Which bike II?

"Jim Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

araby said:

With bad knees and back problems I would not recommend a recumbent. I
rode
one exclusively for about four years. Experiencing increasing leg and
back
problems I consulted an orthopedic specialist who put it down to the
closed
riding position. Reverting to uprights I have had no further problems. If
you want to do hills "easier and faster", recumbents are not the answer.

I am a bit confused by this. Isn't all cycling (with the possible
exception of standing to climb or sprint) considered a closed kinetic
chain exercise? Also, aren't closed chain exercises generally
considered *less* stressfull on knees?

I'm not sure of what you mean by "closed kinetic chain exercise".
My Vrex had a bottom bracket at roughly the same height as the seat
cushion. The angle of the seat back determined the degree of "closed" . With
a recumbent all the pedalling effort comes from the quads. On hills, maximum
pedalling effort is augmented by pressing hard against the seat back and
pedalling all the way round(i.e.using clipless pedals). You are still very
dependent on the quads though. In my case the root problem was in the right
hip which manifested itself as pain in the right knee and back.
With uprights, pedalling effort on hills can be significantly increased by
"honking" or standing on the pedals using the arms and upper body plus the
weight of the rider. In this case the position is just about as open as you
can get. In my case the problem was no doubt accentuated by my stupid
efforts to stay with with uprights on hills during club rides. On downhills
I could leave them, on the flats I could hold my own, but on hills -no way.
My experience my not be the same for everyone, but my problem has
completely disappeared since reverting to uprights. In fact, I have just
come in from a brisk 51km club ride with no aches or pains whatever

With regard to Sarah's original query, my preference (maximum comfort level)
for
road riding is a well set up "racing/touring/hybrid/cyclocross bike" with
drop bars. This can take some time to achieve and whilst the generally
accepted
guidelines are very useful, final dialling-in is a personal "suck it and
see" exercise

Regards,

Roy

Bob said:

You could of course do what most riders I know do. Carefully research
all the available bikes that fit your needs, weigh all your options,
and then buy the bike that makes you drool. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

LOL! Can we add this response to the FAQ?

Pat

Rich Clark said:

These characteristics make them very
adaptable to touring/commuting/all-around applications. My main commuter
is a cyclocross frame with a rack, fenders, and lights installed.

Most cyclocross bikes are indeed sold to folks who use them the same way
we used to use touring bikes. The main difference is the bottom bracket
height's a little higher now. Think sturdy road bike that can handle a
fire road.

Jamis, Surly, Bianchi--they're calling their bikes "cyclocross" and indeed
you could race on most of them--but then you see that they come with full
braze-ons for racks, fenders, and the like. It's like buying an SUV
because a station wagon (touring bike) isn't hip enough. Marketing is what
it is.

There certainly are very racy dedicated cxbikes that have no provisions
for being "converted", but I bet most of them are doing urban/touring duty.

Unlike even most more sensible "sport" bikes these days, with Cx type
bikes you're getting cantilever brakes or even discs, and thus can choose
from a huge variety of tires w/o having to worry about brake clearance.

Short reach brakes for the non-racer have to be one of the dumbest things
the industry ever forced down consumers' throats.

Quoted message said:

CX and touring bikes are similar but yet different. Cross bikes are
usually lighter and have nimbler geometry making them ideal for urban
duties. If I know waht I know now I'd have bought a cross bike and set
of wheels instead of a racing bike.

What's a "nimbler geometry"?

The high BB of a cross bike contrasts with the low BB of a touring bike.
The latter is much nicer for urban riding. That's about the only
difference.

Peter Cole said:

The latter is much nicer for urban riding.

a few mm of BB bracket height difference are going to make a bike *much*
nicer for urban riding?

I'd think saddle, bar type, fit, etc. would make more of a difference. 😉

maxo said:

Peter Cole said:

The latter is much nicer for urban riding.

a few mm of BB bracket height difference are going to make a bike *much*
nicer for urban riding?

I'd think saddle, bar type, fit, etc. would make more of a difference. 😉

It's more than a few mm, since 'cross bikes are higher than road bikes
and touring bikes lower, it may be more like an inch. The reason this is
a big deal in urban riding is because of so much stop & go, it's much
easier to dab one toe down with a lower BB, that inch can make a big
difference.

Fit is fit, no reason to expect a 'cross bike to fit better or worse
than a touring bike, same with saddles; 'cross bikes bar type varies,
some flat, some drop, I guess if you really want flat you'd be hard
pressed to find a touring bike with one, and converting is a problem.

'Cross bikes are be better to run with, if that's part of your urban
riding routine.

Peter Cole said:

'Cross bikes are be better to run with, if that's part of your urban
riding routine.

Now there's an idea! :P

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

maxo said:

Peter Cole said:

The latter is much nicer for urban riding.

a few mm of BB bracket height difference are going to make a bike *much*
nicer for urban riding?

I'd think saddle, bar type, fit, etc. would make more of a difference. 😉

It's more than a few mm, since 'cross bikes are higher than road bikes
and touring bikes lower, it may be more like an inch. The reason this is
a big deal in urban riding is because of so much stop & go, it's much
easier to dab one toe down with a lower BB, that inch can make a big
difference.

Mr. Cole,

Please let me correct you on some misinformation..

A while back, you agreed that Trek 520 and the Cannondale T series are
true touring bikes. What you may not be aware of is that, they both
sport a higher than normal BB bracket height. In fact, the Cannondale
T2000 has the same bottom bracket height as the Trek Elite 9.8 (Trek's
Carbon OCLV hardtail -- a mountain bike). Both has a height of 297mm,
whereas the Trek 520 has a BB height of 281mm. I considered them both
cross country mountain bike BB heights. A Trek 5000 has a BB height of
265mm (just less than 32mm (more than an inch) difference between it
and the T2000 and half to the 520) So I suppose, the Trek 520 and the
Cannondale T2000 are not ideal for stop and go commuting because of the
reasons you've given above and they are really not touring bikes.
Somehow I have a feeling that both the Trek 520 and Cannondale T2000
owners won't agree with you.

David.

David said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

maxo said:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:53:41 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:

>The latter is much nicer for urban riding.

a few mm of BB bracket height difference are going to make a bike *much*
nicer for urban riding?

I'd think saddle, bar type, fit, etc. would make more of a difference. 😉

It's more than a few mm, since 'cross bikes are higher than road bikes
and touring bikes lower, it may be more like an inch. The reason this is
a big deal in urban riding is because of so much stop & go, it's much
easier to dab one toe down with a lower BB, that inch can make a big
difference.

Mr. Cole,

Please let me correct you on some misinformation..

A while back, you agreed that Trek 520 and the Cannondale T series are
true touring bikes. What you may not be aware of is that, they both
sport a higher than normal BB bracket height. In fact, the Cannondale
T2000 has the same bottom bracket height as the Trek Elite 9.8 (Trek's
Carbon OCLV hardtail -- a mountain bike). Both has a height of 297mm,
whereas the Trek 520 has a BB height of 281mm. I considered them both
cross country mountain bike BB heights. A Trek 5000 has a BB height of
265mm (just less than 32mm (more than an inch) difference between it
and the T2000 and half to the 520) So I suppose, the Trek 520 and the
Cannondale T2000 are not ideal for stop and go commuting because of the
reasons you've given above and they are really not touring bikes.
Somehow I have a feeling that both the Trek 520 and Cannondale T2000
owners won't agree with you.

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, I can't find sources that agree.

I prefer to use the traditional "BB drop" number because it avoids any
ambiguities as to whether tire size is included in "BB height".

Typically, BB drops for touring bikes are around 80mm, Fuji, Heron,
Waterford, Rivendell and Surly all still use this geometry. This is what
my Cannondale CAD2 uses as well.

Cyclecross BB drops seem to run 15-25mm less typically.

Cannondale seems to have raised their touring frame BB a bit (67mm
drop), but it's still a bit lower than their 'cross frame drop (58mm).

David said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

maxo said:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 08:53:41 -0400, Peter Cole wrote:

>The latter is much nicer for urban riding.

a few mm of BB bracket height difference are going to make a bike *much*
nicer for urban riding?

I'd think saddle, bar type, fit, etc. would make more of a difference. 😉

It's more than a few mm, since 'cross bikes are higher than road bikes
and touring bikes lower, it may be more like an inch. The reason this is
a big deal in urban riding is because of so much stop & go, it's much
easier to dab one toe down with a lower BB, that inch can make a big
difference.

Mr. Cole,

While an inch can make a good difference dabbing one toe down with a
lower BB, an inch higher can also make a big difference trying to hand
haul a loaded touring bike over obstacles. Since cross country
mountain bikes have a BB height of around 297mm, it makes sense for
touring bikes to be of the same height if you plan on doing some
off-road touring with 38c tires as some had done. Many people had done
tours with the Cannondales albeit with a higher than normal BB and had
no complaints with it whatsoever. And most people had a deep
understanding that a Cannondale T series is a true touring bike right?

Again, I don't know where you're getting your numbers, and I don't
understand the relevance of comparison to mountain bikes or off-road
issues in the context of urban riding.

I also don't understand "deep understandings".

David said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CX and touring bikes are similar but yet different. Cross bikes are
usually lighter and have nimbler geometry making them ideal for urban
duties. If I know waht I know now I'd have bought a cross bike and set
of wheels instead of a racing bike.

What's a "nimbler geometry"?

Most cross bikes have a shorter wheelbase than a typical modern higher
than normal BB height touring bike (not ideal for touring), but not as
much as a racing bike. I am not sure if that can be perceived as a
nimbler geometry,

It's not.

Sarah,

I think one option is to get an older touring bike. The longer
wheelbase, longer chainstays make for comfortable riding. A triple will
spin you nicely up the hills. I'd get on ebay and look at vintage
TREKS, something built between 1978 and 1986 will be 531 steel, braised
and lugged, and will cost between $250 and $450 plus shipping. I'd
focus on the 520, 620, 720, or 728 models. Get cantilever brakes if
possible. As luck would have it, there's a decent 52cm bike located in
Decatur now, as well as a couple of 48's if you're smaller.

None of them are mine.

Or... look for a small Gunnar cross bike. I say small because they have
longer top tubes relative to seat tubes than most brands.

Will

"Patrick O'Grady" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:maddogmedia-

<snip>

Quoted message said:

If you liked your Bianchi, you might take a look at the Bianchi Volpe
(http://www.bianchiusa.com/570.html). It's billed as a sort-of cyclo-cross
bike -- a "go anywhere road/trail bike." It has a steel frame (an
addiction of mine); a triple crankset with a low gear of 28x32 (with that,
you can climb trees, metal knees or no); and a more upright riding
position.

The Bianchi Brava is another good choice, and retails at around $650. It has
a quill stem, which will make it a little easier to have the bars
sufficiently high. It also has a steel frame. As Patrick pointed out, the
Volpe has a steel frame as well. With your knee condition, a steel frame is
probably a better choice than an aluminum frame, and you'll want a regular
sport-touring frame, not a compact frame.

Mr. Cole,

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, I can't find sources that agree.

Here's one source for the T2000 --
http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/showarticle.php?s=4&a=108

Please note that the reviewer did find it higher than usual, which
makes putting your foot down more difficult.

The Trek figures come from the 2005 paper catalog under the bottom
bracket to ground measurement. Both touring bikes present a higher
than usual BB to ground, typically found on cross country bikes. All
terrain mountain bikes are even much higher.

Quoted message said:

Typically, BB drops for touring bikes are around 80mm, Fuji, Heron,
Waterford, Rivendell and Surly all still use this geometry. This is what
my Cannondale CAD2 uses as well.

So is the current Cannondale T series and the Trek 520 touring bikes
not certified as real touring bikes then?

David.

David said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure where you got your numbers, I can't find sources that agree.

Here's one source for the T2000 --
http://www.australiancyclist.com.au/showarticle.php?s=4&a=108

Please note that the reviewer did find it higher than usual, which
makes putting your foot down more difficult.

The Trek figures come from the 2005 paper catalog under the bottom
bracket to ground measurement. Both touring bikes present a higher
than usual BB to ground, typically found on cross country bikes. All
terrain mountain bikes are even much higher.

Quoted message said:

Typically, BB drops for touring bikes are around 80mm, Fuji, Heron,
Waterford, Rivendell and Surly all still use this geometry. This is what
my Cannondale CAD2 uses as well.

So is the current Cannondale T series and the Trek 520 touring bikes
not certified as real touring bikes then?

I know where I got *my* numbers -- from the geometry charts on the
manufacturer's websites. I just don't know where you got yours. As I
said, BB drop is the only way to compare apples to apples. Trek doesn't
provide it for the 520.

I don't know what you mean by "real touring bikes". It's not like
there's an international committee that certifies them. Traditionally,
touring frames have been made with lower bottom brackets. This is
somewhat to accommodate larger tires but more to better control a loaded
bike when stopping and starting. Cross and MTB bikes are designed for
off-road, so typically have high bottom brackets to give better pedal
clearance on uneven surfaces.

Cross bikes have frame/brake clearances to accommodate larger tires and
mud as touring bikes do, which gives them more potential for using a
broader selection of tires with fenders. Cross bikes seem to typically
come with STI (as does the newer Cannondale) and lack fittings for rack
& fender attachment. Carbon forks also seem popular with cross bikes,
which makes sense, given the premium on weight. As I said before, I
don't understand the argument for cross bikes as ideal commuters unless
you run with you bike for part of your commute.

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Cross bikes have frame/brake clearances to accommodate larger tires and
mud as touring bikes do, which gives them more potential for using a
broader selection of tires with fenders. Cross bikes seem to typically
come with STI (as does the newer Cannondale) and lack fittings for rack
& fender attachment. Carbon forks also seem popular with cross bikes,
which makes sense, given the premium on weight. As I said before, I
don't understand the argument for cross bikes as ideal commuters unless
you run with you bike for part of your commute.

Actually, many 'cross bikes do come with eyelets for fenders and a rear
rack .... the Surly Cross-Check and Jamis Nova/Aurora come to mind. Since
'cross is the narrowest of niches, the idea is to position the bikes as
versatile all-rounders, which they are. Not perfect for road, not perfect
for trail, not perfect for commuting - but pretty good at nearly
everything. I'd stay off the velodrome, though. And observed trials are
probably out, too.

Cheers,

Patrick O'Grady
Mad Dog Media
http://www.maddogmedia.com

Patrick O'Grady said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Cross bikes have frame/brake clearances to accommodate larger tires and
mud as touring bikes do, which gives them more potential for using a
broader selection of tires with fenders. Cross bikes seem to typically
come with STI (as does the newer Cannondale) and lack fittings for rack
& fender attachment. Carbon forks also seem popular with cross bikes,
which makes sense, given the premium on weight. As I said before, I
don't understand the argument for cross bikes as ideal commuters unless
you run with you bike for part of your commute.

Actually, many 'cross bikes do come with eyelets for fenders and a rear
rack .... the Surly Cross-Check and Jamis Nova/Aurora come to mind. Since
'cross is the narrowest of niches, the idea is to position the bikes as
versatile all-rounders, which they are. Not perfect for road, not perfect
for trail, not perfect for commuting - but pretty good at nearly
everything.

Well, in that configuration, they're pretty much touring bikes with high
bottom brackets and shorter chainstays. As I said, unless going
off-road, I prefer low BB's, and I always prefer longer chainstays.

Oh yeah, the cross bikes always route the cables so you can run with the
bike, that's handy.

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Patrick O'Grady said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Cole

Quoted message said:

Cross bikes have frame/brake clearances to accommodate larger tires and
mud as touring bikes do, which gives them more potential for using a
broader selection of tires with fenders. Cross bikes seem to typically
come with STI (as does the newer Cannondale) and lack fittings for rack
& fender attachment. Carbon forks also seem popular with cross bikes,
which makes sense, given the premium on weight. As I said before, I
don't understand the argument for cross bikes as ideal commuters unless
you run with you bike for part of your commute.

Actually, many 'cross bikes do come with eyelets for fenders and a rear
rack .... the Surly Cross-Check and Jamis Nova/Aurora come to mind. Since
'cross is the narrowest of niches, the idea is to position the bikes as
versatile all-rounders, which they are. Not perfect for road, not perfect
for trail, not perfect for commuting - but pretty good at nearly
everything.

Well, in that configuration, they're pretty much touring bikes with high
bottom brackets and shorter chainstays. As I said, unless going
off-road, I prefer low BB's, and I always prefer longer chainstays.

Oh yeah, the cross bikes always route the cables so you can run with the
bike, that's handy.

Man,

You put a lot of energy into this running-with-the-bike thing. Was your
mom scared by a jogger while pregnant with you or something? IIRC, the
Surly uses downtube-cable routing, and I have an older Steelman with the
same setup. Hell, my boy Brent Steelman will route your cables any way you
like 'em, even through your nose-holes and out your [censored]. But you'll
have to ask real nice.

Cheers,

Patrick O'Grady
Mad Dog Media
http://www.maddogmedia.com

Mr. Cole,

Quoted message said:

I don't know what you mean by "real touring bikes". It's not like
there's an international committee that certifies them. Traditionally,
touring frames have been made with lower bottom brackets. This is
somewhat to accommodate larger tires but more to better control a loaded
bike when stopping and starting. Cross and MTB bikes are designed for
off-road, so typically have high bottom brackets to give better pedal
clearance on uneven surfaces.

So what you're saying is that, touring bikes like the Cannondale T2000
and the Trek 520 with higher than traditional bottom brackets provide
poor control a loaded bike when stopping and starting?

Does this mean that the current Cannondale T2000 and Trek 520 touring
bikes are really not safe to tour on?

Quoted message said:

Cross bikes have frame/brake clearances to accommodate larger tires and
mud as touring bikes do, which gives them more potential for using a
broader selection of tires with fenders. Cross bikes seem to typically
come with STI (as does the newer Cannondale) and lack fittings for rack
& fender attachment.

Really? Most stock touring bikes, aside from the Trek 520, come with
STI shifters. In fact, that's what the market demands not what some
luddites dictate.

Lack fittings for rack & fender attachment for Cross bikes?? That's
funny, because the Surly Cross Check and the Soma Double Cross both
have them (front and rear). In fact, some people use these frames to
build up their own touring bikes.

Quoted message said:

Carbon forks also seem popular with cross bikes,
which makes sense, given the premium on weight.

And so does newer generation of touring bikes. The Marinoni Turismo
comes to mind. They offer a carbon disc fork (similar to the Winwood
Cyclocross fork except this one got rack attachments). Weight wise on
this kind of carbon fork isn't light at all -- hovering around 700g!

Quoted message said:

As I said before, I
don't understand the argument for cross bikes as ideal commuters unless
you run with you bike for part of your commute.

So, do you need to run with the Trek 520 or the Cannondale T2000 as
part of one's commute?

David.

Patrick O'Grady said:

You put a lot of energy into this running-with-the-bike thing. Was your
mom scared by a jogger while pregnant with you or something? IIRC, the
Surly uses downtube-cable routing, and I have an older Steelman with the
same setup. Hell, my boy Brent Steelman will route your cables any way you
like 'em, even through your nose-holes and out your [censored]. But you'll
have to ask real nice.

That's a whole lot of macho posturing for an old fat guy.