Ideal for commuting Hybrids vs Road bikes

DonDaddyD

Jeepie wrote:

DDD - I believe you are arguing that a road bike is better because most commute to work on roads rather than up and down mountains. You would use a mountain bike though if you worked at the top of Snowdon. Therefore because a hybrid is not specific it has a place neither on road nor mountain.

However, would you agree then that a town bike is better for the town and a racer is better for the Tour De France?

This is a well crafted question.

To which I'm sticking to my original point.

When I become a racer able to compete in the Tour de France I will have a road bike with carbon fibre everything, deep rimmed aerodynamic wheels, tubular tyres and aggressive geometry (short head tube like a Giant TCR for example) to race competively in the Tour de France.

If I was going off road whether soft trail through a park or hard trail through a forest I would ride a mountain bike.

If I was riding around town/city (as I do) or commuting to work on roads, no off road, I ride a road bike with relaxed geometry (longer head tube raises the riding position).

It's all in the branding. Look beyond the branding at the bike is my advice.

It's branding that has led to the blanket term hybrid and the belife that they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes.

I used to love hybrids but one day look passed the branding cool names, paint work and implied fast looks (Pinnacle Mean Streak, Ridgeback Storm, Nemesis and Giant Escape M2 et al) an bought a bike that suits my needs. A road bike.

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

On roads and for commuting road bikes are better than hybrids. If my commute involved anything that looked like mud and soil I would get a Mountain bike. Know why? Mountain bikes are better than hybrids at going off road and riding on uneven surfaces.

Hybrids are a compromise surpassed by the bikes that shaped its conception. I.e a BMW X5 is neither as good as a 5 series or a Land Rover, it just sits aimlessly somewhere in the middle.

But surely the fact that they're a compromise is the point? My commute/Mon-Fri riding involves tarmac and dirt canal path in the same ride. It's not mountain biking so why would I take my MTB when that would be rubbish for the tarmac bits, as well as slower on the canal paths? It's not road riding either, so why would I take my road bike? What's needed is something that can do both fairly well- some kind of, I don't know, hybrid of the two?

il_principe

MrChuck wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On roads and for commuting road bikes are better than hybrids. If my commute involved anything that looked like mud and soil I would get a Mountain bike. Know why? Mountain bikes are better than hybrids at going off road and riding on uneven surfaces.

Hybrids are a compromise surpassed by the bikes that shaped its conception. I.e a BMW X5 is neither as good as a 5 series or a Land Rover, it just sits aimlessly somewhere in the middle.

But surely the fact that they're a compromise is the point? My commute/Mon-Fri riding involves tarmac and dirt canal path in the same ride. It's not mountain biking so why would I take my MTB when that would be rubbish for the tarmac bits, as well as slower on the canal paths? It's not road riding either, so why would I take my road bike? What's needed is something that can do both fairly well- some kind of, I don't know, hybrid of the two?

Or a CX bike!

MrChuck

It's branding that has led to the blanket term hybrid and the belife that they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes- although I might be misunderstanding what you've said here?

wgwarburton

I reckon what most people really need to start commuting is Good Advice.

The market is so diverse and confusing these days that choosing a bike without input from someone who can assess your needs and point you in the right direction is a bit of a lottery.
Faced with an array of machinery, most people will be looking for a way to get their options down to something manageable- cutting out drop-bar bikes is an easy way to do that and there are many people who simply arn't picturing themselves as lycra-clad road warriors who need bikes like that.
The Mountain Bikes are expensive and/or heavy, so that leaves them with a (still bewildering) choice of hybrids...

Lots of people will be perfectly happy with that. For many it's probably the right choice, however, in the best of all possible worlds, a good bike shop ought to be able to spot at least some of the people who will make better use of a road bike and point them in the right direction...

At the end of the day, a road bike is the best choice for commuting on road- whatever type of handlebars are on it- so what makes it a "road bike" anyway? The definitions are so imprecise! As soon as someone identifies a gap between bike types, someone designs a bike to fill it- CX bikes are off-roaders with drops and 700cs, 29ers are ATBs with 700cs,There's even that bike with a 29er front and 26" rear been reviewed recently...

Cheers,
W.

MrChuck

jashburnham wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

On roads and for commuting road bikes are better than hybrids. If my commute involved anything that looked like mud and soil I would get a Mountain bike. Know why? Mountain bikes are better than hybrids at going off road and riding on uneven surfaces.

Hybrids are a compromise surpassed by the bikes that shaped its conception. I.e a BMW X5 is neither as good as a 5 series or a Land Rover, it just sits aimlessly somewhere in the middle.

But surely the fact that they're a compromise is the point? My commute/Mon-Fri riding involves tarmac and dirt canal path in the same ride. It's not mountain biking so why would I take my MTB when that would be rubbish for the tarmac bits, as well as slower on the canal paths? It's not road riding either, so why would I take my road bike? What's needed is something that can do both fairly well- some kind of, I don't know, hybrid of the two?

Or a CX bike!

Yep, a CX bike would also be great, and if I was buying now I'd definitely be looking at one. I don't see anyone arguing that those are rubbish because they're neither one thing or the other though!

DonDaddyD

MrChuck wrote:

It's branding that has led to the blanket term hybrid and the belife that they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes- although I might be misunderstanding what you've said here?

Some people would have me believe that a hybrid is better for commuting on roads and for beginners. Nearly every claim I've read is born out of misconceptions surrounding road bikes. I've listed my view on the most common misconceptions in my original post.

In terms of you commute, I'd probably go Cyclo cross bike to be honest.

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

It's branding that has led to the blanket term hybrid and the belife that they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes- although I might be misunderstanding what you've said here?

Some people would have me believe that a hybrid is better for commuting on roads and for beginners. Nearly every claim I've read is born out of misconceptions surrounding road bikes. I've listed my view on the most common misconceptions in my original post.

In terms of you commute, I'd probably go Cyclo cross bike to be honest.

A CX bike would be great, but I reckon I'd rarely use the drops so the actual, functional difference would probably be pretty small.

artaxerxes

I voted hybrid because thats all I've ridden. Its not the quickest bike, but great for shortish commutes and popping down to the shops. Also I hadn't been on a bike for about 20 years so I just got a cheap hybrid as it was easy to ride, plus I wasn't sure I'd stick with cycling. 2 years later I am now looking to get a road type bike (posted about this yesterday). I'll probably go for an audax or drop bar tourer.

p.s Why are so many hybrids sold in the UK with none of the useful attachments like mudguards, lights, panniers? I had to buy and fit all of these for my hybrid separately. I would have thought bikes like these trekking fahrraeders would be much more useful to the average commuter. http://www.fahrrad.de/trekkingraeder-verkauf-guenstig-kaufen.html

lost_in_thought

linoue wrote:

I voted hybrid because thats all I've ridden. Its not the quickest bike, but great for shortish commutes and popping down to the shops. Also I hadn't been on a bike for about 20 years so I just got a cheap hybrid as it was easy to ride, plus I wasn't sure I'd stick with cycling. 2 years later I am now looking to get a road type bike (posted about this yesterday). I'll probably go for an audax or drop bar tourer.

p.s Why are so many hybrids sold in the UK with none of the useful attachments like mudguards, lights, panniers? I had to buy and fit all of these for my hybrid separately. I would have thought bikes like these trekking fahrraeders would be much more useful to the average commuter. http://www.fahrrad.de/trekkingraeder-verkauf-guenstig-kaufen.html

My tifosi came with guards as standard...

It's actually an Audax bike, and for those who argue the roadie riding position is less comfortable should look at an Audax frame - much more upright and relaxed - good for short-bodied weirdos like me!

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

It's branding that has led to the blanket term hybrid and the belife that they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes.

Also, I don't think anyone thinks they are better than road bikes/mountain bikes for their respective purposes- although I might be misunderstanding what you've said here?

Some people would have me believe that a hybrid is better for commuting on roads and for beginners. Nearly every claim I've read is born out of misconceptions surrounding road bikes. I've listed my view on the most common misconceptions in my original post.

In terms of you commute, I'd probably go Cyclo cross bike to be honest.

That is an unfair statement. In most cases people have given a view on hybrid bikes and their benefits - that is not the same as having misconceptions on road bikes. For instance - in my opinion road bike brakes are good but hybrid brakes are better. I have both bikes and when i switch between them the difference is notable. I asked on here if this meant i had crap brakes on my road and was told by a number of people that road bike brakes are inferior to due to their construction.

Edit - my road bike brakes are adequate but I anticipate and brake earlier having commuted for a while.

prawny

I'm not going to vote because it really depends on your commute.

If I worked a couple of miles from home and had plenty of time to get there I'd get a hybrid.

If I worked miles from home but near a train station I'd get a Brompton (other folding bikes are available)

If I worked between 10-25 miles from home I'd ride a road bike.

If I worked on a route by a canal or where I could take a shortcut off road I'd use a CX or MTB depending on how rough the shortcut/amount of road miles were.

Is this the new helmet/no helmet debate?

biondino

The reason DDD's poll threads stimulate so much conversation is that the question being polled is so far from being a definitive, specific one! There is no doubt at all that, as a number of posters have said, there are circumstances which would genuinely favour all three. So the question's unanswerable and redundant. But as a way of stimulating a debate (albeit, in this case, a debate we've been having, in buttock-clenching detail, for several weeks now) it's second to none!

Shall I set up a "Daddy or Chips" poll?

prawny

You could do, if you want 5 pages of people saying chips

Roastie

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK after so many of the hybrid riders …

For the record, I am not a hybrid rider. I personally think most hybrids are pretty stupid. But that is another topic (argument?) altogether, because I don’t think you can generalise “hybrids” as a single category – more on that later.

To address your points (some points which others have undoubtedly already mentioned so may be redundant…):

It is not harder to ride a road bike than it is to ride a hybrid. Riding a bike is all about balance, if you can ride a bike (and lets face it if a person is planning on commuting chances are they actually know how to ride a bike) you can ride a bike.

As mentioned before in the “thread that shall not be mentioned”, the geometry of a bike makes it more or less stable/keen to change direction. One end of the spectrum would be a road bike, with a steep head angle, the other end being a classic Dutch roadster with a very relaxed head angle (over-simplification, I know). It is easier to pilot a classic “Dutch bike” than a road bike; e.g. where the Dutch roadster would simply roll over road imperfections, these will deflect the road bike and require correction.

Punctures Side wall pinch flat is not a reason not to buy a road bike. All tyres are susceptible to punctures. All tyres are prone to particular punctures.

Pot holes ... Again the ability to ride over pot holes (more frequently than a road bike (without complaint) is not a reason not to get a road bike.

For some, resistance to pinch punctures is an important consideration. Everybody’s commute is different – a lot of riding at night on poor road surfaces would make this a strong consideration (who wants to be fixing flats in the dark). Fatties are more resistant to pinch flats than skinnies.

Also remember that under some circumstances it is simply impossible to spot potholes in time to ride around them (or it simply isn’t safe to be weaving around to avoid them). Certainly, I would say that the ability to negotiate potholes is rightly a purchase criterion for some.

Brakes Caliper brakes properly set up on a road bike works better than properly set up cantilever brakes found on hybrids. Cable operrated disc brakes and Hydraulic disc brakes work better than caliper brakes but are often really heavy and costly to replace.

Most of the better hybrids nowadays come with discs. Discs are infinitely superior for commuting. Replacement? Disc pads are not *that* expensive, and there should be no need for regular replacement of the whole brake system!?!

Weight? Saving grammes is overrated.

Comfot Drop handle bars are more comfortable than flat handlebars, the static riding position offered by a flat handle bar can cause discomfort after a long ride. The ability to move you hands on drop handle bars allows you rotate your shoulders and reposition you back - you can ride longer on a road bike with less discomfort than on a hybrid. This notion is supported by flat bar road bikes whose static riding position can become uncomfortable far earlier than the same bike with drop handle bars.

I would hazard a guess that, given we are talking about commuting, most commutes will be too short for rider fatigue issues from a lack of hand positions to become an issue, therefore this is a non-issue (of course, all commutes are different).

Even for longer day rides (off topic, I know), I would say that you’d be perfectly comfortable with flat bars, decent grips (like those Ergon thingies) and bar ends. The fact that (apart from the “butterfly bars” so common on expedition bikes) this set-up is pretty much the standard for European touring bikes, it would seem that the “drop bars are better for comfort” opinion is a myth.

Frame and riding position …. Ride your bike with your hands on the hoods and not the drops …

Very true. I’m surprised that you didn’t mention that the addition of ‘cross levers to a road bike even allows safe city riding on the tops, which adds additional benefits.

Wheels bigger wheels are better for riding long distances, smaller wheels are better for accelerating.

I think the majority of hybrids now have 700c wheels - so this is largely a moot point. That said, could argue that 26" is a better choice for loooong rides (fully loaded expedition touring).

Manoeuvrability A hybrid with a mountain bike frame and 26inch wheels will be able to manoeuvre better than a road bike. A hybrid with a mountian bike frame anb 700c wheels will be able to but less so (almost to the point that the difference isn't comparable).

Not a wheels issue but rather a geometry issue. More relaxed geometry will make it easier to control the bike at low speed so enhance manoeuvrability. In a city environment, narrower bar width of drop bars is a huge advantage in getting through gaps.

Road bikes are faster, a better way to get fitter and will open up the possibilites of weekend social riding. I've never seen team hybrid. That's all I have to say about that. Even if you don't like or want to ride socially on the weekend you can dawdle/bimble on any bike. Road bikes don't have to be ridden fast, you have that option however.

Faster, yes.

Better way to get fit? How so? One could argue that, given we are talking about commuting, riding a heavier bike will get you fitter for the same commute.

Weekend social riding? Utter tosh! (sorry, I was feeling emotional) If you want to go on club rides, then *maybe* (a flat bar road bike, which could be classified as a hybrid would do). But as far as day rides with mates, canal towpath ambles, or even a proper weekend away on a bike, a hybrid does perfectly well. One could actually argue that a road bike reduces the scope for weekend cycling social options to single activity.

Panniers and load carrying Road bikes can do this just like hybrids.

Can’t agree on this one. The cheaper road bikes may have mudguard and rack mounts, but fairly early in the road bike scale the presence of the necessary eyelets and mounting points are non-existent.

Race blades (I think) are a sub-optimal solution, as are seat post mounted bags (limited carrying capacity).

So with that, as a person who ridden both a hybrid and a road bike to work, I'm going to say no a hybrid is not safer, more comfortable or automatically better than a road bike for the purpose of commuting.

And my views are based on having started commuting at age <10 on a BMX and having commuted extensively since on road bikes, an MTB, a hybrid and now a b@stard tourer.

There are two fundamental problems with this argument (the whole argument, not this quote). “Road bikes” cover several sub-categories, incl. tourers, ‘crossers, audax/rando. And hybrids cover a range too – broadly MTBs with rigid forks, “city bikes” with robust frames (not as robust as MTB, not quite roadies) and flat bar road bikes. Hell, some “hybrids” even have sus forks! So one might say the terms “road bike” and “hybrid” are fairly meaningless.

Personally, I enjoy bikes with drop bars, and I’d have to say that it would be my preference. More specifically, my preference would be a ‘crosser with all the braze ons, like a Surly Cross Check. But that is just me, and I know that it wouldn’t be the best choice for everybody else.

Also, something not at all considered in this discussion so far is the aesthetics of it all. In the same way that some people enjoy practical, unsporty clothing, some people like the look of a flat bar bike and is how they choose to project themselves to the world.

Roastie

Eau Rouge wrote:

I really love the time and effort and knowledge DDD has put into this whole thing over the past week. Chapeaux.

Alas, what DDD's work has shown is that there is no ideal bike for "commuting". It's all going to depend on so many personal variables that in the end it's going to be different for everyone.
Maybe we need one of those "what star wars character are you" questionaires for "which commuting bike is for you"

1) Is your commute
...

2) To you want to
...

3) Are you
...

That kind of thing

You basically got the essence of what I wanted to say in about 95%fewer words. I really should read the whole thread first. :oops: I'll go now.

stevedb55

I'm a CX convert, having recently bought a Pinnacle Expede 1.0 from Evans, mainly used for commuting, I have to say I'm really imressed! It handles rough roads, kerbs, gravel and dirt tracks, etc easily. its quick, light and responsive. I was worried about the drop bars but have adapted to the more "sporty" riding position.

Maybe try a couple of CX events when the season starts.......

Cheers

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

That is an unfair statement. In most cases people have given a view on hybrid bikes and their benefits - that is not the same as having misconceptions on road bikes. For instance - in my opinion road bike brakes are good but hybrid brakes are better.

But it is a misconception because you haven't weighed and considered the varibles. Have you considered the speed you are travelling onboth bikes when making the comparison.
Have you considered the type of brakes? Do you have cantilever brakes, caliper brakes or disc brakes (disc brakes being arguably the best of all three, then caliper and then cantilever). Have you considered that it isn't the brakes at all but the weight of the bike, the wieght of the stuff you're carrying or the rolling resistance of the tyres that is allowing the bike to stop so quickly.

Finally your example isn't telling me a benefit of riding a hybrid bike all it's trying to do is demonstrate how a hybrid is better than a road bike (albeit the brakes).

I asked on here if this meant i had crap brakes on my road and was told by a number of people that road bike brakes are inferior to due to their construction.

What make/type of brakes have you got on both bikes and who told you that the hybrid brakes were better?

Most road bikes (the best) are about saving weight. Cantilever brakes (if that is what you have on your hybrid) are the lightest form of brake you can have (two cables tugging at brake pads). They are found on CX bikes (most likely becuase the simplicity of the design makes the braking system less susceptible to damage caused by mud, dirt etc). If they were better than caliper brakes and are lighter why are they not found on road bikes at the top level?

my road bike brakes are adequate but I anticipate and brake earlier having commuted for a while.

Is this because you're going faster?

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

The reason DDD's poll threads stimulate so much conversation is that the question being polled is so far from being a definitive, specific one! There is no doubt at all that, as a number of posters have said, there are circumstances which would genuinely favour all three. So the question's unanswerable and redundant. But as a way of stimulating a debate (albeit, in this case, a debate we've been having, in buttock-clenching detail, for several weeks now) it's second to none!

Shall I set up a "Daddy or Chips" poll?

I couldn't agree more.

TBH I got peeved at all the pro-hybrid types who kept trying to justify how a hybrid was better for commuting than a road bike with blanket statements which didn't really say or consider anything but to re-enforce the marketing spiel that got them to buy the bike in the first place (yes wider tyres handle potholes better, its safer and more sensible to ride around them and no hybrids by default are not always more comfortable than road bikes especially over long distances).

The thread was answered ages ago when many said, buy a bike specific to their needs.

wgwarburton

Roastiecp wrote:

Panniers and load carrying Road bikes can do this just like hybrids.

Can’t agree on this one. The cheaper road bikes may have mudguard and rack mounts, but fairly early in the road bike scale the presence of the necessary eyelets and mounting points are non-existent.
.

Only on "race" bikes. Because most bikes are sold as sports equipment, not transport, few of them come with mudguards. If you look at upmarket road bikes that arn't designed for racing then you'll find that mudguard provision is standard.

In my view, selling bikes with mudguards would make them much more useful (albeit a little less fun) for the majority of cyclists. You have to be quite keen, organised or both to use a bike without mudguards for everyday transport.

Cheers,
W.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

That is an unfair statement. In most cases people have given a view on hybrid bikes and their benefits - that is not the same as having misconceptions on road bikes. For instance - in my opinion road bike brakes are good but hybrid brakes are better.

But it is a misconception because you haven't weighed and considered the varibles. Have you considered the speed you are travelling onboth bikes when making the comparison.
Have you considered the type of brakes? Do you have cantilever brakes, caliper brakes or disc brakes (disc brakes being arguably the best of all three, then caliper and then cantilever). Have you considered that it isn't the brakes at all but the weight of the bike, the wieght of the stuff you're carrying or the rolling resistance of the tyres that is allowing the bike to stop so quickly.

Finally your example isn't telling me a benefit of riding a hybrid bike all it's trying to do is demonstrate how a hybrid is better than a road bike (albeit the brakes).

I asked on here if this meant i had crap brakes on my road and was told by a number of people that road bike brakes are inferior to due to their construction.

What make/type of brakes have you got on both bikes and who told you that the hybrid brakes were better?

Most road bikes (the best) are about saving weight. Cantilever brakes (if that is what you have on your hybrid) are the lightest form of brake you can have (two cables tugging at brake pads). They are found on CX bikes (most likely becuase the simplicity of the design makes the braking system less susceptible to damage caused by mud, dirt etc). If they were better than caliper brakes and are lighter why are they not found on road bikes at the top level?

my road bike brakes are adequate but I anticipate and brake earlier having commuted for a while.

Is this because you're going faster?

I really can't be bothered to argue with the self-appointed expert on a beginners guide to commuting. My Hybrid stops on a six pence and i don't care why.

Kieran_Burns

What I don't understand is the debate between hybrid and road bike when so many are coming onto this thread and saying that the CX bike is the best compromise.

Oh, and my £750 Tricross Sport comes with rack and mudguard mounts

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

Roastiecp wrote:

Panniers and load carrying Road bikes can do this just like hybrids.

Can’t agree on this one. The cheaper road bikes may have mudguard and rack mounts, but fairly early in the road bike scale the presence of the necessary eyelets and mounting points are non-existent.
.

Only on "race" bikes. Because most bikes are sold as sports equipment, not transport, few of them come with mudguards. If you look at upmarket road bikes that arn't designed for racing then you'll find that mudguard provision is standard.

In my view, selling bikes with mudguards would make them much more useful (albeit a little less fun) for the majority of cyclists. You have to be quite keen, organised or both to use a bike without mudguards for everyday transport.

Cheers,
W.

Not having mudguards riding in the road in winter (I've done it) is not enough not to buy a road bike. My bike with 105 components and carbon seatpost is sold at around £900 - commuting bike terms that's the upper end of the cost spectrum and you can fit mud guards to it.

There is also the option of race blades alll of which I ignored and may continue to do so for my commute.

If i was riding across mud and soil then yes mudguards. But then I'd have a different type of bike.

DonDaddyD

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What I don't understand is the debate between hybrid and road bike when so many are coming onto this thread and saying that the CX bike is the best compromise.

Oh, and my £750 Tricross Sport comes with rack and mudguard mounts

This I find interesting. Speed and geometry of a road bike (or there abouts) and ability/robust enought to handle rough surfaces.. I wonder....

itboffin

DonDaddyD wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

What I don't understand is the debate between hybrid and road bike when so many are coming onto this thread and saying that the CX bike is the best compromise.

Oh, and my £750 Tricross Sport comes with rack and mudguard mounts

This I find interesting. Speed and geometry of a road bike (or there abouts) and ability/robust enought to handle rough surfaces.. I wonder....

CX is the new FGSS :roll:

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Most road bikes (the best) are about saving weight. Cantilever brakes (if that is what you have on your hybrid) are the lightest form of brake you can have (two cables tugging at brake pads). They are found on CX bikes (most likely becuase the simplicity of the design makes the braking system less susceptible to damage caused by mud, dirt etc). If they were better than caliper brakes and are lighter why are they not found on road bikes at the top level?

cycle cross brakes are mini v's and seem to be troublesome judging the interweby. they aren't normal road brakes as they would struggle to clear the tires, and would clog with mud.

road brakes are often about weight than power, campagnolo uses weaker brakes on the rear for weight savings, road bikes are almost always lighter than hybrids and MTB yet a good road bike is always going to suffer in comparison to a good MTB or hybrid. V brakes and disks are seriously powerful brakes at least the good ones are, cheap ones as you'd imagine are not.

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

I really can't be bothered to argue with the self-appointed expert on a beginners guide to commuting. My Hybrid stops on a six pence and i don't care why.

To quote Attica

"Your arguments, sir, are eloquent and persuasive"

:roll:

lost_in_thought

WGWarburton wrote:

Roastiecp wrote:

Panniers and load carrying Road bikes can do this just like hybrids.

Can’t agree on this one. The cheaper road bikes may have mudguard and rack mounts, but fairly early in the road bike scale the presence of the necessary eyelets and mounting points are non-existent.
.

Only on "race" bikes. Because most bikes are sold as sports equipment, not transport, few of them come with mudguards. If you look at upmarket road bikes that arn't designed for racing then you'll find that mudguard provision is standard.

In my view, selling bikes with mudguards would make them much more useful (albeit a little less fun) for the majority of cyclists. You have to be quite keen, organised or both to use a bike without mudguards for everyday transport.

Cheers,
W.

See my post above on the Tifosi!

Furthermore, it has eyelets for a pannier rack (and will be fitted with apannier rack when I get my act together) and is also a nice road bike....

so nyerrrrrrr! :P

Rockbuddy

This indeed is a redundant question, you can't really compare road specific bikes (racers) to inbetweeners that have been dubbed 'hyhbrids' for want of a better term. The only way a roadie is better is on the road with someone cabable riding it. With a hybrid you have everything from an mtb-like bike to the bikes which are basically roadie without the drops. So logically with that amount of versitility and no definition of commuting terrain, distance, weather etc. I would say that for commuting the closest thing to an allrounder is a 'hybrid', which could mean just about anything.

How many of the people who voted road bike do training / competitions outside of their commute. I also bet alot of you serious roadies have an mtb or hybrid, which you would use in really bad weather instead of the prefered road bike. Am I wrong?

Eau Rouge

roger merriman wrote:

campagnolo uses weaker brakes on the rear for weight savings,

and becuase you should only be using your front brake anyway...

http://sheldonbrown.com/brakturn.html