ADVrider

ADVrider (http://www.advrider.com/forums/index.php)
-   Sports (http://www.advrider.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   Bicycle thread (http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150964)

Gummee! 08-17-2010 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Askel
Hah. Awesome. The wheels are turning on maybe racing the Trans America Trail.


http://www.gravelgrindernews.com/201...ur-divide.html


First the TWAT and now this. Those goddam spandex clad dorks on bicycles are taking over all the advrider turf. :lol3

Hey! They can't do that! Damn cyclists! :bluduh

Oh waitaminit! My bicycles see more use than the MC. :augie

M

pierce 08-17-2010 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinez
Is that the Elance that comes with touring bags that I saw on CL? :scratch

no, its a TX300 frame, from 1977, with a totally mixed up bag of parts.

the TX300 was the bottom of the line frame in Trek's original product lineup (handmade-in-USA brazed steel frames.... this one is Ishiwata doublebutted non-cro-mo steel. the TX500 was made with Ishiwata 022 which is cro-moly very much equivalent of Columbus SP, the TX700 was Reynolds 531... all these had the same touring/sport geometry. The TX900 was Columbus SP and had race geometry (short chain stay etc).

Way nice of a bike for a college kid, but my guy likes to ride, and wants to start going longer distances than was practical on the old clunker mtn bike we gave him last year. He's not gotten into the whole spandex thing... yet.

kbasa 08-17-2010 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilGenius
Doesn't have to be a full road bike, just something similar.

That bike is beautiful, put personally I'd like it without the rear rack and bottle holder.

Just nice and clean. Hop on it and go.

Trust me. The first time you ride a real road bike and feel how it actually accelerates quickly when you put some force on the pedals, you'll be hooked.

Even if you get something ten years old, it'll be a vast improvement over something like a standard cruiser or hybrid.

Honestly. I don't have any desire to do anything but help you ride better. If you object to the bars, consider getting something like a Sirrus that comes with flat bars and is based on a decent road frame and components.

Bicycling is all about small efficiencies and even on intermediate rides of 10 to 20 miles, a bike that weighs 15 pounds less and has decent running gear will make a huge difference in whether you get back on and ride it any time soon.

Gummee! 08-17-2010 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
no, its a TX300 frame, from 1977, with a totally mixed up bag of parts.

the TX300 was the bottom of the line frame in Trek's original product lineup (handmade-in-USA brazed steel frames.... this one is Ishiwata doublebutted non-cro-mo steel. the TX500 was made with Ishiwata 022 which is cro-moly very much equivalent of Columbus SP, the TX700 was Reynolds 531... all these had the same touring/sport geometry. The TX900 was Columbus SP and had race geometry (short chain stay etc).

Way nice of a bike for a college kid, but my guy likes to ride, and wants to start going longer distances than was practical on the old clunker mtn bike we gave him last year. He's not gotten into the whole spandex thing... yet.

If/when he does, there'll be another bike in the future!

M

Stinez 08-17-2010 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
no, its a TX300 frame, from 1977, with a totally mixed up bag of parts.

the TX300 was the bottom of the line frame in Trek's original product lineup (handmade-in-USA brazed steel frames.... this one is Ishiwata doublebutted non-cro-mo steel. the TX500 was made with Ishiwata 022 which is cro-moly very much equivalent of Columbus SP, the TX700 was Reynolds 531... all these had the same touring/sport geometry. The TX900 was Columbus SP and had race geometry (short chain stay etc).

Way nice of a bike for a college kid, but my guy likes to ride, and wants to start going longer distances than was practical on the old clunker mtn bike we gave him last year. He's not gotten into the whole spandex thing... yet.

Cool. I can't seem to find a good used road bike, commuter, weekend ride in a 54/55. And when I do the guy flakes over and over.


I hope you don't mind me asking for advise but what do you think of this bike?

pierce 08-17-2010 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilGenius
I'm 6' with a 32" inseam.

I'd guess you'd be good on a 58cm aka 23". 32 inseam is pretty much 'normal' for a 6' dude. my son has a 34" inseam and is 6' tall (and 145 lbs, skinny mofo), so this 60cm frame I just got him fits him fine, while its almost too tall for me. Now days the standards seem to be a slightly smaller/shorter frame, but as Gummee has repeatedly said, its the top tube length that really counts. this is measured from the centerline of the top tube intersecting with the head tube to the centerline of the seat tube, dead level regardless of where the actual top tube wanders. top tubes should be sized appropriately for your torso, while you compensate for shorter/longer arms with the gooseneck/stem (handlebar mounting thing).

Quote:

I haven't been on enough bikes to know what position I'd like to be in, but being hunched over as little as possible sounds nice, but leaning forward more I could get used to.



What's a drop tube?
probably the wrong term, but I was referring to the curved top tube. classic roadbike geometry had a level top tube. modern bikes often have curved tubes (look at the alloy/carbon allez, etc for examples), as well as my hybrid (which is a much 'clunkier' bike, a late 90s Specialized Crossroads frame with my own mix of recycled and cheap parts on it.)

from what you say re: hunching, you might be better off for now with a better 700c hybrid. The one you have now looks to be bargain-basement near-junk grade. I'd look for a bike that can be setup so the handlebars are approximately level with your seat when its adjusted for proper leg extension, thats a good middlin' riding position.

Start thinking about a full out drop bar roadie when you're pushing 50 mile rides at a fast pace with substantial hill climbing.

Quote:




What brand/model would you suggest? It doesn't particularly have to be steel, I just assume that steel would be the cheapest.
Mainstream brands are almost interchangeable now days, and most of them come out of the same factories.. It would be hard to go wrong with the right model of Specialized, Trek, Giant, Jamis, etc. The different brands DO have some differences in their geometries, like I've found Specialized frames tend to fit me well.

I personally have an aversion to carbon fiber, I just don't think its as durable as a metal frame. Many aluminum frames are too harsh, it doesn't have the same springy characteristics as good quality thin wall steel or carbon fiber. Its very possible that most of this springiness is in the forks, and mating a composite fork with a aluminum frame may give you a good balance.

Gummee! 08-17-2010 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinez
Cool. I can't seem to find a good used road bike, commuter, weekend ride in a 54/55. And when I do the guy flakes over and over.


I hope you don't mind me asking for advise but what do you think of this bike?

Personally? I'm not a fan of Trek bikes. :nah There's lots of em out there (Kbasa) and are being ridden. I think my prejudice comes from when I first started riding and Treks were mid-level at best.

Do ya need the triple? :ear

Maybe start with one of these: Link or something from here and start finding parts. I have a pair of handlebars you can have. Possibly a brake or two. I'd hafta look. I have a Sette mtn frame that rides very nicely. No cachet like Pierce was talking about, but for the $$ I don't complain. Also have a Fetish that I like too. Good stuff both ways.

M

pierce 08-17-2010 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinez
Cool. I can't seem to find a good used road bike, commuter, weekend ride in a 54/55. And when I do the guy flakes over and over.


I hope you don't mind me asking for advise but what do you think of this bike?

way not enough spokes :photog

(I have an aversion to those minimally spoked wheels, on anything but a race bike thats actually used for racing).

otherwise, looks like a great bike. was $1150 MSRP new per bikepedia, which means it might have been as cheap as $900 otu the door, but its practically unridden (geez, 70 miles on that bike is a single days medium-long ride). 105 is good kit, although I'm sure the duraace fanboys will say that their junk is better, mostly its just milligrams lighter and lots prettier. The 105 stuff works very very well. if that was my size, and I was some kind of shape other than round, I'd think that would be a great century bike, as well as club rider.

I wouldn't want to use that as a commuter, I doubt its lugged for a rack or fenders, and its got short-chainstay race geometry so fenders wouldn't fit anyways.

that triple gearing is kinda silly on a light weight roadrace style bike, 30 front with a 25 rear is damn near a tricycle gear, only time I'd want a gear that low would be pulling a substantial load up long grades on tour, and that's not a touring bike. My funky customized hybrid has a 34:26 low, and its a heavy cheap steel frame pushing 38c tires, and I'm way out of shape.

ducnut 08-17-2010 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
I personally have an aversion to carbon fiber, I just don't think its as durable as a metal frame.

Time to do some reading:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/E...tigue_test.htm

Gummee! 08-17-2010 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
way not enough spokes :photog

(I have an aversion to those minimally spoked wheels, on anything but a race bike thats actually used for racing).

otherwise, looks like a great bike. was $1150 MSRP new per bikepedia, which means it might have been as cheap as $900 otu the door, but its practically unridden (geez, 70 miles on that bike is a single days medium-long ride). 105 is good kit, although I'm sure the duraace fanboys will say that their junk is better, mostly its just milligrams lighter and lots prettier. The 105 stuff works very very well. if that was my size, and I was some kind of shape other than round, I'd think that would be a great century bike, as well as club rider.

I wouldn't want to use that as a commuter, I doubt its lugged for a rack or fenders, and its got short-chainstay race geometry.

...and D/A lasts longer and works better doing it the entire time. :nod I've had the range from 105 thru D/A. BY FAR the D/A is mo bettah. :nod

The thing about Pierce y'all gotta understand is he's not small. Not HUGE, but not a small dood. :nah Things look different when yer above agerage sized. :nod Me? No worries on the wheels, but I ride lightly. :nod

M

EvilGenius 08-17-2010 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbasa
Trust me. The first time you ride a real road bike and feel how it actually accelerates quickly when you put some force on the pedals, you'll be hooked.

Even if you get something ten years old, it'll be a vast improvement over something like a standard cruiser or hybrid.

Honestly. I don't have any desire to do anything but help you ride better. If you object to the bars, consider getting something like a Sirrus that comes with flat bars and is based on a decent road frame and components.

Bicycling is all about small efficiencies and even on intermediate rides of 10 to 20 miles, a bike that weighs 15 pounds less and has decent running gear will make a huge difference in whether you get back on and ride it any time soon.

I want something that feels faster.

I know speed has just about as much to do with what clothes you're wearing and body position, etc. as it does with the weight and efficiency of the bike.

On long flats I can hold speed in high gear fine, but it's still a little too heavy to accelerate much without tiring myself out. Especially up hill.

Gummee! 08-17-2010 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvilGenius
I want something that feels faster.

buy the smallest tires that'll fit yer bike. That helps.

Quote:

I know speed has just about as much to do with what clothes you're wearing and body position, etc. as it does with the weight and efficiency of the bike.
Not as much as you'd think. First its legs, positioning for optimal efficiency, then the bike, THEN the clothing.

Quote:

On long flats I can hold speed in high gear fine, but it's still a little too heavy to accelerate much without tiring myself out. Especially up hill.
Me too. Ride more. It comes with time in the saddle.

M

edited to add: Off to go mtn biking. Be back in a bit. :ricky

EvilGenius 08-17-2010 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
I'd guess you'd be good on a 58cm aka 23". 32 inseam is pretty much 'normal' for a 6' dude. my son has a 34" inseam and is 6' tall (and 145 lbs, skinny mofo), so this 60cm frame I just got him fits him fine, while its almost too tall for me. Now days the standards seem to be a slightly smaller/shorter frame, but as Gummee has repeatedly said, its the top tube length that really counts. this is measured from the centerline of the top tube intersecting with the head tube to the centerline of the seat tube, dead level regardless of where the actual top tube wanders. top tubes should be sized appropriately for your torso, while you compensate for shorter/longer arms with the gooseneck/stem (handlebar mounting thing).

probably the wrong term, but I was referring to the curved top tube. classic roadbike geometry had a level top tube. modern bikes often have curved tubes (look at the alloy/carbon allez, etc for examples), as well as my hybrid (which is a much 'clunkier' bike, a late 90s Specialized Crossroads frame with my own mix of recycled and cheap parts on it.)

Ah, gotcha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
from what you say re: hunching, you might be better off for now with a better 700c hybrid. The one you have now looks to be bargain-basement near-junk grade. I'd look for a bike that can be setup so the handlebars are approximately level with your seat when its adjusted for proper leg extension, thats a good middlin' riding position.

Start thinking about a full out drop bar roadie when you're pushing 50 mile rides at a fast pace with substantial hill climbing.

It is a cheap bike, I won't deny it.

The other day I dropped the bars 2-3" from where I had them in the pic I posted a while back. Feels better, easier to climb hills. I'd like to drop them further to where you're talking about, but the top tube is too short for me to do that. I'd be too hunched over and probably hit my knees during tight turns. I've been eyeing a replacement goose neck that has a little longer reach out front and adjustable angles.

As far as I can tell from various guides the seat is properly adjusted for height. I might need to tip the nose up slightly though.


Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
Mainstream brands are almost interchangeable now days, and most of them come out of the same factories.. It would be hard to go wrong with the right model of Specialized, Trek, Giant, Jamis, etc. The different brands DO have some differences in their geometries, like I've found Specialized frames tend to fit me well.

I personally have an aversion to carbon fiber, I just don't think its as durable as a metal frame. Many aluminum frames are too harsh, it doesn't have the same springy characteristics as good quality thin wall steel or carbon fiber. Its very possible that most of this springiness is in the forks, and mating a composite fork with a aluminum frame may give you a good balance.

Noted.

Stinez 08-17-2010 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gummee!
Personally? I'm not a fan of Trek bikes. :nah There's lots of em out there (Kbasa) and are being ridden. I think my prejudice comes from when I first started riding and Treks were mid-level at best.

Do ya need the triple? :ear

*sniped

M

Thanks.

I'm not sure if I need a triple or not? Based on you and Pierce's comments It doesn't sound all that common of a need. :dunno

I have no desire to build a bike at this time. Hell i don't even REALLY know if I'll like road riding because all I've done is commuted and mountain biked in the last 20+ years.


Quote:

Originally Posted by pierce
way not enough spokes :photog

(I have an aversion to those minimally spoked wheels, on anything but a race bike thats actually used for racing).

I wouldn't want to use that as a commuter, I doubt its lugged for a rack or fenders, and its got short-chainstay race geometry so fenders wouldn't fit anyways.

that triple gearing is kinda silly on a light weight roadrace style bike, 30 front with a 25 rear is damn near a tricycle gear, only time I'd want a gear that low would be pulling a substantial load up long grades on tour, and that's not a touring bike. My funky customized hybrid has a 34:26 low, and its a heavy cheap steel frame pushing 38c tires, and I'm way out of shape.

Thanks guys! :thumb

I'll keep looking... :deal

Mr Head 08-17-2010 03:01 PM

When I was at the LBS getting fitted, Paul pointed out the few Langster frames hanging up on sale for $250 or so. Track style dropouts... Kind of tempting since the frames are drilled for brakes.

Living on a big hill I am incapable of pushing a fixie other than from a walking position.:huh


BTW, where I live a triple is real nice to have. Lots of hills to climb. In fact the big mtb triple I have on the old hardtail is a must for me at least, being nearer to 60 than 50. My knees can deal with the hills using the triple and a dinner plate sized cog out back, as long as I'm taking it easy on them. Back in my younger days, (late 30's) I could climb from Morrison to the top of Mount Evans using a 52/39 and a 7-speed corncob. I referred to that 18 back there as a "granny gear"...:lol3
Anymore the 39/18 is a flatland gear as long as there isn't much breeze.:huh


Times are GMT -7.   It's 08:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014