Bike Advice for a Complete Novice

meanwhile

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

I sold the MTB and bought a Cannondale road bike, again secondhand (£335).

To be honest it is not as instantly comfortable as the MTB particluarly in my lower back. However I think its just a matter of getting used to the position.

Not necessarily, no. Try raising the handlebars - if that makes the reach too short then put a longer stem on. *Don't* copy the TDF look if your body doesn't like it - backs are funny things and it's easy to do permanent damage. Remember that professional racers are young elite athletes with a very narrow range of body types and a great willingness to do permanent damage to place a little higher. Take a look at Rivendell's and Sheldon Brown's sites for suggestions on sensible bike fit and handler bar positions.

biondino

meanwhile wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

What about bullhorns? At least then you don't lose the 'corner' position...

Bullhorns are a pain to get to work with gearing, hard to find already on a bike, and not really a feasible add-on with a £200 **total** budget. Even at ebay prices bullhorns will be £10, used pursuit brake levers £10, shifters £30... then the bike will need probably re-cabling at the local bike store, which could be £25 for new cables and £25 for labour. There isn't much money left for the bike after this fashion exercise.

And a newbie will probably be happier on flats anyway.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't flat bars a fair bit wider than most drop bars?

Flats are as narrow as you want them to be - you can cut them down with a hacksaw or (much smarter) a cheap pipe cutter.

My advice is to buy a secondhand hybrid or suspensionless MTB with a sloping top tube - it makes frame fit a lot easier. Putting slick tyres on the MTB will make it as fast as the hybrid. £200, carefully spent, will buy a really nice second hand bike.

I'd advise being cautious re racing bikes as most of them are designed as toys for Tour De France fans rather than as practical tools - they're typically limited to prostrate bruising ultra narrow tyres, and often have too short frames, so that the front wheel will collide with your foot in a sharp low speed turn. A racing bike pays for these faults by by being slightly more efficient when you're pedaling fast enough for aerodynamics to be *really* important - at lower levels of effort a hybrid with good tyres will be just as fast. This level of effort will douse you with sweat, so unless you have showers at each end of your commute you probably want to avoid it. Racing bikes are also much harder to fit to the rider than a flat bar bike - buying without a budget for a fitting session and new stems and handlebars, etc... I'd stay away. If you decide you want a drop bar when you have some experience and more cash then look for a used Specialized Tricross - very adaptable fit, capable of running wide tyres, etc. But you won't find one for £200.

Oh - ***and make sure whatever you buy has room for good mudguards with your chosen tyres.***

Meanwhile's father was tragically sliced in half by the razor-thin tyres of a feral Colnago - you can ignore his prejudices, though it's understandable in the circumstances. He's never been the same since. *shakes head sadly*

fungus_the_muffin_man

Woould it not be possible to put the money on a bike upfront and pay a little bit extra on 12mth interest free payments. If you could spare £20 that would give you and extra £240 on top of what you could spare.

nevis cycles do interest free credit for example and have a trek and gary fischer hybrid for 300-450.

daniel_r

As im clueless as far as bike manafactuers go... is it worth the difference in say going for a Specialized Sirrus '09 which I can get for under my £250 budget brand new to say a Trek or Gary Fischer which I would have to pay extra for (not that its a possibility at the moment but i could possibly hold out longer to see if i can)

sarajoy

Spesh Sirrus' are pretty well-regarded

Mind you I think the basic model has grip-shifters, which drive me mental so I'd avoid that one and go one-up to the Sport - but you may think differently about that!

meanwhile

biondino wrote:

Meanwhile's father was tragically sliced in half by the razor-thin tyres of a feral Colnago - you can ignore his prejudices, though it's understandable in the circumstances. He's never been the same since. *shakes head sadly*

Ah. The Man Who Can't Use His Brakes speaks. Yes, I suppose if you hit enough cars and walls and things even material likes yours will start to seem funny - it's all a matter of mushing down that troublesome part of the brain in front of the ears.

And don't forget - losing neural material saves weight! The kilo of grey matter Bio has lost so far would cost about £2000 grand extra to save on a bike. Thought of like that it's a bargain!

(What was the stopping distance in your should-I-buy-a-new-bike-post? About double the distance it should have been? )

Greg T

meanwhile wrote:

I'd advise being cautious re racing bikes as most of them are designed as toys for Tour De France fans rather than as practical tools Wrong


- they're typically limited to prostrate bruising ultra narrow tyres,Wrong

and often have too short frames,Wrong

so that the front wheel will collide with your foot in a sharp low speed turn.Wrong

A racing bike pays for these faults by by being slightly more efficient Wrong

when you're pedaling fast enough for aerodynamics to be *really* important - at lower levels of effort a hybrid with good tyres will be just as fast.Wrong

This level of effort will douse you with sweat Wrong

so unless you have showers at each end of your commute you probably want to avoid it. Wrong

Racing bikes are also much harder to fit to the rider than a flat bar bike Wrong

- buying without a budget for a fitting session and new stems and handlebars, etcWrong*

You have scored 0 out of 10.

Do you ride a bike or do you just make your crap up?

Now I'm all for making stuff up but you need to have a kernel of possibility just planting the seed of doubt to really get the hook going......

biondino

I'm honoured you remember me! But it's one thing to be clumsy, and another entirely to somehow have still remained alive when you have no clue about what a bike actually does! I echo Greg T's email to the letter, especially the second last sentence, which would at least explain your not-under-a-truck status.

(apart from the sweating bit - I sweat loads on a roadie but you'll end up even sweatier on a hybrid since it needs so much more effort just to get the bloody thing moving)

fungus_the_muffin_man

daniel_r wrote:

As im clueless as far as bike manafactuers go... is it worth the difference in say going for a Specialized Sirrus '09 which I can get for under my £250 budget brand new to say a Trek or Gary Fischer which I would have to pay extra for (not that its a possibility at the moment but i could possibly hold out longer to see if i can)

It could be worth just holding out a lil bit longer and maybe trying to save just a lil bit more. When I got my 1st MTB the lads at work told me to go for at least a min £500 for a HT and 1000 for a full susser. Thinking that I didn't want to spend that kind of money I got a GT avalanche for £175. I really wish now i'd spent that bit more as to get a comfier ride/ better performance I would have to spend more than it would've cost me to get a dearer bike in the first place.
As a result when I got my road bike the other week I pushed myself into paying a bit extra to get a better quality bike. Even now I'm thinking of how I can upgrade it LOL!

Biking is addictive once you start your always looking at bike porn and wondering if you can justify spending some more money

fungus_the_muffin_man

This place has got a reconditioned specialized allez for 250 that looks like a good bargain
http://www.walkerscycling.co.uk/bikes_reconditioned.htm

il_principe

@Meanwhile - have you ever ridden a roadbike? It certainly doesn't sound like you have, in fact that last post of yours may well be the most ill-informed pile of cr@p I've ever had the misfortune to read - this line really takes the biscuit though:

often have too short frames

Yeah, if you buy the WRONG SIZE! Amazingly that problem can include all manner of bikes and is normally the fault of the purchaser/seller not the manufacturer...
:shock:

meanwhile

Greg T wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

I'd advise being cautious re racing bikes as most of them are designed as toys for Tour De France fans rather than as practical tools Wrong


- they're typically limited to prostrate bruising ultra narrow tyres,Wrong

and often have too short frames,Wrong

so that the front wheel will collide with your foot in a sharp low speed turn.Wrong

A racing bike pays for these faults by by being slightly more efficient Wrong

when you're pedaling fast enough for aerodynamics to be *really* important - at lower levels of effort a hybrid with good tyres will be just as fast.Wrong

This level of effort will douse you with sweat Wrong

so unless you have showers at each end of your commute you probably want to avoid it. Wrong

Racing bikes are also much harder to fit to the rider than a flat bar bike Wrong

- buying without a budget for a fitting session and new stems and handlebars, etcWrong*

You have scored 0 out of 10.

Do you ride a bike or do you just make your crap up?

Now I'm all for making stuff up but you need to have a kernel of possibility just planting the seed of doubt to really get the hook going......

Gosh. You can spell wrong. You're smart!

I can actually prove all of the above points that are susceptible to numerical proof - ie the performance stuff. Of course you don't know where to go to the data, even though it's on the web and unimpeachably sourced - if you did you wouldn't a cycling fashion victim. The bottom line is that bicycle performance on the flat is based on rider position and tyre rolling resistance and nothing else. RR is a function almost entirely of the tyre compound, and rider position and its effect on drag doesn't become significant until quite a high power output - ie going to the drops gives you marginal extra speed at a realistic commuting effort.

As for your belief that current racing bike frames aren't hard to fit and don't often have problems with foot-wheel interaction and too narrow tyres, I can quote the CTC and Sheldon Brown, etc, against your own opinion.

I can deal in facts; what you resent and claim as "WRONG" is that someone has an opinion different to the one you've invested money and belief in. Because if you weren't right you'd have to feel stupid.

Anyway, as I don't mind making people look stupid:

Two riders are riding at twice the power output they'd spend in walking. Rider A is on a 17lb rmph difference on the drops. Rider B is on a 26lb hybrid with bars cut to the same width and placed at the same height as A's hoods.

1. How fast will they each go?

2. How high will they each have to turn up the furnace for A's extra advantage to get him a 4mph advantage of the pursuing (£2k cheaper) hybrid, and how does this compare to the wattage of a world-class rider and what is its feasibility in a commute??? Would you describe this wattage as sweat dousing?

I know exactly, which is what my opinions are based on. I should reveal here that I have a physics degree, have read bike design papers, used to be a courier and took place in alleys between a wide range of bikes with good riders, talked over bike performance with semi-pro racers and their mechanics, swapped emails with bike tech engineers and scientists... and have access to a decent simulator program that pro teams use to get answers to questions like the above.(But without the detailed tyre-by-tyre dataset, dammit.)

I suspect, Greg, that you have no idea what the answer is, except that it somehow marvelously justifies your investment in expensive tubing and your shaved legs...

(Hint - there's no way for you to answer the above questions without your looking "WRONG".)

DonDaddyD

Personally I think Meanwhile is a mole from London FG/SS sent here to annoy and outright p*ss us off. That or someone from the Cake Stop.

I've seen that kind of troll behaviour before. The person clearly has some bike knowledge and there is no way someone could consecutively be incorrect about every point/piece of advice they've ever given unless they were purposely posting poor advice/bad information. The stuff he writes mostly isn't even subjective, it's mostly just categorically wrong.

Lastly, you know when I've chosen not to engage someone - for a potential argument - then something is up.

Greg T

meanwhile wrote:

I should reveal here that I have a physics degree

I am not shocked.

greg66_tri_v2.0

meanwhile wrote:

Greg T wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

I'd advise being cautious re racing bikes as most of them are designed as toys for Tour De France fans rather than as practical tools Wrong


- they're typically limited to prostrate bruising ultra narrow tyres,Wrong

and often have too short frames,Wrong

so that the front wheel will collide with your foot in a sharp low speed turn.Wrong

A racing bike pays for these faults by by being slightly more efficient Wrong

when you're pedaling fast enough for aerodynamics to be *really* important - at lower levels of effort a hybrid with good tyres will be just as fast.Wrong

This level of effort will douse you with sweat Wrong

so unless you have showers at each end of your commute you probably want to avoid it. Wrong

Racing bikes are also much harder to fit to the rider than a flat bar bike Wrong

- buying without a budget for a fitting session and new stems and handlebars, etcWrong*

You have scored 0 out of 10.

Do you ride a bike or do you just make your crap up?

Now I'm all for making stuff up but you need to have a kernel of possibility just planting the seed of doubt to really get the hook going......

Gosh. You can spell wrong. You're smart!

I can actually prove all of the above points that are susceptible to numerical proof - ie the performance stuff. Of course you don't know where to go to the data, even though it's on the web and unimpeachably sourced - if you did you wouldn't a cycling fashion victim. The bottom line is that bicycle performance on the flat is based on rider position and tyre rolling resistance and nothing else. RR is a function almost entirely of the tyre compound, and rider position and its effect on drag doesn't become significant until quite a high power output - ie going to the drops gives you marginal extra speed at a realistic commuting effort.

As for your belief that current racing bike frames aren't hard to fit and don't often have problems with foot-wheel interaction and too narrow tyres, I can quote the CTC and Sheldon Brown, etc, against your own opinion.

I can deal in facts; what you resent and claim as "WRONG" is that someone has an opinion different to the one you've invested money and belief in. Because if you weren't right you'd have to feel stupid.

Anyway, as I don't mind making people look stupid:

Two riders are riding at twice the power output they'd spend in walking. Rider A is on a 17lb rmph difference on the drops. Rider B is on a 26lb hybrid with bars cut to the same width and placed at the same height as A's hoods.

1. How fast will they each go?

2. How high will they each have to turn up the furnace for A's extra advantage to get him a 4mph advantage of the pursuing (£2k cheaper) hybrid, and how does this compare to the wattage of a world-class rider and what is its feasibility in a commute??? Would you describe this wattage as sweat dousing?

I know exactly, which is what my opinions are based on. I should reveal here that I have a physics degree, have read bike design papers, used to be a courier and took place in alleys between a wide range of bikes with good riders, talked over bike performance with semi-pro racers and their mechanics, swapped emails with bike tech engineers and scientists... and have access to a decent simulator program that pro teams use to get answers to questions like the above.(But without the detailed tyre-by-tyre dataset, dammit.)

I suspect, Greg, that you have no idea what the answer is, except that it somehow marvelously justifies your investment in expensive tubing and your shaved legs...

(Hint - there's no way for you to answer the above questions without your looking "WRONG".)

I printed this.

I needed something to wipe my @rse with.

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

I printed this.

I needed something to wipe my @rse with.

Have you ran out of 20 quid notes?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I printed this.

I needed something to wipe my @rse with.

Have you ran out of 20 quid notes?

Change is as good as a rest, as they say.

Eau Rouge

meanwhile wrote:

As for your belief that current racing bike frames aren't hard to fit and don't often have problems with foot-wheel interaction and too narrow tyres, I can quote the CTC and Sheldon Brown, etc, against your own opinion.

I know what Sheldon said about toe overlap...

Sheldon Brown wrote:

Toe Clip Overlap
On many bicycles, especially smaller sizes, it is possible for the front fender or tire to bump into the rider's toe or to the toe clip. Some people worry a lot about this, but it is rarely a significant problem in practice.

The only time it can happen is when the handlebars are turned quite far to the side, which only happens at very low speeds.

Many, many people ride bikes with fairly severe overlap with no practical problems, sometimes having to make a slight adjustment to their pedaling habits at very slow speeds.

On smaller size bikes with full size wheels, it is usually impossible to eliminate overlap without causing adverse fit/handling issues.

meanwhile wrote:

2. How high will they each have to turn up the furnace for A's extra advantage to get him a 4mph advantage of the pursuing (£2k cheaper) hybrid, and how does this compare to the wattage of a world-class rider and what is its feasibility in a commute??? Would you describe this wattage as sweat dousing?

4mph, thats a huge difference in average speed! I presume you mean here a more instantaneous speed? How is the hybrid £2k cheaper? A 17lb road bike typically costs about £1500 even in the current market.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I've been that kind of troll before.

Fixed that for you

blu3cat

Dear meanwhile,

I would like to see actual figures / equations (including working outs )(I too have a physics degree), and you have failed in the first rules of experimentation. Only change one variable. In this case the bike type.

So why not run the whole thing with A 26lb road bike, which I am sure would be far more closely price matched to your theorteical hybrid, or perhaps a lighter hybrid, there are several 17lb models out there, which would come to about oooooh £2k more expensive than your current hybrid in the model.

I agree with one of your points:

going to the drops gives you marginal extra speed at a realistic commuting effort

Yes it will, and personally when commuting I want to be able to go as fast as I can with the minimum energy expenditure.

Now as for foot / wheel overlap. You have not explained that there would be a very similar overlap with 700c wheels on a hybrid, unless they offer a more stretched out top tube, or a significantly larger rake on the forks, and my old hybrid didn't!

rally200

a few years back a bloke did the London Marathon dressed in an antique diving suit, brass helmet, lead boots, the lot - it was reported at the time as a stunt for charity, but now it all falls into place - it was Meanwhile researching his Physics thesis "Nike - The greatest rock'n'roll swindle" wherein he proved that (other than for a few superhuman sprinters) running shoes actually diminish performance, and that general day to day perambulation can only be improved through the additon of weight, and wind resistance.

laughingboy

Il Principe wrote:

@Meanwhile - have you ever ridden a roadbike? It certainly doesn't sound like you have, in fact that last post of yours may well be the most ill-informed pile of cr@p I've ever had the misfortune to read - this line really takes the biscuit though:

often have too short frames

Yeah, if you buy the WRONG SIZE! Amazingly that problem can include all manner of bikes and is normally the fault of the purchaser/seller not the manufacturer...
:shock:

Clearly, meanwhile might have overstated his case (and the cheap ad hominem digs at biondino make me question why I am writing in his defence), but some of the points he made have some merit, I think. But then, I ride a steel-framed touring bike. :shock:

He is saying the following:

For some people road bikes are the perfect solution. For others not.

Road bikes are fast. Some sacrifice comfort for speed.
More comfortable bikes are often slightly slower. But some of this speed difference (from having an aerodynamic body position) is hardly noticeable unless you are cycling at full tilt, or on a windy day.

The steep frame geometry that road bikes choose for speed and efficient power transfer is less comfortable, and it can in some cases cause toe overlap. (Though Eau Rouge has quoted The Authority, saying this is not a big problem.)

So, in summary: it is worth considering whether the bike you are buying is designed with your uses in mind. If I interpret them correctly, meanwhile's comments are hardly the biggest load of cr*p I've read on the forum. And I should know. I've authored some steaming piles in my time.

On the other hand, this forum has several members who have regretted buying a hybrid when a road bike would have been better for them, and few who regretted buying a road bike (I think).

Fast is FUN!

blu3cat

Luaghingboy,

Eloquently put.

DonDaddyD

laughingboy wrote:

On the other hand, this forum has several members who have regretted buying a hybrid when a road bike would have been better for them, and few who regretted buying a road bike (I think).

No one regrets buying a road bike. The road bike regrets you.

rally200

I realise what a fool I've been, trusting the recieved (from me?) opinion that it was easier to ride fast on my road bike than on my hybrid, snd that (the hybrid was pretty handy as it takes huge great mudguards & racks. I mean where is the the peer review?

I see how reckless I've been, riding the road bike to work occassionally - what with me being nearly 11 stone!!! (that's 14lb over the road bike limit) It's a wonder that it's toy frame hasn't smashed to pieces.



ps. I think Meanewhile is a wind-up troll/pixie/willow-the-wisp

blu3cat

ps. I think Meanewhile is a wind-up troll/pixie/willow-the-wisp

They have form.

biondino

Search "meanwhile" and "helmet" and see which joys you can find. (to summarise - if you have a low speed accident you're too stupid to deserve a bike, and all helmet-using higher speed accidents that don't kill you leave you with horrific rotational shear brain injuries. Though that might explain a thing or two).

Has anyone else noticed that he also rules out entirely issues to do with wind resistance at "commuting speeds"? Leaving to one side the fact that many of us are delighted to commute at 20mph+, it's wonderful that "I have a physics" degree and "there is zero wind resistance at commuting speeds" can be found in the same troll.

roger_merriman

biondino wrote:

Search "meanwhile" and "helmet" and see which joys you can find. (to summarise - if you have a low speed accident you're too stupid to deserve a bike, and all helmet-using higher speed accidents that don't kill you leave you with horrific rotational shear brain injuries. Though that might explain a thing or two).

Has anyone else noticed that he also rules out entirely issues to do with wind resistance at "commuting speeds"? Leaving to one side the fact that many of us are delighted to commute at 20mph+, it's wonderful that "I have a physics" degree and "there is zero wind resistance at commuting speeds" can be found in the same troll.

I do wounder that he just sees the world in black/white terms with no grey areas.