What are the pros and cons between road bike and hybrid

Trigger_del

HI,

I currently have the Giant ATX 870 but the gearing is too low for me. I don't know whether to get a hybrid or something similar to the Scott P1 sportster\ Specialized sirrus LTD carbon or to get a full race bike or something similar like the Scott CR1 Pro.

My main worry is the robustness of the rims on roads with poor tarmacing \ potholes. Or should I just buy additional robust rims for the race bike.

Also what would be the difference in speed between a hybrid and race bike with similar slick tyres on them?

Thanks

roger_merriman

The problem here is that "Hybrid" covers a whole range of bikes from rather heavy plodding bikes like my big green, to light fast bikes, a bike with drops should have a slight edge in out right top speed, but a fast hybrid will be close.

if your your happy with your bike you could fit a higher geared cassette? or if you go for a racer you can get stronger wheels.

CanterburyTailwind

Hi Del
Talking from a purely personal perspective, I found the road bike much quicker. Whether that's down to position, groupsets, materials or something else, I don't know. It could also be down to me getting fitter, of course...! I had a Sirrus a couple of years ago and loved it, using it to commute into work. However the frame broke just above the bottom bracket, so for a while I made do with a second hand Dawes road bike. It gave me the taste for the drop handle bar position and just the feeling of more speed and less effort. I think it is down to the position. I've now got a Giant SCR2, which is even quicker: for my 13 mile commute, my time has improved by about 8 mins.
As to the robustness of the wheels, I wouldn't think there's much difference in the toughness of the wheels for a Sirrus and a road bike - and you can always change them for something tougher!

madturkey

I think the Sirrus you've mentioned is effectively a flat barred road bike so will be as robust as racer.

How about going for a top end cyclocross bike? That will probably be pretty solid.

meanwhile

Trigger_del wrote:

HI,

My main worry is the robustness of the rims on roads with poor tarmacing \ potholes. Or should I just buy additional robust rims for the race bike.

Rims are by their natures fairly delicate. They get their protection form the air around them - more air, more protection. Most road racers are restricted to running very narrow tyres because of a traditional (read "obsolete and pointlessly crappy") brake design. Some hybrids (eg my Sirrus) aren't much better, because of poorly designed frames that pointlessly restrict tyre width. Wider fatter tyres will protect the rim and let you keep control on rougher roads. How wide a tyre you need to run depends on your weight and the condition of the road, but a 38mm 700c tyre is good to aim for.

The suggestion of a cross bike is a good one. Look at the Tricross (although it might not allow true 38s), Cotic Roadrat, Surly Crosscheck. The last two can be built flat or drop barred. Otherwise , a decent hybrid is your answer. Or a hardtail MTB with the right gearing for the road and slicks - if there's a difference between that and a hybrid.

As for speed difference, between flats and drops, it only comes into play either when riding into a strong wind, or riding in flat out sweat spurting mode, because that's when the aerodymamic advantage of drops come into play. A hybrid will have much better brakes, and a good cross bike 99-100% of the best of all worlds, if you can afford one. (£800?) A touring bike will be almost as good as the cross bike and sounds cooler if you call it a "trekking bike". I think Edinburgh Bike Co-op do one for about £400.

Jez mon

Most racing wheels (barring top end carbon ones) will survive pot holes most of the time. Pros ride the Paris Roubaix on strong racing wheels, not touring wheels and trust me, you won't ride on any roads as tough as on the Paris Roubaix.

38mm tyres are very wide (slower than racing tyres) and RR brakes are fine. If they can stop Tour riders riding down at a mountain at >50mph, then they can stop you.

Seriously, unless you are going Touring, or planning to ride Cyclo Cross, buy a racing bike.

Barrie_G

Jez mon wrote:

Seriously, unless you are going Touring, or planning to ride Cyclo Cross, buy a racing bike.

Wise words, I wish I'd done so now instead of the Felt F1X cross bike that I did buy, but I was nervous going from a MTB to a road bike and saw this as a good half way match. Don't get me wrong it's a fantastic bike I just wish I'd gone for the full road bike as I now don't bother with the bridalways that I thought I might cycle along.

Still not to worry it's given me the excuse to buy an Egnigma Eclipse frame to build up, once I finish saving for it that is.

Trigger_del

Thanks for all you advice.

I think it is a full road bike with drop bars and I will go for and I will get a set cheap rims with 38mm wide tyres. What bikes do you suggest? Is it worth going for carbon forks or get carbon forks and frame.

At present I am limited by the gearing. What is the highest gearing I can get? (50T front rear 12T is the most I have seen so far)

Trigger_del

Thanks for all you advice.

I think it is a full road bike with drop bars and I will go for and I will get a set cheap rims with 38mm wide tyres. What bikes do you suggest? Is it worth going for carbon forks or get carbon forks and frame.

At present I am limited by the gearing. What is the highest gearing I can get? (50T front rear 12T is the most I have seen so far)

acorn_user

Trigger_del wrote:

Thanks for all you advice.

I think it is a full road bike with drop bars and I will go for and I will get a set cheap rims with 38mm wide tyres. What bikes do you suggest? Is it worth going for carbon forks or get carbon forks and frame.

At present I am limited by the gearing. What is the highest gearing I can get? (50T front rear 12T is the most I have seen so far)

This almost certainly will not work. Most road bikes have very tight clearances, into which a 38c tyre will not go. You should be able to fit a 25c tyre on. Remember that the build of the wheels is very important. If you are worried, I would buy some strong wheels from Hewitt or Spa Cycles.

Also, a great alternative is an Audax bikes. These are race bikes with more clearance for bigger tyres, and are designed to cover long distances quickly and comfortably. They are also a lot more practical than race bikes because they come with mudguards, which enables comfortable riding on wet roads.

chuckcork

I've gone from a Sirrus Elite 2005 which was on the few rides I did with the local club fast enough to keep up, to a Claude Butler Roubaix Triple 2007 and now also ride a Dawes Audax Supreme 2008,

The Sirrus was quite fast, I'm sure I more than suprised others on road bikes who decided to drop in front of me at lights, how fast it was (panniers, mudguards and all) particularly in taking off when they would spend ages getting there racing shoes clipped in while I was already moving at speed (SPD user).

My Roubaix is probably quicker though in its more of an aerodynamic riding position particularly on the drops, but is with its aluminium frame a hard ride, though has quite quick steering.

The Dawes though is nice. 25C tyres are not much slower, with a steel frame I really notice how much more comfortable it is on rough roads so use it on longer club runs on the weekend when we are more likely to be going over crap roads. If I can't keep up with others in the club in sprints its not the bike its the legs.

Wheels, check when buying that they are strong enough, when I bought the Sirrus the wheels weren't, and in the time I've had it rear wheel went out of true enough I had to replace it, the front just wore out the rim from braking.

A good one should last a long time.

doyler78

I've ridden plenty of rural roads since I started cycling 4 years ago and it took 3 years for me to wear out my crappy Alex Rims that came with the bike. I didn't much care for riding round potholes or lumpy tarmac and this was all done on 23mm tyres.

I think you have an impression of road wheels which isn't necessarily justified. There is a wide range out there with some which are built for smooth tarmac these will be the ones with the low spoke counts however if you steer clear of these you will likely not have any probs and even then if you are a fairly light rider then you will likely get away even with 20/24 spoked wheels or at least I have anyway. Obviously I don't know just how bad your roads are but mine can be pretty bumpy in places - make the fillings jangle

Go for the road bike and use the stock wheels to see how they perform as you will lose nothing anyway as you paid for them anyway. If they don't work out then as others pointed out then get a set of custom wheels and they can be built to meet your needs.

BTW I'm one of those that has just made the switch from hybrid (Sirrus Comp) to a road bike (Planet X Ti Sportive) though will still use the Sirrus for my commute until I can get a drop bar on cycle to work when it is introduced.

Trigger_del

I had a road bike and within a month I wrecked my front wheel after hitting a sunken grid. So I have not spent that much time on my road bike I i sold it shortly after that as I was working to use to get time to use it.

I will get that pessimistic view out of my head now. I am just struggling with what bike to go for.

I am thinking a full carbon frame but dont know what to look for in a bike. Can anyone help me with some guidance

Trigger_del

What is the brand Claud Butler like? I have seen the Torino that looks ok.

What size frame should I be looking at getting if I am 5 foot 8" (170cm)?

hodsgod

Trigger_del wrote:

What is the brand Claud Butler like? I have seen the Torino that looks ok.

What size frame should I be looking at getting if I am 5 foot 8" (170cm)?

Claud Butler is a very old and a decent bike manufacturer. They aren't fashionable and in my opinion that makes them good value. I bought one in 95 and used it for ten years.

Gr.uB

doyler78 wrote:

I've ridden plenty of rural roads since I started cycling 4 years ago and it took 3 years for me to wear out my crappy Alex Rims that came with the bike. I didn't much care for riding round potholes or lumpy tarmac and this was all done on 23mm tyres.

I think you have an impression of road wheels which isn't necessarily justified. There is a wide range out there with some which are built for smooth tarmac these will be the ones with the low spoke counts however if you steer clear of these you will likely not have any probs and even then if you are a fairly light rider then you will likely get away even with 20/24 spoked wheels or at least I have anyway. Obviously I don't know just how bad your roads are but mine can be pretty bumpy in places - make the fillings jangle

Go for the road bike and use the stock wheels to see how they perform as you will lose nothing anyway as you paid for them anyway. If they don't work out then as others pointed out then get a set of custom wheels and they can be built to meet your needs.

I agree with wot he said
The roads in Wiltshire are rubbish.
The Alexx rims that came on my original Giant OCR4 in 2004 ( ish ) did not like pot holes and nor did Ultragatorskins ( pinch punctures ). They went out of true a couple of times but I never trashed them.
I then changed to Mavic Cosmics and they were great.
I then upgraded bikes and now ride a TCR with Mavic Cosmic Elites on the same roads and a Thorn Brevet on Hope Hoops in the bad weather.
I don't deliberately ride over pot holes or grates as the bike performs better on the better surface. Any road furniture is best to be avoided in my opinion - however I do get forced by cars onto bad surfaces quite often and both bikes / wheels cope well.

chuckcork

Trigger_del wrote:

What is the brand Claud Butler like? I have seen the Torino that looks ok.

What size frame should I be looking at getting if I am 5 foot 8" (170cm)?

I'm about 5'9"-ish (174cm) and have a CB Roubaix Triple with L-56cm frame which I bought in April last year, since when I've done I estimate maybe 10000km on it. Main change in setting up is reducing the stem from the standard 105mm down to the shortest 60mm, but I've replaced also just about everything that can wear in that time as well: chain, rings, sprockets, cables, stearing bearings, bottom bracket, tyres maybe 10 new ones, even the wheels changed to newer and better.

Its the longest distance I've ever done with a bike so no room for comparison, but the wheels at least lasted 9,500km, whereas the ones on my Sirrus just wore out front wheel as the rims from braking wore down, rear wheel had one go out of true too much, and another got kicked in when chained up to rear wall of my flat. (bastards)

I've probably spent more on parts replacement for my CB than buying a new one would cost, but I also probably have better quality parts too. And of course it would be a bit hard to explain buying a new bike to the missus every 6 months....a year OK, 6 months its pushing it.

I'd say on the basis of inexperience that the parts quality is reflective in the price, good enough to last for a couple of years without major expense if your only a Sunday rider, ride it any distance frequently and it will cost you. Personally when I bought it I wasn't expecting to do 180 miles / 300km a week on it, my most recent purchase I've factored that in and gone for a more expensive Dawes Audax Supreme, which is twice the price of a 2007 Roubaix T. Time will tell if its running cost is cheaper I guess.

Trigger_del

I have gone for the Specialized tricross comp. Thanks for all the advice

phatspider

Hey - me too - what have you gone for in the way of pedals as I beleive it comes with none?

phatspider

Hey - me too - what have you gone for in the way of pedals as I beleive it comes with none?

geoff_ss

meanwhile wrote:

How wide a tyre you need to run depends on your weight and the condition of the road, but a 38mm 700c tyre is good to aim for.

I can't imagine why you would see the need for 38mm tyres on anything other than a mountain bike.

I commuted a minimum of 27 miles/day summer and winter on 28mm and narrower tyres and currently use 23mm tyres on my flat bar lightweight touring/road bike with no problems though I no longer ride much in towns.

I've also cycle camped, often in the Pyrenees and Alps on 700 x 28 mm tyres perfectly successfully. Our tandem was usually shod with either 28mm or 32mm tyres and the only real problems were occasional sidewall failure which I believe would have been much worse with fatter tyres.

I suppose some would call my current steed a hybrid. It has a road frame with mudguard clearance (Kinesis TK08) with a mountain bike chain set and flat bars. The gearing suits my riding. I can pedal my 44x13 top gear at 40 kph - I freewheel after that - and the 22x25 is there for the 25% gradients

Geoff

meanwhile

Geoff_SS wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

How wide a tyre you need to run depends on your weight and the condition of the road, but a 38mm 700c tyre is good to aim for.

I can't imagine why you would see the need for 38mm tyres on anything other than a mountain bike.

1. Pot holes.

2. Gravel roads.

3. You don't say how much you weigh; some people will certainly weigh more than you do and therefore need wider tyres. I weigh 220lbs and wish I'd bought 32s instead of 28s for my Sirrus just for road riding. There are gravel tracked bike paths around here that I'd love to have 38s for.

4. Some frames have worse vibration damping than others. (Eg the Sirrus.)

5. Tramlines.

6. Putting more bounce in bunny hops for curb mounting.

7. Carrying things.

8. If a bike has clearence for 38s, then it can probably run 32's with fenders fitted.

9. Some people will have different comfort standards to you.

10. Wider tyres have more cornering and braking grip; this is especially important in conditions where grip may be diminished by road conditions.

But most importantly of all, why not have clearance for 38s as an ideal goal? You don't lose anything that matters by it. Good 38s these days roll very fast - and most of what card carrying members of the "I believe" crowd believe about tyre width and speed is nonsense. It's contact size (which isn't necessarily based on width) and compound type that determine rolling resistance, not width.

...Our tandem was usually shod with either 28mm or 32mm tyres and the only real problems were occasional sidewall failure which I believe would have been much worse with fatter tyres.

Well, if you believe it, that settles it! Of course, you're wrong and there's no good reason for the belief. Less pressure and more room for squiding means, all things being equal, less sidewall failure. If the opposite was true then every BMX and (non-poser) MTB on the planet would be immobilized.

Another point that you're probably unware of is that the energy used in overcoming rolling resistance is proportional to the square of bike speed. This means that at a big increase in rr only gives a small loss of energy. Add in that at a decent cruising speed most of the energy done by the rider is against air resistance anyway, and you can change from 28mm tyres to 38mm tyres with almost no speed loss - if the 38s are made from a low rr compound. Tyres like this weren't available until recently, but now they are they should be considered.

Trigger_del

What would you say would be a quick cruising speed on a bike with 28mm tyres?

meanwhile

Trigger_del wrote:

What would you say would be a quick cruising speed on a bike with 28mm tyres?

The same as on a bike with 32mm, 24mm or 21mm tyres, assuming the rider of the thinner tyred bike could stand the pain of road buzz...Seriously, what 90% of people think they know of rolling resistance is bs. The speed of the bike above would be set almost entirely by its aerodynamics (is the rider using the drops? how low are they? better, is he using triath bars?) and the rider's pedaling power.

For very fast riders going all out - I'm talking the TDF and trials riders here - then narrower tyres can be slightly faster just because they reduce air resistance by a few percent. But this isn't something to worry about unless you're racing and have great upper body flexibility for using the drops to get really low, you're going all out, and wearing skin tight clothes.

Here's what Continental, one of the world's top bike tyre makers has to say:

Everyone knows skinny tyres are faster, so the notion that fat tyres have lower rolling resistance seems counterintuitive to many cyclists. As we've seen above, at racing speeds, narrow tyres need less energy to maintain a speed, so how does this fit with measurements showing higher rolling resistance?

The first thing to remember is that at 50km/h rolling resistance is only a small portion of the forces acting against a cyclist. Rolling resistance increases roughly proportionally with speed, while air resistance increases as the cube of speed. Double your speed and your tyres' rolling resistance doubles - but the air resistance goes up eight times! Air resistance dominates at racing speeds and narrow tyres are faster.



To understand why the rolling resistance component is lower for fat tyres, we need to understand where rolling resistance comes from. As your tyre tread and sidewall bend on contact with the road, they absorb energy. When they straighten out, they spring back and return most of that energy - but not all of it. Some of it simply gets turned into heat, and that lost energy is the rolling resistance.

For a given tyre pressure and rider weight, all tyres have about the same area in contact with the ground. If you and your bike weigh 200lb and you have 100 pounds per square inch of pressure in your tyres, you're in contact with the road over two square inches of rubber (apologies to people who think in metric, but Imperial units are so convenient for this stuff!)

A skinny tyre has a long, thin contact patch, while a fat one has a contact patch that's almost round. For a given area, a circle has the smallest circumference, so less of the sidewall bends in the fat tyre case. In addition, the greater cross-section of the fat tyre means it bends less, and the combination of a shorter circumference and shallower bend gives rise to lower rolling resistance.

So there is no sane reason not use 32mm tyres or wider for commuting now that the tyres makers bother making 32s and 38s out of fast, low hysteresis energy rubber. That more circular contact patch gives better cornering and braking, low RR gives better take-off acceleration, less pressure and more flex reduces the tendency to puncture, your bike rides better and your rims are protected. Otoh, it makes the vibration damping carbon fork you bought for an extra £150 redundant, and paying triple the price of the basic Sirrus to get the all carbon one looks even less of a good deal, so bike makers aren't keen. And the bike fashion police believe that all bikes must look like TDF racers to justify the fortune they've spent on pointless minor weight savings.

If anyone wants me to I'll also explain why £200 clipless pedals and matching shoes don't really "double the rider's power by letting him pedal on the upstroke" and why "weight on the wheel doesn't count double"..

For the really detail obsessed: Adding 0.01 sq metre of tyre frontal area, which is about the difference between "thin" and "fat" tyres, will mean outputting about 2 extra watts, compared to a base level of about 310W, to ride at m/s. Which is a reasonable approximation to 20mph - pretty good going for commuting or touring. That's without adjusting for the lower RR of the fatter tyre, and assuming the both the thin and fat tyres are low RR (so the fats are Marathon Supremes or Conti Sports, etc). Use http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesTires_Page.html if you want to check my figures. So using a fat tyre will cost about 1% extra pedaling effort at a good cruising speed.

jordanf

Wow... thanks 'meanwhile' for your revealing posts.

I am completely new to cycling and have yet to make
any decisions on what to buy. But thanks to posts like
yours, I won't be wrongly convinced on what tyre width
or bike style I should be paying out for.

Cheers!