand, the design of bikes is such that this isn't the case
>>> now, and that seats should be higher. (I had wondered why some
>>> cyclists seem to have seats way higher than I would have expected -
>>> I thought that maybe they had exceptionally long legs!)
>>
>> Eh? isn't that a bit dangerous? (My bike is over 20 years old)
>
> No, not in the least. I can't get both tippie-toes down on /any/ of my
> bikes.

I can't on my mountain bike or Depravo, but can with the #2 fixer, as that's
a converted touring from, with consequently low b/b height.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
You can't have ham!
 
davek wrote:

> It may also be worth bearing in mind that a cheap bike that makes you
> work harder will also make you lose weight quicker. A sleek, lightweight
> road bike is almost too easy to ride!

That depends who you're trying to keep up with. :)

--
Dave...
 
davek wrote:

> It may also be worth bearing in mind that a cheap bike that makes you
> work harder will also make you lose weight quicker. A sleek, lightweight
> road bike is almost too easy to ride!

That depends who you're trying to keep up with. :)

--
Dave...
 

> davek <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > It may also be worth bearing in mind that a cheap bike that makes
you
> > work harder will also make you lose weight quicker. A sleek,
> > lightweight road bike is almost too easy to ride!

But does a cheap bike make you work harder, or just mean that you go
slower and for a shorter distance.

Riding with a fit friend, who has a decent bike, might make you work
harder

Jeremy Parker
 

> >> Actually, particularly useful on the Sheldon Brown pages are the
> >> mention that whilst 20years ago the design of bikes was such
that
> >> having the seat just high enough to get a tippytoe on the floor
when
> >> at a stand, the design of bikes is such that this isn't the case
now,
> >> and that seats should be higher. (I had wondered why some
cyclists
> >> seem to have seats way higher than I would have expected - I
thought
> >> that maybe they had exceptionally long legs!)

Does Sheldon say why? I think the reason is some regulation by the
American Consumer Products Safety Commission, worried by riders
leaning over while going round a curve, being too stupid to stop
pedalling, thereby hitting their pedal on the ground (I doubt if the
CPSC has even heard of a fixie)

Jeremy Parker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Concussion mechanism, possibly relevant to helmets
Replies
65
Views
1K
UK and Europe
The Luggage
T
A
Re: The Importance of a 4th bike
Replies
0
Views
618
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
Skunk
The Importance of a 4th bike
Replies
1
Views
829
UK and Europe
Alan Braggins
A
T
  • Locked
Importance of cadence measurement?
Replies
8
Views
410
UK and Europe
Jim Price
J
Top Bottom Back