Beginners Road Bike

Chogger

Hi I'm looking for my first road bike I'm upgrading from a hybrid it is to be used for comuting to and from work about 8 miles a day every day and potentialy the start of a new hobby. I'm quite big 6'3 and 15 stone and am currently looking at a Claud Butler Trieste and a Carrera TDF I have a budget of around £400 would either of these bikes be suitable for my needs are there any others that any one would recommend? Any help Would be greatly appreciated

Claud Butler Trieste 2013 Road Bike Spec Price £350
Frame:Alloy
Fork:Carbon Fibre Fork
Front Derailleur:Shimano Tourney
Rear Derailleur:Shimano Tourney
Number of Gears:14
Shifters:Shimano Tourney STI Shifters
Chainset:Alloy
Bottom Bracket:Sealed
Cassette:7 Speed Shimano
Pedals:Resin with cages
Front Brake:Alloy dual pivot
Rear Brake:Alloy dual pivot
Brake Levers:Alloy drop
Handlebars:Alloy drop
Stem:Alloy
Rims:Alloy
Front Hub:Alloy
Rear Hub:Alloy
Front Tyre:700c
Rear Tyre:700c
Saddle:Claud Butler Racing
Seatpost:Alloy
Weight:Not Specified

Carrera TDF Spec Price £329
■Approximate Weight (KG): 11.7
■Exact Frame Size: 58cm
■Forks: Hi-Tensile Straight Blade
■Frame Material: Alloy
■Front Brake: Tektro alloy calliper brake
■Geometry: Compact
■Number of Gears: 16
■Rear Brake: Tektro alloy calliper brake
■Wheel Size: 700c
■Cassette: 12-26T
■Chainset: Prowheel 52/39
■Frame Colour: Black and Yellow
■Front Mech: Shimano FD-A050
■Gear Shifters: Shimano ST-2300
■Gender: Mens
■Handle Bars: Drop
■Headset: Semi integrated
■Pedals: Road pedals with toe clips
■Rear Mech: Shimano RD-2300
■Rims: Carrera double wall rims
■Saddle: Carrera
■Seatpost: Alloy 350mm x 27.2
■Stem: Alloy
■Suspension: Rigid
■Tyres: Kenda road tyre

neilvx

The TDF always gets a good review and leaves you bit of cash to tweak it if required. It would make a good starter bike.

markhewitt1978

For £400 I wouldn't get a bike with Tourney. Make sure it - at least - has a Claris groupset and carbon fork.

For that budget you'd be best off looking second hand.

Hollow-legs

Hi there !
You say you already have a hybrid bike that you use to commmute ,,,what make and model is it ? Do like the riding position of the hybrid ,what gearing does it have ...?
My first road bike was a blue carrera virtuoso ,i loved it ,took me ages to get used to the riding position and i struggled at first with the different gearing from my mountain bike ...but it made me fitter

Personally i would keep using the hybrid and save a few more pennies to get a better bike than the two above,another £50 added to your budget of £400 to give you £450 would give the chance to buy a better bike.
Also a second hand bike would offer better value at £400 and better spec.

If you do not mind buying online there are some great deals on big name road bikes:

If it was my money i would buy either one of these.
Cannondale CAAD8

http://www.hargrovescycles.co.uk/cannon ... tAodG1oAVg

Gaint DEFY4

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/productDeta ... goryID=960

Felt z95

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/felt-z95-sora-w ... 5360562564


Hope this helps

diamonddog

Carrera out of those two.

zx6man

My TDF suites me fine, (Paid 269 in a sale for it).

I just changed (to match):-

Front Mech to a 2300
Chainset to a 2300 Compact

Chogger

Hi Thank you for your advice my current Hybrid is a carrera crossfire 1 which I really enjoy riding not sure what the gear set up is but it is still the same one as standard on the bike (I'm a complete novice to this) I've had it for about 3 years and used it pretty much every day.

zx6man

Standard TDF 52/39 and 12-26 rear was a bit too tough for me over places like holme moss, so that would be the first noticable difference to the crossfire.

Chogger

Hi being a novice when you say 12-26 rear does that mean that the gear ratio would make it tougher going over hills? what would be a good ratio to go for thanks

markhewitt1978

To get the ratio you divide the smallest number of teeth on the front by the largest number on the back (as a rough guide). So this would be 39 / 26 = 1.5. That's a pretty tough gear for hills when you consider my bike (a common setup has 34 / 28 = 1.21.

simon_masterson

Either bike would be a perfectly adequate starter bike - both are fit for purpose, and about as much bike as you are going to get for £400 - You get what you pay for. There's nothing wrong with Tourney, or steel forks. If you take to cycling in a big way and have money to spend on your hobby, this bike will be relegated.

Also, 39x26 is not a tough gear for hills. It isn't the easiest one either, but there is only so much lower that typical road bike gearing goes without switching for MTB mechs and cassettes and triple chainsets. Until relatively recently, there were no compacts, and 42x21-23 was about as low as it generally got. 39x32 gives you the same ratio as 34x28, so if you find that you want lower gears, just switch for a cassette with a 32 cog (and probably your rear mech, which will be much cheaper than a new compact chainset). Unless you live in a seriously mountanous area, you shouldn't need lower gearing than this for typical cycling without luggage (i.e. excluding the Fred Whitton). If you are overweight and/or new to cycling, it will not be the gearing that stops you getting up that hill, so don't worry about it.

Chogger

Hi thanks for all your advice. I think I may push my budget up to around the 450 mark and shop around although I do like the look of the felt z95

Mad_Malx

deleted

Mad_Malx

Simon Masterson wrote:

Either bike would be a perfectly adequate starter bike - both are fit for purpose, and about as much bike as you are going to get for £400 - You get what you pay for. There's nothing wrong with Tourney, or steel forks. If you take to cycling in a big way and have money to spend on your hobby, this bike will be relegated.

Also, 39x26 is not a tough gear for hills.

It is for a lot of people and compared to his hybrid (which I think has a lowest gear of 30x28) it's going to be brutal.

It isn't the easiest one either, but there is only so much lower that typical road bike gearing goes without switching for MTB mechs and cassettes and triple chainsets. Until relatively recently, there were no compacts, and 42x21-23 was about as low as it generally got. 39x32 gives you the same ratio as 34x28, so if you find that you want lower gears, just switch for a cassette with a 32 cog (and probably your rear mech, which will be much cheaper than a new compact chainset). Unless you live in a seriously mountanous area, you shouldn't need lower gearing than this for typical cycling without luggage (i.e. excluding the Fred Whitton). If you are overweight and/or new to cycling, it will not be the gearing that stops you getting up that hill, so don't worry about it.I

There are going to be some big jumps between gears with the bikes he mentions, they have 7 or 8 speed cassettes.

Personally I think the Felt is a much better buy. The Decatholon bikes are well rated at this sort of price too.

simon_masterson

Mad_Malx wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Either bike would be a perfectly adequate starter bike - both are fit for purpose, and about as much bike as you are going to get for £400 - You get what you pay for. There's nothing wrong with Tourney, or steel forks. If you take to cycling in a big way and have money to spend on your hobby, this bike will be relegated.

Also, 39x26 is not a tough gear for hills.

It is for a lot of people and compared to his hybrid (which I think has a lowest gear of 30x28) it's going to be brutal.

It isn't the easiest one either, but there is only so much lower that typical road bike gearing goes without switching for MTB mechs and cassettes and triple chainsets. Until relatively recently, there were no compacts, and 42x21-23 was about as low as it generally got. 39x32 gives you the same ratio as 34x28, so if you find that you want lower gears, just switch for a cassette with a 32 cog (and probably your rear mech, which will be much cheaper than a new compact chainset). Unless you live in a seriously mountanous area, you shouldn't need lower gearing than this for typical cycling without luggage (i.e. excluding the Fred Whitton). If you are overweight and/or new to cycling, it will not be the gearing that stops you getting up that hill, so don't worry about it.I

There are going to be some big jumps between gears with the bikes he mentions, they have 7 or 8 speed cassettes.

Personally I think the Felt is a much better buy. The Decatholon bikes are well rated at this sort of price too.

Clearly, if 30x28 is what you're used to then it will be a bit of a step up, but so would 34x28 be, let alone 34x25 or lower. As said before, there are limits to what a road bike with standard equipment will allow. I've never seen a 10 speed 11-40 cassette. As for the gaps, they're not ideal but perfectly possible to cope with, particularly 7 or 8 speed - I personally use 5 speed (my main bike is too old even for 6!) freewheels, and options are getting very limited; I currently have 14,16,20,24,28.

neilvx

The F95 is in a sale at present :-)

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/felt-f95-sora-wiggle-exclusive/

markhewitt1978

39x26 is a tough gear for a lot of people. I do wish we'd get over this overgearing snobbery, but alas..

zx6man

markhewitt1978 wrote:

39x26 is a tough gear for a lot of people. I do wish we'd get over this overgearing snobbery, but alas..

It is for holme moss....

markhewitt1978

Or Peth Bank, or Crawleyside Bank or a number of 20%+ climbs around here.

Mad_Malx

Absolutely. We're in road beginners, and plenty of non-beginners need 34x27 or lower when we hit the hills.

Buy something with low gears (bigish rear, plus triple or compact on the front). You WILL regret buying an over-geared bike and to put it right will end up shelling out for cassette, rear derailleur and longer chain, which will cost you at least £50 plus tools if you don't have them (although these are worth having in the long run). The fettling is easy but much better to buy what you need to start with.

Chogger

Hi thanks for all your help I'm probably going to order the felt f95 in a 61cm frame. Do you think that frame size would be suitable for someone my size 6`3 with a 34inch inside leg?

simon_masterson

markhewitt1978 wrote:

39x26 is a tough gear for a lot of people. I do wish we'd get over this overgearing snobbery, but alas..

It was a really tough gear when you couldn't have it.

But the fact is that lots of people end up swapping their double for a compact or triple, when buying a new cassette and rear mech (and chain) is cheaper. But what about when 34 (or 30)x28 isn't enough? 34x32? MTB cassette with a 34 or 36 cog? Triple with a 26? Custom cassette with a 60t? Riding up steep hills is hard, no matter what gears you have. Unless living in a hilly area with 15+% hills you can't avoid, 39x26 ought to be adequate (if not necessarily comfortable) and 39x28 ample. It's still going to hurt. If the OP gets hooked on cycling and upgrades his bike, he can opt for a compact or triple if that's what he wants; until he does, any serious hills he struggles on or is defeated by probably won't be on account of the gearing.

SlipSpace

OP is riding every day and has done more or less for 3 years, 8 mile commute. I think he will be fitter and more capable than he, and perhaps others, are giving him credit for. Don't sweat on the gear choices being too hard, I reckon you'll be fine

markhewitt1978

Cycling shouldn't have to "hurt". If you want to put yourself through the mill, then fair play to you. But it doesn't have to be that way when there are other options available.

whitestar1

A Decathlon Triban will trump the TDF. Check out the Triban 500SE on their website.

ai_1

Simon Masterson wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

39x26 is a tough gear for a lot of people. I do wish we'd get over this overgearing snobbery, but alas..

It was a really tough gear when you couldn't have it.

But the fact is that lots of people end up swapping their double for a compact or triple, when buying a new cassette and rear mech (and chain) is cheaper. But what about when 34 (or 30)x28 isn't enough? 34x32? MTB cassette with a 34 or 36 cog? Triple with a 26? Custom cassette with a 60t? Riding up steep hills is hard, no matter what gears you have. Unless living in a hilly area with 15+% hills you can't avoid, 39x26 ought to be adequate (if not necessarily comfortable) and 39x28 ample. It's still going to hurt. If the OP gets hooked on cycling and upgrades his bike, he can opt for a compact or triple if that's what he wants; until he does, any serious hills he struggles on or is defeated by probably won't be on account of the gearing.

You're making very little sense in your past few posts regarding gearing.
You start by saying 39x26 isn't really a tough gear which is most definitely nonsense and go on to say in later posts that gearing isn't really relevant but rather hills are hard. Utter rubbish.

Let's put it this way: Climbing hills is difficult because you're lifting your body weight vertically and therefore doing a significant amount of work. The heavier your body, the more work you need to do. The faster you do that work the more power is required. Power = force x speed.

Many cyclists will struggle to ride faster than about 10km/h on a long gradient of 10%. Most people will be very uncomfortable with a cadence less than 60rpm and may well have to stop if it falls below 50rpm.

So let's look at your suggestion that 39x26 is fine and difficulty getting up hills are down to the rider not the gears.

Let's assume I want to be able to ride hills of about 10% gradient and 5km in length - not a crazy ambition I'm sure you'll agree. If I have a 34x28 ratio (pretty typical compact & wide range cassette setup) then in my smallest gear cycling at 10km/h my cadence will be about 64rpm. That's slow but feasible. It'll take 30mins to get up the climb but I should be able to do it.
Now let's say you specified my bike and gave me a 39x26 smallest gear. At the same speed my cadence is now 52. That's barely manageable even for a few hundred meters - why? - because I now have to apply about 23% more force to the pedals to generate the same power. Over a 5km climb, it's not going to happen.
Even if we go with your 39x28 "ample" option cadence will still be down to 56 with a pedal force increase of about 14% over the typical compact option. If very low cadence was a good idea we'd do it on the flat too. It's not so we don't.

So, in this realistic example your gearing has just stopped me getting up that climb. I was able for the climb if I had the right gearing. I've done quite a few sportives and I'm confident those numbers are fairly representative for a hell of a lot of cyclists.
In my opinion the vast majority of cyclists will at some point find themselves having to crawl up a hill at 10km/h or less and for that a 39 tooth small chainring is the wrong solution.

I've never seen a convincing rationale for recommending standard chainrings to anyone but "elite" riders. The only argument that makes some sense is that some people prefer the positioning of their typical cruising gears when using a 39 tooth chainring as it makes for more convenient gear changes - a minor issue in my opinion compared to the inability to climb hills.

Mad_Malx

^+1 and markhewitt.
15 mile round commute every day for the last 6 years and I use the 34x24 every day in each direction or 34x27 if I want to spin. I can do it in a higher gear, but it hurts more and slows me down. It's also definately nice to have the lower gear at the end of a longer ride. Clearly I'm just feeble, but the few sportives I have done indicate I'm easily in the top half for climbing. As I said before, start with lower gearing and go high if you feel you need to, not the other way round. Most of the pros are happy to use very low gears when they need to.
Agree with Triban recommendation.

simon_masterson

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Cycling shouldn't have to "hurt". If you want to put yourself through the mill, then fair play to you. But it doesn't have to be that way when there are other options available.

So cycling up steep hills is a completely pleasant experience for you?

simon_masterson

Ai_1 wrote:

You're making very little sense in your past few posts regarding gearing.
You start by saying 39x26 isn't really a tough gear which is most definitely nonsense and go on to say in later posts that gearing isn't really relevant but rather hills are hard. Utter rubbish.

Note that I never actually said that it would be easy to climb hills with that gearing.

The facts are simple. Firstly, people still managed to climb the hills when racing bikes did not commonly have cogs that big (and commonly did use 42 rather than 39, let alone 34, at the front), and secondly - and more to the point - gearing does not go all that much lower. I'm guessing that 26x60 is a very easy gear to climb with, but can you buy a standard road bike with that gearing? If a rider isn't fit enough to get up the hill, they will struggle whatever gearing they have.

Ai_1 wrote:

YLet's put it this way: Climbing hills is difficult because you're lifting your body weight vertically and therefore doing a significant amount of work. The heavier your body, the more work you need to do. The faster you do that work the more power is required. Power = force x speed.

Many cyclists will struggle to ride faster than about 10km/h on a long gradient of 10%. Most people will be very uncomfortable with a cadence less than 60rpm and may well have to stop if it falls below 50rpm.

So let's look at your suggestion that 39x26 is fine and difficulty getting up hills are down to the rider not the gears.

Let's assume I want to be able to ride hills of about 10% gradient and 5km in length - not a crazy ambition I'm sure you'll agree. If I have a 34x28 ratio (pretty typical compact & wide range cassette setup) then in my smallest gear cycling at 10km/h my cadence will be about 64rpm. That's slow but feasible. It'll take 30mins to get up the climb but I should be able to do it.
Now let's say you specified my bike and gave me a 39x26 smallest gear. At the same speed my cadence is now 52. That's barely manageable even for a few hundred meters - why? - because I now have to apply about 23% more force to the pedals to generate the same power. Over a 5km climb, it's not going to happen.
Even if we go with your 39x28 "ample" option cadence will still be down to 56 with a pedal force increase of about 14% over the typical compact option. If very low cadence was a good idea we'd do it on the flat too. It's not so we don't.

So, in this realistic example your gearing has just stopped me getting up that climb. I was able for the climb if I had the right gearing. I've done quite a few sportives and I'm confident those numbers are fairly representative for a hell of a lot of cyclists.
In my opinion the vast majority of cyclists will at some point find themselves having to crawl up a hill at 10km/h or less and for that a 39 tooth small chainring is the wrong solution.

Again, not suggesting it's the easy option, but your example doesn't reflect the scenario within which I am making suggestions. Unfit riders that struggle with hills either aren't going to be attempting the same climbs as you, or will do so in the knowledge that it won't be pretty.

Ai_1 wrote:

YI've never seen a convincing rationale for recommending standard chainrings to anyone but "elite" riders. The only argument that makes some sense is that some people prefer the positioning of their typical cruising gears when using a 39 tooth chainring as it makes for more convenient gear changes - a minor issue in my opinion compared to the inability to climb hills.

I actually do think that for most cyclists, the compact chainset makes sense, but that still does not make it essential - We coped perfectly well before they existed, so 'the inability to climb hills' isn't entirely accurate. If a new road cyclist has £400 to buy a road bike, he should not be deterred from doing so just because none of the available options has a compact chainset. It wouldn't be the only thing you can't buy for £400.

wotnoshoeseh

What did the OP buy?
I think we've exhausted the gearing discussions...

Chogger

In the end I went for the felt f95 they have them on a really good offer on wiggle. Thanks for all your help