[InactionMan]

Originally Posted by AWR Good road bikes in that range? No. [Grain of salt: By good I mean solid, lightweight, lasting components and frames that work well over time.] But you could get a decent bike for USD 750. A safe bet would be a Trek, and as they are ubiquitous you'll save yourself some time finding one in that range. Of course, ride any bike before you buy it (it should feel right) and try to get one at a bike shop that will spend some time with you (and is hopefully conveniently located for after sale tune-ups). Good to see a convert. And post picture if you get one. It's always fun to see new rides.

Fuck me, you're right. I just checked Trek's site and the only thing close to that range is the bike I bought last year (7.something FX).

[Dorian Gray]

I too prefer the look of the Kona Ute over the Yuba Mundo. The latter is built like a dump truck, which I suppose is the point, but it weighs 27 kg (60 lbs)! (PDF) I guess it can haul as much cargo as your legs can shift. But with a wheelbase like that it must corner like the QE2.

Originally Posted by InactionMan What are some decent road bikes in the $500-750 range? Are there good road bikes in that price range?

Proper road bikes start at the upper end of your price range, but for that you really do get a nice bicycle, AWR's snobbery notwithstanding. The big three would be:

• Specialized Allez Double - Considered by many to have the most race-worthy frame in this price range. Also available with a triple crankset if you're a wuss. (pic)
  
• Trek 1.2 - Formerly the Trek 1000, which I rode for thousands of miles without incident. The frame geometry is pretty aggressive. (pic)
  
• Giant OCR 3 - Arguably the best value for money in terms of component spec. (pic)

Orbea (Spanish) and Bianchi (Italian) sell ~$800 road bikes with a bit more panache, or at least did until recently (I don't see them on their US websites for some reason). There are loads of smaller brands too. If you look hard enough you can find bikes with Campagnolo groupsets around your price. The Allez is now 9-speed, but most Shimano-equipped bikes in this price range are 8-speed. Campy-equipped bikes are 9-speed (last year's models) or 10-speed (all of Campy's groupsets including Xenon are now 10-speed).

The best time to buy a nice bike for cheap is autumn and winter, when the prices are lowered to remove that year's stock. Now (spring, early summer) is when bike shops get the new models, and they charge close to MSRP for those. However there are still plenty of deals available on last year's models, if you look. They represent great value because bikes, unlike computers, don't go out of date quickly. New models sometimes have nothing more than a paint job, and at most add a touch of carbon and a couple of new groupset components.

[beardedmacuser]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray but it weighs 27 kg (60 lbs)!

[AWR]

[709]

Originally Posted by Eugene 709, I'm starting to see a lot more of those "extended" bike frames cropping up. Here's another one, the SyCip Unleaded Cargo: http://sycip.com/bikes_mtn.html

I thought about getting a frame and hand-picking components, but 1) I'm not that knowledgeable about said components, and 2) I was kind of hoping to keep the whole thing under a grand. Specifically, I was looking Surly's Big Dummy. They're worked in cahoots with Xtracycle, so that really appeals to me since the FreeRadical stuff seems to be becoming the 'standard' for SUB add-ons.

I noticed in the SyCip photos that it had the StokeMonkey attachment. I'm not sure I'd ever go that far, but it intrigues me enough to have known what it was when I saw it.

Originally Posted by beardedmacuser I don't know. They look kind of "hefty" to me. Fine if you've got LOTS of stuff to carry, but are you really going to be carrying more stuff than would fit on a touring bike?

Ideally, yes. You haven't seen me after a trip to the farmer's market. Add a case of beer to balance the bike out and I'd be in my glory.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I too prefer the look of the Kona Ute over the Yuba Mundo. The latter is built like a dump truck, which I suppose is the point, but it weighs 27 kg (60 lbs)! (PDF) I guess it can haul as much cargo as your legs can shift. But with a wheelbase like that it must corner like the QE2.

I didn't notice it was that heavy. Maybe the Ute is a better way to go, notwithstanding that I wouldn't have to wait for it to be imported.

I guess the thing that disappoints me the most about the Ute is the lack of side decks...or even the option to add on side decks. Bags just aren't going to do it for me, I'm afraid. I suppose I could get a metalworker friend fab some sort of bolt-ons, but it would be nice if I could just get them from the go.

[murbot]

Anyone here ever ridden an Electra bike? I have my eye on a black 21spd Townie. I'm going to the local shop tomorrow to see if they have any in stock. I've only seen 'em online so far.

[atomicbartbeans]

So I'm looking for a new bike to take to school in the fall. Most of what I've seen so far is designed either for mashing away on rugged trails, road racing, or stunt riding.

Unfortunately, I don't really fit any of those demographics. Although I like to ride fast, hop curbs, and take shortcuts through fields, I need a bike primarily designed to be used in the same manner that a college student would use a car (sadly I only have access to one at home). This entails daily commuting to campus and between classes (it's a big place), regular grocery adventures (bringing back 30+ pounds of crap), and still having something that's fun to just hop on and ride anywhere without being too limited by its area of specialty (as is the case with road or mountain bikes). As I'll be in the Buffalo area during winter, traction in snow and slush is a must - and as this bike will be my only non-pedestrian mode of transport, I'd also like a nice, sturdy luggage rack upon which to zip-tie my milk crate.

I deem durability to be pretty important - last year I brought my current department store-esque bike to school and it took quite the beating in the form of several flats, body rust, less-than-true rims, and a bent-up front gearset (I suppose I also need to become more knowledgeable on bicycle maintenance). I also had a nifty luggage rack which fell apart sometime in April. I suppose front suspension would help reduce wear on the bike (and aid in curb hopping), if it's not excessively costly. I would absolutely love the responsiveness of disk brakes, but I've heard that they preclude use of some luggage racks (someone needs to explain all this to me).

I prefer a slightly more upright riding position than a road bike - I've heard that this is best for commuting (and also enjoying the scenery). Any handlebar style will do, as long as I can mount my awesome bike computer and a headlight. A couple of comfort features that I'm looking for are fenders (as long as they don't rattle around) and those seat posts with integrated shock absorbency (though I don't know exactly what they're called). I'd also like a saddle designed to respect one's perineum, for reasons too obvious to mention.

Oh yeah - I'm looking to spend somewhere in the $200-450 range. Give me tips - what's my ideal ride?

[Dorian Gray]

I wouldn't bother with suspension (even front but especially rear) for that price. Good suspension is costly to design (it causes complicated geometric problems that have to be dealt with carefully or the bike becomes near-unridable) and costly to make (because it needs to be strong yet light).

Durability comes from simplicity, good materials, and good design. A $200 bike is not going to stand any kind of abuse for long, because the wheels in particular will be incredibly bad. The frame might survive, but only because it's made of half a ton of pig iron.

For $450 you can get a pretty decent new bicycle (though not a road bike), with an alloy frame, proper bearings, reasonably well made components (though they'll still have to be thrown out when they're done rather than overhauled). The wheels will still be the weak point at this price.

However, you could probably get a better bike for $300 second-hand than a new $450 bike.

A saddle that's designed to protect your perineum is paradoxically a hard one. Soft saddles may seem more comfortable at first, but your weight deforms them to the shape of your body, so they put pressure everywhere. Obviously that's not a good thing for either guys or girls.

A well-designed firm saddle does not deform and therefore does not put pressure where you don't want it. It concentrates your weight on your "sit bones" instead, which will make you feel saddle-sore until you get used to it (a couple of weeks). After that, it will be much more comfortable.

Ultra-long-distance cyclists use saddles that look horridly uncomfortable, such as the famous B17 by Brooks.

[atomicbartbeans]

To give you an idea, here's three that I like so far:

Kona Smoke 2-9
Gary Fisher Mako - really cheap for its specs
Novara Buzz V

Are these any good?

[beardedmacuser]

I say the Kona looks like a good deal. The Gary Fisher is really really cheap and nasty, and the Novara is probably OK. TBH, there's probably little difference between the Kona and the Novara, but there are little hints with the Kona that it's had a little more thought put into it's design; like the decent pair of Conti tyres. Take a look at them both and see which one takes your fancy once you've got your hands on it and can try it for size.

[Bryson]

Note the Kona is 280UKP, not USD....

So more like $550-600

[atomicbartbeans]

Originally Posted by beardedmacuser The Gary Fisher is really really cheap and nasty

How so? I'm sort of new to the whole cycling scene, so I guess I don't know what's good and what's not.

[Dorian Gray]

Bryson, you're forgetting how prices in the UK compare to elsewhere. That Kona is $369 Canadian dollars.

The Kona does look nice, but are you sure you want a 29er? I don't see the point, other than perhaps for a mountain bike on really rough terrain. On the road it just adds aerodynamic drag and weight (and worse, rotating mass!). If you're really tall you might like the geometry that the big wheels impose, but if you're of average height you might find the frame an odd fit.

The Novara looks good too, and I'd probably take it over the Kona because of the smaller wheels. But the 44/32/22 chainrings are a bad choice for road riding. You'd be in the top ring all the time, which isn't good when the rear gears are so widely spaced (8 speeds between 11 and 32 teeth). If your middle ring is usable, that gives you the option of hopping between the two front rings (and a bunch of rear sprockets) to effectively give you closer gear ratios (at least when you're planning to stay in one gear for more than a few seconds).

It's weird that Kona have specced 48/38/28 chainrings with the big wheels, while the Novara has small rings and small wheels. There's a big difference in gearing between these bikes.

The Gary Fisher mountain bike is ghastly. I don't know enough to say whether its specs are good for the money, but if they are, then that just reinforces my previous post about $200 bikes being a poor choice for a cyclist. The fork is made of high-tensile steel (the aforementioned pig iron), which is a poor choice for a component that needs to absorb road buzz. The frame is made of a non-specified aluminium alloy (so probably junk). And with a 13-34t 7-speed cassette, you couldn't ride this thing on the road at all. If you're gonna damage your knees, you might as well get a Surly and at least bask in the street cred of having shit gearing.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans How so? I'm sort of new to the whole cycling scene, so I guess I don't know what's good and what's not.

It's all relative, of course. When I was about 14 I had a ~$100 "mountain bike" on which I rode over 10k miles in two years, plenty of that off-road. So it served me well, though it also did a fine job of teaching me how to adjust derailleurs and true wheels. And it must have weighed close to 40 lbs.

So when I got a 300-quid Claud Butler Oracle it was like heaven. That Gary Fisher has cheaper groupset components than my Oracle had, but it's probably a bit lighter. It might be a decent enough bike for someone fairly light who doesn't ride aggressively. But the wheels won't tolerate much kerb-hopping from anyone. And the cheap components will try your patience with poor performance and an inability to hold their adjustment.

It's basically a cheap mountain bike for customers who will never actually ride their bikes off-road. Unfortunately it's very ill-suited to riding on the road.

From what you said, it looks like you'll rarely ride off-road. So don't get a mountain bike.

For less than that Gary Fisher you could get a second-hand Novara-like bike. I know a new bike would be nice, and it would if you want to stretch to the price of the Novara or Kona, or equivalent. But most people don't ride their new bikes very much, so there are plenty of good deals to be had on the second-hand market.

PS. In my previous post I mentioned "29er", by which I meant a bike with 29-inch wheels, as opposed to the usual off-road standard of 26-inch wheels. See here. I guess hybrids usually have bigger wheels than mountain bikes, so maybe a 29er would be fine. Just struck me as odd to see it marketed on a non-mountain bike.

[beardedmacuser]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray If you're really tall you might like the geometry that the big wheels impose, but if you're of average height you might find the frame an odd fit.

True, and with mudguards any toe overlap from larger wheels will be exaggerated.

The Kona bike I most like the look of has to be the Paddy Wagon! But it's not cheap compared to other off-the-peg fixies, and fixed road bikes are something of an acquired taste, you could say!

[Bryson]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Bryson, you're forgetting how prices in the UK compare to elsewhere. That Kona is $369 Canadian dollars.

I would be angry, and then I remembered which of those countries I actually live in...

[gsxrboy]

Last week I picked myself up a new mtb to replace an old Giant 26er. While the equipment is base level, the frame is a decent jobbie and the idea of a 29er appealed for something different to the old mtb and my carbon roadie.

[World Leader Pretend]

Well I just finished Biking Across Kansas and I must say that it was a lot of fun. I traveled and camped with about 6 other high school friends and we all seemed to enjoy ourselves. We were all from different ability levels, from one guy in our group who rides daily and liked to race the semi-pro riders, to a girl in our group who hadn't ridden more than 10 miles at a time before BAK. I was a pretty fast rider myself thanks to track conditioning.

The event is capped at about 800 riders and you ride on mostly highways and county roads. You have to deal with traffic but for the most part it wasn't bad at all. Once you reach your destination sometime around noon you have the rest of the day to explore your overnight town and swim and eat. We sleep in tents usually close to the town's high school.

The mileage varied from about 35 to 85 miles a day, and I took the opportunity to do a 100 mile day during a longer ride. Overall it was about 475 miles of biking in 8 days.

I rode an old 1970s rally bike with some nice Campy and Shimano components; it was a bike shop owner's bike so he had tons of different gear on it. Rovel rim set, CC steel frame that had been repainted, rolled really nicely. I was able to hang and pass many carbon fiber bikes that cost thousands more than mine. I had to replace the rim strip after the first day though because I was getting flats from the spokes. Changing tubes is really annoying and takes some elbow grease. Otherwise it gave me few problems.

The one thing to note about the ride was that, despite the thought that Kansas is flat, this ride had tons of hills. I was talking to some of the more experienced riders there and they said that you really don't see that many hills anywhere else. They said even in most Rocky Mountain passes you have an easier ride. Trust me when I say that there were tons of hills (and downhills).

Overall though I would do it again, it was a cool experience. Our group did get pretty grouchy by the end, but that was expected. If anyone here is interested in doing a long bike tour sometime, check out BAK.

[AWR]

WLP, that trip sounds awesome! Thanks for the pics.

Also, nice 29er above - they intrigue me.

[atomicbartbeans]

Okay, so in trying to find *the* bike for me I've made a little comparison of the ones I'm considering. Here's a screenshot of what I have so far - I apologize for the width.



My current bike is the first one.

I have a few questions (whose answers will hopefully help me decide):

• Are grip shifters really that bad?
• Is an aftermarket suspension seat pole cheap/easy to find/advisable?
• Will a 29er (the Kona Smoke 2-9) be hard for a 5'9" rider to handle?
• Why do so many bike manufacturers not include the weight in the specifications? It's really one of the biggest factors in choosing a bike...
• Do any of these stick out as being particularly good or bad choices for commuting, errands, and weekend adventures?

[Dorian Gray]

You should add a unicycle to that table. You know, for a bit of variety.

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Are grip shifters really that bad?

They generally work okay, though they're often a bit crude in operation, and require a fair bit of effort to shift (problematic when you're finishing that century).

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Is an aftermarket suspension seat pole cheap/easy to find/advisable?

I'd advise against it on grounds of weight, cost, effectiveness, and necessity. On rough ground it doesn't improve performance because it doesn't help the wheels stick to the ground (the entire bike is unsprung weight), so it's purely a comfort thing. Suspension isn't really needed for comfort on a bike because the speeds are so low. If you race off-road it's another matter, as suspension lets you corner quicker.

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Will a 29er (the Kona Smoke 2-9) be hard for a 5'9" rider to handle?

Yes, and it won't make you go any quicker either, if that's what you're hoping. I'm sceptical of the whole 29er cult.

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Why do so many bike manufacturers not include the weight in the specifications? It's really one of the biggest factors in choosing a bike...

The honest ones don't do it because the dishonest ones lie about the weight of their bikes (weighing only the smallest frame they make, etc.). This would make the honest manufacturers look bad if they posted true weights. The rest don't do it because surprisingly few people buying cheap[ish] bikes care about weight at all. Hence the success of truly ghastly $200-300 full-suspension "mountain bikes" made of pig iron.

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans Do any of these stick out as being particularly good or bad choices for commuting, errands, and weekend adventures?

That's a lot of specs to look through. Because you're not huge, avoid heavy bikes, 29ers, and bikes with very tall top gearing (like a 52-tooth chainring). On the other hand, if you're riding mostly on the road, the dreaded 22/32/42 combo (or similar) gives you a useless middle ring, limiting your options. Chromoly frames are more comfortable and long-lasting (over decades) than aluminium alloy frames, though they weigh a little more (but the frame is less important to overall bike weight than the wheels). Shimano Nexus gears are convenient and hassle-free, but eat perceptibly more of your pedalling energy than derailleur gears.

What software did you use to make that nice table?

World Leader Pretend: congrats on the nice trip!

[gsxrboy]

I'm 5'6" and the 29er above is a size 17, so they aren't that big. Grip shifters are a pain in the arse. Do you need all the racking to carry gear or will a backpack be good enough?

[atomicbartbeans]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray You should add a unicycle to that table. You know, for a bit of variety.

Were it not for my need to carry lots of shit, I'd seriously consider one. I'd love suggestions of other models to add to the list as well.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray They generally work okay, though they're often a bit crude in operation, and require a fair bit of effort to shift (problematic when you're finishing that century).

Most of my friends' Walmart bikes have grip shifters, and most of them aren't in proper alignment with the actual cogs (though this may also be due to lack of proper maintenance/assembly). I guess I should look for rapidfire shifters then - can you simply swap them in?

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I'd advise against it on grounds of weight, cost, effectiveness, and necessity. On rough ground it doesn't improve performance because it doesn't help the wheels stick to the ground (the entire bike is unsprung weight), so it's purely a comfort thing. Suspension isn't really needed for comfort on a bike because the speeds are so low. If you race off-road it's another matter, as suspension lets you corner quicker.

Yeah - I didn't think it would improve performance, just perhaps take some of the ass-impact out of hopping curbs. I probably need to stop being a wuss.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray What software did you use to make that nice table?

Numbers. I've been looking for an excuse to try it out for the first time.

Originally Posted by gsxrboy I'm 5'6" and the 29er above is a size 17, so they aren't that big. Grip shifters are a pain in the arse. Do you need all the racking to carry gear or will a backpack be good enough?

I love the concept of a rear rack (with plastic crate) partly because you can just throw your backpack into it - lowering your center of gravity and preventing sweat buildup on your shoulders and back. The crate is ugly (and I could probably find a more elegant solution), but a rack is light and incredibly useful - I can't really think of a reason not to have one.

Of course, I don't need to buy a bike with a rack included - as long as it has braze-ons to attach one I'll be set.

[beardedmacuser]

A few years ago I bought a generic aluminium commuting bike, which has been surprisingly OK, but it was getting just a little boring and tatty...



So I thought it was time for a sexy ivory respray...



I just need to sort myself out with some new tubs for the old Zipps, and it's good to roll!!! I reckon it's starting to look pretty good?

[digitaldave]

I can't compete with many of the great bikes in here, but I just dusted of my old 1998 Trek 820 Mountain Track. It's nothing special, but I got it cheap as it was the previous years model and the price was reduced, and I'm cheap .

It feels like it's made out of granite, and the components are nothing to get excited about, but it works as an every day bike, and might even be able to withstand some light trails! I plan on doing some simple upgrades, probably replace the pedals (the stock ones are really cheap plastic) with something a little more upmarket, and get a decent saddle. I might look at replacing the stem and handlebars with riser bars, and possibly the seat post with something a bit better. Weight saving is not my goal, as the frame weighs so much, I doubt I'd even notice a few ounces saved here and there. Is it worth replacing the stock brake pads with something a bit better, or won't there be that much difference in stopping power?

Dave.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by beardedmacuser I just need to sort myself out with some new tubs for the old Zipps, and it's good to roll!!! I reckon it's starting to look pretty good?

Damn right it is! Lovely.

[artesc]

well, i'm basically in the same situation as 'beans. I live in Boston and I need a good bike for getting around school and the city. I need to carry a moderate amount of stuff. The vast majority of the riding I do is on the streets and sidewalks. Right now I'm using an old Raleigh Rapide (circa 1980's) that I got off of craigslist for 35 bucks. I've been looking around a bit and I found these bikes.
never heard of the brand, but as an entry level thing, are they ok?.

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...cane_elite.htm


http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/mercier/galaxy.htm

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/dawes/lttour.htm


http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...ellington3.htm

this of course is my dream bike...but way out of my budget (300-500) dollars.
http://www.dirtragmag.com/blogarific...leigh-sojourn/


oh, and 'beans, what'd you settle on?

[artesc]

hmm...no suggestions then?

[gsxrboy]

You might be better off spending the same amount of money on a good second handy with better spec components. What ever you do the most important thing is to ride the bikes and feel which suits you better, not buy off a web page without riding.

My 29er - Daisy is in for her first service next week. I dropped the bars down to the bottom of the stem and makes for much nicer feel, running 26ish psi in the tyres now as well. A while ago I picked up some new SRAM x.7 shifters and X.9 rear hanger off ebay and sold the original bottom end Shimano stuff for basically the same amount, free upgrade ! woot !

[beardedmacuser]

Originally Posted by gsxrboy What ever you do the most important thing is to ride the bikes and feel which suits you better, not buy off a web page without riding.

Yeah, absolutely. You have to get a feel for how a bike feels and how it rides before you buy it unless you really know what you're doing. You can't trust dimensions and measurements from manufacturers to be entirely reliable and there's nothing like seeing a bike in the flesh to help you decide.