help with bike selection? - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-21-2004, 10:06 PM

"Claire Petersky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> How upright do you have to be? I'm seeing you on a road bike with drop
bars.
> You can ride with your hands on the tops most of the time and be upright,
> and only go down to the drops on descents. When you go to the bike store,
> make sure they know you want to be in a more upright position for a lot of
> your riding. They might make some adjustments in the bike (a spacer in the
> headset?) to meet your needs.
>

Hi Claire. I'm not sure how upright I need to be. I guess I'll know better
after I've ridden a few different styles.

I know that I feel way too hunched over on my Rockhopper, which has a
particularly aggressive MTB stance [high saddle; long zero-rise stem]. I
don't like having to lean on my hands that much, and wish I was able to turn
my head a bit easier to see the city traffic around me.

I guess I always assumed that drop-bar road bikes were even more of a
'hunched' ride... for the athletic cyclist who wants the aerodynamics to go
really fast; and who doesn't need to worry about their gut getting in the
way. Plus, those skinny saddles look downright painful. Am I wrong?

I don't really have the true need for speed. I'm just looking for something
that's a bit more efficient on pavement than my heavy, fat-tire mountain
bike. I certainly won't rule out the drop-bar road bike until I try it; but
I must admit to being a bit skeptical on the comfort factor. Your thoughts
on this would be appreciated.

<s>
> If I were you, Pete, I'd be looking at something like maybe a Jamis or
> Giant...
<s>

Thanks for the tip. I took a look at their websites. I'm particularly
intrigued by the Jamis Coda, which seems to be basically a road bike with
flat handlebars. I'm wondering if this type of setup would give me the more
upright posture I'm looking for, while also offering less rolling resistance
than the MTB. Opinions?

Thanks again for your input.

Pete

06-21-2004, 10:20 PM

"Reid Priedhorsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I second the recommendation for Jamis. I just bought a Jamis Aurora
> ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) and so far (100? 150?
> miles) it's great. Not the lightest bike in the world, but it's solid
> and plenty nimble. I am always surprised by how difficult it is to pick
> up and carry (note however that this includes a great deal of junk in
> the trunk bag, not just the bike). $730 which IMO was a good deal.
>

The extra weight on the bike's frame is nothing compared to the extra weight
on MY frame! Something tells me I could use something a bit more solid
until I trim down a bit.

> For me, spending the money to buy 105 was not necessary, but you should
> consider the tradeoffs for yourself.
>

So what are the tradeoffs? Does more money buy better quality components,
or just a few ounces less weight?

> One suggestion I do have is to try to find a rear cassette that eschews
> the very small cogs. 14 or mayyyybe 13 is the smallest I need, and I'd
> rather have more choices in the middle range. Most riders that aren't
> sure if they need 11 or 12-tooth cogs don't. However, this may require
> an aftermarket cassette. Myself, I have my eye on one of Harris
> Cyclery's 14-34 custom cassettes.
>

So are you saying I should sacrifice some top-end speed for a little more
'fine tuning'? I guess that makes sense... particularly for city riding,
where I never really get that much speed going anyways.

Thanks, Reid.

Pete

06-21-2004, 10:20 PM

"Reid Priedhorsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I second the recommendation for Jamis. I just bought a Jamis Aurora
> ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) and so far (100? 150?
> miles) it's great. Not the lightest bike in the world, but it's solid
> and plenty nimble. I am always surprised by how difficult it is to pick
> up and carry (note however that this includes a great deal of junk in
> the trunk bag, not just the bike). $730 which IMO was a good deal.
>

The extra weight on the bike's frame is nothing compared to the extra weight
on MY frame! Something tells me I could use something a bit more solid
until I trim down a bit.

> For me, spending the money to buy 105 was not necessary, but you should
> consider the tradeoffs for yourself.
>

So what are the tradeoffs? Does more money buy better quality components,
or just a few ounces less weight?

> One suggestion I do have is to try to find a rear cassette that eschews
> the very small cogs. 14 or mayyyybe 13 is the smallest I need, and I'd
> rather have more choices in the middle range. Most riders that aren't
> sure if they need 11 or 12-tooth cogs don't. However, this may require
> an aftermarket cassette. Myself, I have my eye on one of Harris
> Cyclery's 14-34 custom cassettes.
>

So are you saying I should sacrifice some top-end speed for a little more
'fine tuning'? I guess that makes sense... particularly for city riding,
where I never really get that much speed going anyways.

Thanks, Reid.

Pete

06-21-2004, 10:20 PM

"Reid Priedhorsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I second the recommendation for Jamis. I just bought a Jamis Aurora
> ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) and so far (100? 150?
> miles) it's great. Not the lightest bike in the world, but it's solid
> and plenty nimble. I am always surprised by how difficult it is to pick
> up and carry (note however that this includes a great deal of junk in
> the trunk bag, not just the bike). $730 which IMO was a good deal.
>

The extra weight on the bike's frame is nothing compared to the extra weight
on MY frame! Something tells me I could use something a bit more solid
until I trim down a bit.

> For me, spending the money to buy 105 was not necessary, but you should
> consider the tradeoffs for yourself.
>

So what are the tradeoffs? Does more money buy better quality components,
or just a few ounces less weight?

> One suggestion I do have is to try to find a rear cassette that eschews
> the very small cogs. 14 or mayyyybe 13 is the smallest I need, and I'd
> rather have more choices in the middle range. Most riders that aren't
> sure if they need 11 or 12-tooth cogs don't. However, this may require
> an aftermarket cassette. Myself, I have my eye on one of Harris
> Cyclery's 14-34 custom cassettes.
>

So are you saying I should sacrifice some top-end speed for a little more
'fine tuning'? I guess that makes sense... particularly for city riding,
where I never really get that much speed going anyways.

Thanks, Reid.

Pete

06-21-2004, 10:20 PM

"Reid Priedhorsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I second the recommendation for Jamis. I just bought a Jamis Aurora
> ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) and so far (100? 150?
> miles) it's great. Not the lightest bike in the world, but it's solid
> and plenty nimble. I am always surprised by how difficult it is to pick
> up and carry (note however that this includes a great deal of junk in
> the trunk bag, not just the bike). $730 which IMO was a good deal.
>

The extra weight on the bike's frame is nothing compared to the extra weight
on MY frame! Something tells me I could use something a bit more solid
until I trim down a bit.

> For me, spending the money to buy 105 was not necessary, but you should
> consider the tradeoffs for yourself.
>

So what are the tradeoffs? Does more money buy better quality components,
or just a few ounces less weight?

> One suggestion I do have is to try to find a rear cassette that eschews
> the very small cogs. 14 or mayyyybe 13 is the smallest I need, and I'd
> rather have more choices in the middle range. Most riders that aren't
> sure if they need 11 or 12-tooth cogs don't. However, this may require
> an aftermarket cassette. Myself, I have my eye on one of Harris
> Cyclery's 14-34 custom cassettes.
>

So are you saying I should sacrifice some top-end speed for a little more
'fine tuning'? I guess that makes sense... particularly for city riding,
where I never really get that much speed going anyways.

Thanks, Reid.

Pete

06-21-2004, 10:20 PM

"Reid Priedhorsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> I second the recommendation for Jamis. I just bought a Jamis Aurora
> ([Only registered and activated users can see links. ]) and so far (100? 150?
> miles) it's great. Not the lightest bike in the world, but it's solid
> and plenty nimble. I am always surprised by how difficult it is to pick
> up and carry (note however that this includes a great deal of junk in
> the trunk bag, not just the bike). $730 which IMO was a good deal.
>

The extra weight on the bike's frame is nothing compared to the extra weight
on MY frame! Something tells me I could use something a bit more solid
until I trim down a bit.

> For me, spending the money to buy 105 was not necessary, but you should
> consider the tradeoffs for yourself.
>

So what are the tradeoffs? Does more money buy better quality components,
or just a few ounces less weight?

> One suggestion I do have is to try to find a rear cassette that eschews
> the very small cogs. 14 or mayyyybe 13 is the smallest I need, and I'd
> rather have more choices in the middle range. Most riders that aren't
> sure if they need 11 or 12-tooth cogs don't. However, this may require
> an aftermarket cassette. Myself, I have my eye on one of Harris
> Cyclery's 14-34 custom cassettes.
>

So are you saying I should sacrifice some top-end speed for a little more
'fine tuning'? I guess that makes sense... particularly for city riding,
where I never really get that much speed going anyways.

Thanks, Reid.

Pete

06-22-2004, 02:15 AM

Pete Greenwood wrote in part:

<< I know that I feel way too hunched over on my Rockhopper, which has a
particularly aggressive MTB stance [high saddle; long zero-rise stem]. I
don't like having to lean on my hands that much, and wish I was able to turn
my head a bit easier to see the city traffic around me. >>

You might try a rise bar, or a stem with some rise.

Buying a new bike is almost never a bad idea though. I would get an honest road
bike because you already have a trail bike.

Robert

06-22-2004, 02:15 AM

Pete Greenwood wrote in part:

<< I know that I feel way too hunched over on my Rockhopper, which has a
particularly aggressive MTB stance [high saddle; long zero-rise stem]. I
don't like having to lean on my hands that much, and wish I was able to turn
my head a bit easier to see the city traffic around me. >>

You might try a rise bar, or a stem with some rise.

Buying a new bike is almost never a bad idea though. I would get an honest road
bike because you already have a trail bike.

Robert

06-22-2004, 02:15 AM

Pete Greenwood wrote in part:

<< I know that I feel way too hunched over on my Rockhopper, which has a
particularly aggressive MTB stance [high saddle; long zero-rise stem]. I
don't like having to lean on my hands that much, and wish I was able to turn
my head a bit easier to see the city traffic around me. >>

You might try a rise bar, or a stem with some rise.

Buying a new bike is almost never a bad idea though. I would get an honest road
bike because you already have a trail bike.

Robert

06-22-2004, 02:15 AM

Pete Greenwood wrote in part:

<< I know that I feel way too hunched over on my Rockhopper, which has a
particularly aggressive MTB stance [high saddle; long zero-rise stem]. I
don't like having to lean on my hands that much, and wish I was able to turn
my head a bit easier to see the city traffic around me. >>

You might try a rise bar, or a stem with some rise.

Buying a new bike is almost never a bad idea though. I would get an honest road
bike because you already have a trail bike.

Robert