Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More - View Single Post

04-15-2004, 05:36 AM

In article <27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com >,
warrenginn@erols.com says...

....

>
> > The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower gearing and much
> > larger tires. With the fat tires, you probably wouldn't need the front
> > susp at all, unless you are taking it on trails.
>
> Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the roads are
> terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I want a more rugged bike
> than what I see as a traditional road bike with skinny rims and a
> slight frame. Even if it cost me a little speed. I have a 15 year old
> Giant Iguana that I use on tours now and there's no suspension, but I
> can keep pace with the B riders at a solid 13-14 mph avs.
>
> I just want to move into something a little better for the road, but I
> don't want the skinny tires and drop handle bars. I'm always seeing
> the guys who race past me on their high-end road bikes a few miles
> futher doen the road changing their flats where I rarely get a flat.
> As for the drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks
> like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of different hand
> positions and plenty of control. I'm just not a "tucked in" as someone
> on a traditional road bike.

The C-Dale's 25mm tires are pretty skinny to be using on rough roads,
though with the suspension it might work ok, but tires are easy to
change anyway, as long as it will take the size you want to use. It
sounds like the Trek might fit your needs just a bit better, since you
know it will take the tires. You probably won't be using the low gears,
though.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

04-15-2004, 05:36 AM	#17 (permalink)
David Kerber Posts: n/a	Re: Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700 In article <27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.com >, warrenginn@erols.com says... .... > > > The Trek is much more off-road oriented, with its lower gearing and much > > larger tires. With the fat tires, you probably wouldn't need the front > > susp at all, unless you are taking it on trails. > > Thanks David. The reason for the suspension is that the roads are > terrible around here (Long Island, NY) and I want a more rugged bike > than what I see as a traditional road bike with skinny rims and a > slight frame. Even if it cost me a little speed. I have a 15 year old > Giant Iguana that I use on tours now and there's no suspension, but I > can keep pace with the B riders at a solid 13-14 mph avs. > > I just want to move into something a little better for the road, but I > don't want the skinny tires and drop handle bars. I'm always seeing > the guys who race past me on their high-end road bikes a few miles > futher doen the road changing their flats where I rarely get a flat. > As for the drop bars, I'm actually used to a Brahma bar which looks > like a trial bar. I gives me a wider grip with lots of different hand > positions and plenty of control. I'm just not a "tucked in" as someone > on a traditional road bike. The C-Dale's 25mm tires are pretty skinny to be using on rough roads, though with the suspension it might work ok, but tires are easy to change anyway, as long as it will take the size you want to use. It sounds like the Trek might fit your needs just a bit better, since you know it will take the tires. You probably won't be using the low gears, though. -- Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the newsgroups if possible).