albert fish wrote:
> untrue. non suspension bikes are far easier to bunny hop. I can get my =
front susser about
> 2' off the ground from standstill... when I do the same on a rigid I ga=
in an extra few inches.
> but I digress, the OP is asking about saracens, Pete, so they are hard=
ly likely to be hopping.
Why on earth not? I hop my upright tourer, my Brompton and my MTB. Any =
upright bike is reasonably easy to hop, at least the front wheel.
And the OP was actually asking about "a general bike for towpaths and=20 commuting etc.", and the
post certainly isn't restricted in scope to=20 Saracen bikes (like, how about the Giant specifically
mentioned...).
> tell me, Pete, as a denizen of the dept of medical physics, how does on=
e 'grow' a brain ?
> or was that just a petulant monday morning off the cuff remark ?
I actually meant if you actually bother to think you can avoid problems=20 crossing kerbs. (Though I
can see why you'd be interested in the more=20 literal answer.)
> yeah, right. and it's possible to do that every time ?
Errr, yes. Why not? I've never experienced a problem in 25+ years of=20 doing it regularly
day to day.
> some research: bump down a kerb on a rigid fork bike, full weight on th=
e bars.
I won't do that research because I don't put my full weight on the bars=20 going over kerbs because
it's stupid.
> then do the same on a bike with 2" travel in the forks, both time with =
a rucksac/
> bag on your back at the end of a day in heavy traffic. see the differen=
ce ? feel it
> when you get home ? no? repeat experiment until it sinks in or your wri=
sts snap..
or until you learn not to lean on things taking impacts when you have no =
need to do so. btw, "heavy traffic" doesn't go over kerbs, so you=20 wouldn't be in it. If you get
into heavy traffic streams over pavement=20 kerbs then you're simply demonstrating a further lack of
intelligence=20 than you'd managed up until now.
> hopping the front wheel or stopping leaning on the bars for a second.
either
> which any rider would do anyway.
Not according to the implications of your "research experiment" they don'=
t.
> yes indeed; the bikes are so **** the trails are free of the people th=
at buy such iron ;-)
So you are at least bright enough to agree that just because the market=20 has been able to sell
things to people it doesn't mean it's a good thing.=
> lets just bring this thread back to reality, shall we ? the OP was aski=
ng if saracen
> bikes were any good, they're not (but someone somewhere will have evide=
nce to
> disprove that, I'm sure) *your* suggestion : " I'd personally say forge=
t front suspension
> at this price level is flawed for 2 reasons:
To quote the OP: "Picking a bike seems to be a minefield. I'm just looking for a general bike for
towpaths and commuting etc.
My LBS suggests a Giant GSR Comfort AluxX FS for =A3200 (+rack & mudguards)
Or, i've seen a - team saracen hyroad for =A3235 at
http://www.saracen.co.uk/hyroad.html what do you
guys think?"
He's had a FS Giant suggested by the LBS, and asks about a specific=20 Saracen bike also with FS as
an alternative. This rather implies he's=20 looking actively at a FS bike as the thing to do what he
wants best. I=20 don't think it is, which is why I said so.
> 1/ the pricepoint of =A3200 is just a rrp/ssp and many decent =A3400+ b=
ikes have been
> seen in the wild for up to 50% off, evans cycles just had a massive sa=
le for expmple.
> check out their ad in this months MTBR.
You're still failing to realise that an MTB with FS is designed to do a=20 different job than is
being requested by the OP, so this is not=20 relevant. Pointing out that a rigid forked machine will
probably do his =
particular job better is relevant.
> 2/ for the =A3200 the OP has to spend you would have to be a blind man =
on a galloping
> horse not to notice that such sales would be tha place to buy a bike.
And as I pointed out, the sort of bike I suggested can also get into=20 sales. But it's also the
point that sales only allow you to get what's=20 in the sales, and if there's a better machine for
the job for the same=20 price new, because what's in the sales doesn't match up to the job in=20
hand, then you're better off there. For the job in hand FS makes very=20 little sense at all unless
it's designed for relatively good surfaces.=20 MTB forks aren't.
> /cough/ it's desigened for bumps, they don't *have* to be up a mountain=
=2E...
It's designed for large bumps in large quantities, so the design allows=20 for a great deal more
impact absorption than is required on the road.=20 This in turn makes them heavier and more wasteful
of energy, both of=20 which will very probably offset the comfort benefits of having them=20 there
considerably. Have a look at Moulton suspension and notice how=20 very different approaches have
been taken to take on the rather=20 different job in hand.
> Granted. but the difference will be the difference between a rucksack c=
ontaining 4 sarnies
> and a flask of tea versus four sarnies and a packet of biscuits. bugger=
all in real terms and
> only pertinent when attempting a win on points.
But why have any difference at all, when having it confers no real=20 advantage? That's just stupid,
especially where the money can go on=20 something more useful to the job in hand.
> and the OP is going to be doing how many uphill sprints ?
Quite possibly none, but if you think that you only lose power to=20 suspension if you're sprinting
then it just goes to show you're ignorant =
about it (why is that not a surprise?).
> sure, my forks dip when I get a wiggel on up a hill, I burn more calories and get some upper
> body exc=
ercise at the same
> time. I can weigh that off against the lack of jarring over the gazilli=
ons of lumps & bumps
Which are a figment of your imagination, judging from the way touring=20 cyclists ride a lot further
than you without suspension (and harder,=20 narrower tyres as well) and don't feel the need for it.
> and someone buying at the saracen end of the market would view this how=
?
As a result of this thread he probably *won't* be buying one, because=20 he's shown enough brains to
do some research. And if he carries on in=20 that vein he'll probably be smart enough to realise
that maintenance is=20 an important thing too.
> no ****...
that's right.
> geometry akin to the early 70's choppers ? (motorcycle) rake, etc ?
Errrr, no. The geometry of a NSM is nothing like a Chopper. What *are* =
you talking about?
> all things being equal, it is.
Except in all those places it isn't, which I even helpfully pointed out.
> I see many people on city roads with front suspension bikes of all shapes and sizes but, oddly
> enough, I never see rigid fork=
bikes out
> on the trail.=20
Then (a) you don't look very carefully and (b) that is in no way=20 relevant to the roads. Roads and
trails aren't the same, which is why=20 different designs have proven better at the different things
they offer.
> so it would be fair to say if you wanted to experience the full range of terrain in your locale (
> and, lets face it, who buys any kind of MTB=
without having
> that dream lodged firmly in their heads) you'd be better off getting *s=
ome* kind of
> suspension bike, if only to avoid having to buy another bike when the b=
ug bites (as
> it surely would) neatly avoiding the need to buy a more suitable, bette=
r equiped bike.
But the OP didn't say he wanted to do that. In fact he very=20 specifically said otherwise. So the
answer to your "if" is "no", so the =
rest of that paragraph disappears up its own ****.
> are not good enough reasons *not* to buy into front suspension.
They are, actually. Which is why very few high end upright road bikes=20 have it, and when they do
it's generally very different to what you find =
on an MTB.
> maintenance? forget about it at this price point
It is exceptionally stupid to think you can forget maintenance at *any*=20 price point.
> nickable ? roll back the application of good design and looks 'cos it *=
may* make
> it more nickable ? I don't think so, it's not the way things are, eithe=
u.
It isn't the application of good design though, it's the application of=20 "me too" engineering
where it's assumed that because something is good=20 in one context it must be good in another. And
it is the way things are.=
> luggae options ? you're getting desperate now, it's a hack / commuter !=
I'm not at all desperate. Some people carry things on commutes, and I=20 certainly carry shopping on
hacks. Not having to carry a rucksak=20 improves cycling comfort and reduces the need for a shower
and change at =
the other end as you won't have a sweaty back. Which is more useful=20 than FS on a road,
quite frankly.
> energy from the drivetrain ? it's hack/commuter bike.
So why arrive at the end of your commute having used more energy than=20 you need to? Doing so when
you have an easy option not to is simply stup=
ua.
> the losses will be negligable 5% ? and the OP would not notice, given that they will probably
> be too =
concerned
> at the pain in their wrists/lungs/legs for the first few months...
If the effect of riding a rigid bike was nearly as bad as you imply then =
nobody would have bothered much with bikes for most of the last 150=20 years. As I pointed out,
serious distance machines costing serious=20 money and with a priority applied to distance comfort
are sold with=20 rigid forks, and they wouldn't be if that was a genuine problem.
> for the =A3235 the OP is thinking of spending on a saracen I managed to=
get
> a much better bike, in fact, I got 2 (almost =A3900's worth rrp) of bik=
es for =A3450 cash
> a saving of 50% and this was not in a sale, per se, I just know when to=
strike
But if they're not fitted to the job in hand that's not actually value=20 for money.
> I also refused to cement the deal until I got a free pump. lock and tro=
user clips, etc.
>=20
> Cash talks. I *know* the shop didn't declare the cash to the revenue be=
cause the
> I was told the "till was out of action" and I was given a stamped, hand=
written receipt.
Good for you. There's nothing about that that is limited to a=20 suspension bike though.
> at the end of the day, you pays yer money and makes yer choice and my c=
hoice
> would be to haggle like a demon for the best most feature laden cycle I=
could get
> for my money (disregarding geegaws and fashion items, of course)=20
Rather ironic that you think FS isn't a geegaw and fashion item when=20 applied to road riding,
because for the most part (i.e., aside from=20 suspension setups designed specifically for road use)
that's just what=20 they are.
> *will* want to get off road at some point
How do you know? Or have you just made a blind assumption apropos of=20 nothing in particular?
Plenty of people have no particular desire to=20 get offroad on trails, and if you think otherwise
you're just=20 demonstrating you only know a somewhat unrepresentative cross section of =
cyclists.
Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net
[email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
