Compare Cannondale RW 1000 vs. Trek 7700 - Page 4

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. ]

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. ]

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. ]

04-15-2004, 05:02 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Warren Ginn) wrote in message news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google. com>...
> 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?
>
>
I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700 for the last
few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike, but as has been pointed
out by others, it's not a road bike. If speed's your thing, this
isn't your bike. Its weight will keep you from the head of the pack.
But with the Kevlar belted wide tires, light suspension fork and wide
gearing, you'll be able to go places no roadie would ever tread. This
isn't meant as a "my bike is better than your bike" rant, just my
opinion. One thing that I did get rid of on the 7700 was the
suspension seat post. Just didn't seem necessary.
Good luck,
Art

04-15-2004, 05:02 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Warren Ginn) wrote in message news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google. com>...
> 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?
>
>
I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700 for the last
few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike, but as has been pointed
out by others, it's not a road bike. If speed's your thing, this
isn't your bike. Its weight will keep you from the head of the pack.
But with the Kevlar belted wide tires, light suspension fork and wide
gearing, you'll be able to go places no roadie would ever tread. This
isn't meant as a "my bike is better than your bike" rant, just my
opinion. One thing that I did get rid of on the 7700 was the
suspension seat post. Just didn't seem necessary.
Good luck,
Art

04-15-2004, 05:02 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Warren Ginn) wrote in message news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google. com>...
> 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?
>
>
I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700 for the last
few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike, but as has been pointed
out by others, it's not a road bike. If speed's your thing, this
isn't your bike. Its weight will keep you from the head of the pack.
But with the Kevlar belted wide tires, light suspension fork and wide
gearing, you'll be able to go places no roadie would ever tread. This
isn't meant as a "my bike is better than your bike" rant, just my
opinion. One thing that I did get rid of on the 7700 was the
suspension seat post. Just didn't seem necessary.
Good luck,
Art

04-15-2004, 05:02 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Warren Ginn) wrote in message news:<27f93351.0404141124.42798ee2@posting.google. com>...
> 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?
>
>
I've been commuting to work (15 miles one-way) on my 7700 for the last
few weeks. It's a terrific real world bike, but as has been pointed
out by others, it's not a road bike. If speed's your thing, this
isn't your bike. Its weight will keep you from the head of the pack.
But with the Kevlar belted wide tires, light suspension fork and wide
gearing, you'll be able to go places no roadie would ever tread. This
isn't meant as a "my bike is better than your bike" rant, just my
opinion. One thing that I did get rid of on the 7700 was the
suspension seat post. Just didn't seem necessary.
Good luck,
Art

04-15-2004, 10:28 PM

"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...
>
> ...
>
> > 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.

Exactly. David has made a good point which addresses your concerns about
handlebar height. *Any* bike - road, MTB, you name it - can have higher
handlebars if you want them. I ride my road racing bike with the top of the
handlebars even with the top of the saddle. That's about 3" higher than
most "racer" handlebar positions. Does it affect my speed? Not that you'd
notice. But what it does do is help distribute more weight off of my hands,
and gets my head up higher, with less neck and back strain. For my aging
body, that's just what the doctor ordered.

I also have a new "commuter" bike (essentially, a cyclocross/touring bike
with sloping top tube and MTB-style handelbars) that is a lot of fun. It
will be my loaded touring bike this summer. It's not nearly as fast as my
road bike, despite being fairly light, and having road bike wheels and
skinny-ish tires. Why is it slow? The wide, flat handlebars put me in a
more upright riding position, and I catch too much wind. Plus, the more
"open" riding position (not "tucked") is less powerful. Try it and you'll
see what I mean. There's a reason why road racing bikes are designed the
way that they are, and not longer and lower to "open up" the riding
position. I've ridden "open position" lowracer recumbents, and I couldn't
develop the same kind of speed that I can on an upright road racing bike -
even with the huge aero advantage of the lowracer design (almost lying flat
on your back, pedals out front).

Hope this is helpful info. Best of luck choosing your new bike. Try
everything you can, and buy the one that feels right. Don't look at the
price tags. Quality, fit and service are remembered long after price is
forgotten.

Rocketman

04-15-2004, 10:28 PM

"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...
>
> ...
>
> > 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.

Exactly. David has made a good point which addresses your concerns about
handlebar height. *Any* bike - road, MTB, you name it - can have higher
handlebars if you want them. I ride my road racing bike with the top of the
handlebars even with the top of the saddle. That's about 3" higher than
most "racer" handlebar positions. Does it affect my speed? Not that you'd
notice. But what it does do is help distribute more weight off of my hands,
and gets my head up higher, with less neck and back strain. For my aging
body, that's just what the doctor ordered.

I also have a new "commuter" bike (essentially, a cyclocross/touring bike
with sloping top tube and MTB-style handelbars) that is a lot of fun. It
will be my loaded touring bike this summer. It's not nearly as fast as my
road bike, despite being fairly light, and having road bike wheels and
skinny-ish tires. Why is it slow? The wide, flat handlebars put me in a
more upright riding position, and I catch too much wind. Plus, the more
"open" riding position (not "tucked") is less powerful. Try it and you'll
see what I mean. There's a reason why road racing bikes are designed the
way that they are, and not longer and lower to "open up" the riding
position. I've ridden "open position" lowracer recumbents, and I couldn't
develop the same kind of speed that I can on an upright road racing bike -
even with the huge aero advantage of the lowracer design (almost lying flat
on your back, pedals out front).

Hope this is helpful info. Best of luck choosing your new bike. Try
everything you can, and buy the one that feels right. Don't look at the
price tags. Quality, fit and service are remembered long after price is
forgotten.

Rocketman

04-15-2004, 10:28 PM

"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...
>
> ...
>
> > 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.

Exactly. David has made a good point which addresses your concerns about
handlebar height. *Any* bike - road, MTB, you name it - can have higher
handlebars if you want them. I ride my road racing bike with the top of the
handlebars even with the top of the saddle. That's about 3" higher than
most "racer" handlebar positions. Does it affect my speed? Not that you'd
notice. But what it does do is help distribute more weight off of my hands,
and gets my head up higher, with less neck and back strain. For my aging
body, that's just what the doctor ordered.

I also have a new "commuter" bike (essentially, a cyclocross/touring bike
with sloping top tube and MTB-style handelbars) that is a lot of fun. It
will be my loaded touring bike this summer. It's not nearly as fast as my
road bike, despite being fairly light, and having road bike wheels and
skinny-ish tires. Why is it slow? The wide, flat handlebars put me in a
more upright riding position, and I catch too much wind. Plus, the more
"open" riding position (not "tucked") is less powerful. Try it and you'll
see what I mean. There's a reason why road racing bikes are designed the
way that they are, and not longer and lower to "open up" the riding
position. I've ridden "open position" lowracer recumbents, and I couldn't
develop the same kind of speed that I can on an upright road racing bike -
even with the huge aero advantage of the lowracer design (almost lying flat
on your back, pedals out front).

Hope this is helpful info. Best of luck choosing your new bike. Try
everything you can, and buy the one that feels right. Don't look at the
price tags. Quality, fit and service are remembered long after price is
forgotten.

Rocketman