Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700 - Page 2

04-14-2004, 07:34 PM

"Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > >
> > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > bikes?
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> >
> > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > moderately rough trails as well?
> >
> >
> > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> >
> > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > it off road.
> >
> > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> >
> >
> > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > the bikes in general?
> >
> > 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.

Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
(which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
training, etc.)

Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
see if they work for you.

Cheers,

Rocketman

04-14-2004, 07:34 PM

"Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > >
> > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > bikes?
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> >
> > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > moderately rough trails as well?
> >
> >
> > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> >
> > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > it off road.
> >
> > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> >
> >
> > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > the bikes in general?
> >
> > 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.

Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
(which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
training, etc.)

Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
see if they work for you.

Cheers,

Rocketman

04-14-2004, 07:34 PM

"Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > >
> > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > bikes?
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > >
> > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> >
> > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > moderately rough trails as well?
> >
> >
> > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> >
> > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > it off road.
> >
> > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> >
> >
> > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > the bikes in general?
> >
> > 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.

Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
(which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
training, etc.)

Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
see if they work for you.

Cheers,

Rocketman

04-15-2004, 04:36 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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, 04:36 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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, 04:36 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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, 04:36 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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, 05:45 AM

"Rocketman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<tpnfc.135872$gA5.1600658@attbi_s03>...
> "Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> > David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > > >
> > > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > > bikes?
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> > >
> > > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > > moderately rough trails as well?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> > >
> > > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > > it off road.
> > >
> > > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > > the bikes in general?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
> Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
> for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
> which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
> and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
> them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
> The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
> the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
> geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
> will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
> feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
> (which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
> training, etc.)
>
> Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
> Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
> map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
> 520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
> lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
> see if they work for you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocketman

Thanks, Rocketman. I'll take a look.

Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop bars? My
perception is that the weight distribution for drop bars is like
you're doing "push-ups" while riding whereas using bars that place
more weight on the seat like the ones I use keep me from placing too
much stress on my shoulders in exchange for possibly a sore butt on
long rides. Is this your impression?

Warren

04-15-2004, 05:45 AM

"Rocketman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<tpnfc.135872$gA5.1600658@attbi_s03>...
> "Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> > David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > > >
> > > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > > bikes?
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> > >
> > > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > > moderately rough trails as well?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> > >
> > > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > > it off road.
> > >
> > > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > > the bikes in general?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
> Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
> for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
> which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
> and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
> them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
> The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
> the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
> geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
> will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
> feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
> (which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
> training, etc.)
>
> Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
> Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
> map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
> 520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
> lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
> see if they work for you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocketman

Thanks, Rocketman. I'll take a look.

Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop bars? My
perception is that the weight distribution for drop bars is like
you're doing "push-ups" while riding whereas using bars that place
more weight on the seat like the ones I use keep me from placing too
much stress on my shoulders in exchange for possibly a sore butt on
long rides. Is this your impression?

Warren

04-15-2004, 05:45 AM

"Rocketman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message news:<tpnfc.135872$gA5.1600658@attbi_s03>...
> "Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:27f93351.0404141736.7ec052c5@posting.google.c om...
> > David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...
> > > In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
> > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > I'm looking to upgrade to one of these bikes. I would be doing my
> > > > first century on this. I like these hybrids because I think the
> > > > geometry and handlebar setups are more comfortable for me.
> > > >
> > > > Could somebody help me to compare the components between these two
> > > > bikes?
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> > > >
> > > > I like the suspension on the Cannondale, but I would want to switch it
> > > > out for a HeadShok Super Fatty Ultra DL so I could lock it out on the
> > > > fly (I don't think the HeadShok Slice Ultra does that). I mostly ride
> > > > on the road, but I think I want the front suspension.
> > >
> > > Why, if you keep it on the road? Or do you occasionally go on
> > > moderately rough trails as well?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think that the gearing is about the same on both since one has a
> > > > larger 3-gear front chainring but lesser range in the rear cassette
> > > > and vise vera on the other. Is this a fair assessment?
> > >
> > > No. They both have about the same high gear, but the Trek's granny is
> > > MUCH lower: a 28x34, vs a 30x26. That may not seem like a lot of
> > > difference, but believe me, it is if you have many steep hills, or take
> > > it off road.
> > >
> > > The Trek also has 35mm tires, vs 25 for the C-dale.
> > >
> > >
> > > > I think I like the Trek better except for the fact that you can't lock
> > > > out the front suspension. Any opinions about these component sets or
> > > > the bikes in general?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Warren, what you need is either a touring bike or a cyclocross bike. Why?
> Because they do everything you want them to do. They have enough clearance
> for big tires (knobbies, slicks, or city tread). They use drop handlebars,
> which gives you much better top speeds (try 'em and you'll see). Touring
> and cyclocross bikes are very similar, in many ways, which is why I group
> them together. However, some "CX" (cyclocross) bikes are very race-specific.
> The touring bike will have a longer frame, to give your heels clearance when
> the rear rack is fully loaded up with panniers. It will have "slack"
> geometry, which gives a stable "all day" ride quality. Cyclocross bikes
> will probably have 32c knobby tires, and a fairly racy geometry. They'll
> feel more like a road-racing bike; but may also have rack and fender mounts
> (which I highly recommend for added versatility and all-weather commuting,
> training, etc.)
>
> Many different brands make touring and/or cyclocross bikes, including Fuji,
> Giant, Cannondale, Trek, Specialized and others. Prices are all over the
> map; but you should be able to find a good one for around $1,000. The Trek
> 520 touring is a classic, as is the Fuji Touring bike. If you want something
> lighter, a cyclocross bike might be a better choice. Test ride a few, and
> see if they work for you.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rocketman

Thanks, Rocketman. I'll take a look.

Is speed and wind resistance the only reason to use drop bars? My
perception is that the weight distribution for drop bars is like
you're doing "push-ups" while riding whereas using bars that place
more weight on the seat like the ones I use keep me from placing too
much stress on my shoulders in exchange for possibly a sore butt on
long rides. Is this your impression?

Warren