Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700 - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

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, 06:13 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

....

> 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?

I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many different
hand positions that drop bars give me, whether or not I use the drops to
get down out of the wind (though that certainly helps in many
situations).

I also second his suggestion that you at least consider touring bikes.
They usually don't have suspensions, but they do have longer wheel bases
and will accept larger tires, both of which make the ride more
comfortable on rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with 32mm tires,
with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35 or 38, though I haven't
tried). It has drop bars, but they are mounted up fairly high (even
with the seat by default), and has a threaded stem, so it's easy to
raise them up even more if you want.

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

04-15-2004, 06:13 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

....

> 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?

I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many different
hand positions that drop bars give me, whether or not I use the drops to
get down out of the wind (though that certainly helps in many
situations).

I also second his suggestion that you at least consider touring bikes.
They usually don't have suspensions, but they do have longer wheel bases
and will accept larger tires, both of which make the ride more
comfortable on rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with 32mm tires,
with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35 or 38, though I haven't
tried). It has drop bars, but they are mounted up fairly high (even
with the seat by default), and has a threaded stem, so it's easy to
raise them up even more if you want.

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

04-15-2004, 06:13 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

....

> 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?

I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many different
hand positions that drop bars give me, whether or not I use the drops to
get down out of the wind (though that certainly helps in many
situations).

I also second his suggestion that you at least consider touring bikes.
They usually don't have suspensions, but they do have longer wheel bases
and will accept larger tires, both of which make the ride more
comfortable on rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with 32mm tires,
with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35 or 38, though I haven't
tried). It has drop bars, but they are mounted up fairly high (even
with the seat by default), and has a threaded stem, so it's easy to
raise them up even more if you want.

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

04-15-2004, 06:13 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] >,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] says...

....

> 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?

I'm not rocketman, but I'll jump in here: I like the many different
hand positions that drop bars give me, whether or not I use the drops to
get down out of the wind (though that certainly helps in many
situations).

I also second his suggestion that you at least consider touring bikes.
They usually don't have suspensions, but they do have longer wheel bases
and will accept larger tires, both of which make the ride more
comfortable on rough roads, and heavier-duty frames so the rough roads
aren't likely to damage them. My Fuji Touring comes with 32mm tires,
with room for bigger ones (probably up to 35 or 38, though I haven't
tried). It has drop bars, but they are mounted up fairly high (even
with the seat by default), and has a threaded stem, so it's easy to
raise them up even more if you want.

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

04-15-2004, 06:20 AM

Warren Ginn <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...

[...]

>> 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.

You're talking yourself into the Trek. That it comes with 700x35 tyres says
its got wider and stronger rims than the Cannondale (it's got more spokes,
too). I don't agree in the slightest that the Trek is somehow off-road
oriented, though. It's very similar to my Shogun hybrid which came with
700x38 tyres and "double-strength" rims. My tyres are Cheng Shin OEM
rubbish which hopefully are going to be replaced next pay, but the point is
they're not "off-road" in any way, shape or form. They're just bloody wide
and heavy.

Both the Trek (48/38/28) and the Cannondale (52/42/30) have bigger front
rings than mine (44/32/22) so they're both clearly aimed at touring rather
than the dirt. The closest I'd ever take my hybrid to "off-road" is the
gravel bike path around the lake near where I live and I can't see these two
being any different.

Make sure you ride both and fiddle with the suspension settings. I have my
suspension play almost down to nil because otherwise anytime I want to get
some power going (like taking off at the lights) the front end bobs up and
down a lot. Suspension without good damping is basically just dead weight,
which means low end suspensions aren't worth crap (which means I'm
considering junking mine).

[...]

> 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.

I replaced the riser bar with a flat MTB bar and added Spinacci-style
clip-on mini-aero bars, so I have the upright town position and a
pseudo-tuck position for the open road. I reckon it's the best of both
worlds for what I do.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

04-15-2004, 06:20 AM

Warren Ginn <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...

[...]

>> 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.

You're talking yourself into the Trek. That it comes with 700x35 tyres says
its got wider and stronger rims than the Cannondale (it's got more spokes,
too). I don't agree in the slightest that the Trek is somehow off-road
oriented, though. It's very similar to my Shogun hybrid which came with
700x38 tyres and "double-strength" rims. My tyres are Cheng Shin OEM
rubbish which hopefully are going to be replaced next pay, but the point is
they're not "off-road" in any way, shape or form. They're just bloody wide
and heavy.

Both the Trek (48/38/28) and the Cannondale (52/42/30) have bigger front
rings than mine (44/32/22) so they're both clearly aimed at touring rather
than the dirt. The closest I'd ever take my hybrid to "off-road" is the
gravel bike path around the lake near where I live and I can't see these two
being any different.

Make sure you ride both and fiddle with the suspension settings. I have my
suspension play almost down to nil because otherwise anytime I want to get
some power going (like taking off at the lights) the front end bobs up and
down a lot. Suspension without good damping is basically just dead weight,
which means low end suspensions aren't worth crap (which means I'm
considering junking mine).

[...]

> 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.

I replaced the riser bar with a flat MTB bar and added Spinacci-style
clip-on mini-aero bars, so I have the upright town position and a
pseudo-tuck position for the open road. I reckon it's the best of both
worlds for what I do.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

04-15-2004, 06:20 AM

Warren Ginn <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...

[...]

>> 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.

You're talking yourself into the Trek. That it comes with 700x35 tyres says
its got wider and stronger rims than the Cannondale (it's got more spokes,
too). I don't agree in the slightest that the Trek is somehow off-road
oriented, though. It's very similar to my Shogun hybrid which came with
700x38 tyres and "double-strength" rims. My tyres are Cheng Shin OEM
rubbish which hopefully are going to be replaced next pay, but the point is
they're not "off-road" in any way, shape or form. They're just bloody wide
and heavy.

Both the Trek (48/38/28) and the Cannondale (52/42/30) have bigger front
rings than mine (44/32/22) so they're both clearly aimed at touring rather
than the dirt. The closest I'd ever take my hybrid to "off-road" is the
gravel bike path around the lake near where I live and I can't see these two
being any different.

Make sure you ride both and fiddle with the suspension settings. I have my
suspension play almost down to nil because otherwise anytime I want to get
some power going (like taking off at the lights) the front end bobs up and
down a lot. Suspension without good damping is basically just dead weight,
which means low end suspensions aren't worth crap (which means I'm
considering junking mine).

[...]

> 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.

I replaced the riser bar with a flat MTB bar and added Spinacci-style
clip-on mini-aero bars, so I have the upright town position and a
pseudo-tuck position for the open road. I reckon it's the best of both
worlds for what I do.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

04-15-2004, 06:20 AM

Warren Ginn <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> David Kerber <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].cox.net >...

[...]

>> 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.

You're talking yourself into the Trek. That it comes with 700x35 tyres says
its got wider and stronger rims than the Cannondale (it's got more spokes,
too). I don't agree in the slightest that the Trek is somehow off-road
oriented, though. It's very similar to my Shogun hybrid which came with
700x38 tyres and "double-strength" rims. My tyres are Cheng Shin OEM
rubbish which hopefully are going to be replaced next pay, but the point is
they're not "off-road" in any way, shape or form. They're just bloody wide
and heavy.

Both the Trek (48/38/28) and the Cannondale (52/42/30) have bigger front
rings than mine (44/32/22) so they're both clearly aimed at touring rather
than the dirt. The closest I'd ever take my hybrid to "off-road" is the
gravel bike path around the lake near where I live and I can't see these two
being any different.

Make sure you ride both and fiddle with the suspension settings. I have my
suspension play almost down to nil because otherwise anytime I want to get
some power going (like taking off at the lights) the front end bobs up and
down a lot. Suspension without good damping is basically just dead weight,
which means low end suspensions aren't worth crap (which means I'm
considering junking mine).

[...]

> 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.

I replaced the riser bar with a flat MTB bar and added Spinacci-style
clip-on mini-aero bars, so I have the upright town position and a
pseudo-tuck position for the open road. I reckon it's the best of both
worlds for what I do.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

04-15-2004, 06:53 AM

"Warren Ginn" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google.c om...
> 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.

IMVAIO these are not good choices for a century ride. There are several road
bikes available with the handlebar set-ups that would meet your desires.

In the $1000 range, look at the Trek-Lemond Wayzata, and the Motobecane Cafe
Noir. Both of these bicycles have chro-moly frames, while both of the models
you mentioned are aluminum. Even the Motobocane Café Latte is a better
choice than the Trek or Cannondale.

You may want to add a headset extender (or Speedlifter), for a more upright
position.

Suspension is unnecessary on road bikes, especially on century rides.

Personally, I'd spend the $1000 on one Motobocane Café Latte ($550) or
Bianchi Brava ($510), and one KHS Crest ST 2003 ($400). You'll get two
mid-range bicycles, each well-suited to its particular purpose, rather than
one hybrid which is not well suited for either century rides or for
off-road.

Steve
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]