Re: First bike

[JLB]

antgel wrote:
> What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for getting
> around Central London, probably never riding more than 10 miles at a
> stretch?
>
> http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
> http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html

At a glance, not bad at all. They have the right features to make them
practical for most urban use; more than enough gears, chain guards, full
mudguards. Gripshifts are a matter of personal taste. The bikes look
capable of serving their purpose for years with a bit of care, and they
are not so expensive that you need worry too much about them when they
are parked outside (though a good lock to fix the bike to something
solid is still necessary and will add noticeably to the cost.)

Derailleur gears need more maintenance than hub gears, but so long as
you are comfortable with that, fine.

You might find it worthwhile to watch for bargain bike equipment offered
by Aldi from time to time if you don't have some of the useful extras
and tools you might want; for example, a while ago there were very cheap
but usable pannier bags.

The only crucial issue, I think, if you go ahead with one or both of the
bikes, is to make sure it's the right size for the rider.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, antgel
') wrote:

> JLB wrote:
>> antgel wrote:
>>
>>> What do we think of these for a first bike (for many years) for
>>> getting around Central London, probably never riding more than 10
>>> miles at a stretch?
>>>
>>> http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/cheltenham-gents.html
>>> http://www.cycleking.co.uk/range/1G02694.html
>>
>>
>> At a glance, not bad at all. They have the right features to make them
>> practical for most urban use; more than enough gears, chain guards,
>> full mudguards. Gripshifts are a matter of personal taste. The bikes
>> look capable of serving their purpose for years with a bit of care,
>> and they are not so expensive that you need worry too much about them
>> when they are parked outside (though a good lock to fix the bike to
>> something solid is still necessary and will add noticeably to the
>> cost.)
>>
>> Derailleur gears need more maintenance than hub gears, but so long as
>> you are comfortable with that, fine.
>>
>> You might find it worthwhile to watch for bargain bike equipment
>> offered by Aldi from time to time if you don't have some of the useful
>> extras and tools you might want; for example, a while ago there were
>> very cheap but usable pannier bags.
>>
>> The only crucial issue, I think, if you go ahead with one or both of
>> the bikes, is to make sure it's the right size for the rider.
>
> The only differences I can see are the 21 vs 18 gears, the pannier
> carrier and the aluminium vs steel frame. I couldn't care less about
> the gears, I'm sure 18 is plenty.

It is; but seeing the eighteen gear system is bottom-of-the-range, the
engineering will be less good, which matters because the problem with
derailleurs is they go out of adjustment and need fettling quite often
enough anyway.

> Is an aluminium frame likely to be worth the extra £50, given the
> length of journeys that I am likely to make, and given that I am not
> bothered
> about speed? My understanding is that the alu frame is lighter and
> should therefore enable quicker or longer progress for the same effort.
> Given the nature (town) and length (10 miles max, 1-5 more likely) of
> my journeys, should I care?

Yes if there are any significant hills, no otherwise.

But I'd say again - this is an unknown brand, to me anyway, and I would
look at a Claud Butler Classic before you make your mind up.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]

[JLB]

antgel wrote:

[snip]
>
> Is an aluminium frame likely to be worth the extra £50, given the length
> of journeys that I am likely to make, and given that I am not bothered
> about speed? My understanding is that the alu frame is lighter and
> should therefore enable quicker or longer progress for the same effort.
> Given the nature (town) and length (10 miles max, 1-5 more likely) of
> my journeys, should I care?

Lighter is generally preferable, but you should check the actual weight
of each to be sure the Al bike really is lighter. Although aluminium has
lower density than steel, it is not as strong or stiff, so typically you
need more of it for the same job. My view is that, except for serious
competitive riding, weight is often taken too seriously. When I'm
touring I'll put perhaps another 30 or 40 lbs of kit on the bike; it
does not make that much difference to my progress. It's a bit more
effort up hills, but you can get some of that back going downhill, and
the bike coasts more readily over smaller hills because of the extra
kinetic energy. For what you are proposing it is probably more important
that the frame is strong and stiff, so that it copes when, for example,
you try putting a lot of groceries on the rack, and it does not get
seriously dented if it takes a knock.

(If the rack offered as standard on the "cheltenham" is any good, it's
well worth having because then you can fit panniers. Carrying a rucksack
while cycling is entirely possible, but it is not comfortable.)

If the weight of each is quite similar (within, say, 5 lbs) it's
probably not worth worrying about, especially for what you intend. Your
cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of tyres
fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.
You certainly do not want knobbly, off-road style tyres, they just waste
effort on roads.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Tom]

"JLB" > wrote in message
...
>


> Your cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of
tyres
> fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
> make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
> around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
> as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.
>

I have to disagree with this bit.

At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
narrower one.

At 100psi and carrying a weight of 100lbs, your contact patch will be one
square inch, regardless of how wide or how narrow your tyre is. For example
if that equates to 1" x1" (wide tyre) it will take less effort to roll
compared to a contact patch of 1/4" x 4" (very very narrow tyre) as it
takes energy to deform the sidewalls.

I dare say not a great deal, but every little helps, and a wider tyre
certainly feels more comfortable.

Tom

[JLB]

Tom wrote:
> "JLB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>>Your cycling effort is going to depend more on things like the type of
>
> tyres
>
>>fitted. The general rule is that narrower tyres and higher pressures
>>make for less effort, but you don't want to go too far with it. For
>>around town transport use a tyre width of 1 1/4" is probably as narrow
>>as you want to go, both for comfort and for coping with potholes etc.
>>
>
>
> I have to disagree with this bit.
>
> At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
> narrower one.
>
> At 100psi and carrying a weight of 100lbs, your contact patch will be one
> square inch, regardless of how wide or how narrow your tyre is. For example
> if that equates to 1" x1" (wide tyre) it will take less effort to roll
> compared to a contact patch of 1/4" x 4" (very very narrow tyre) as it
> takes energy to deform the sidewalls.
>
> I dare say not a great deal, but every little helps, and a wider tyre
> certainly feels more comfortable.

That's fair enough, but not the whole story. Larger tyres tend to have a
lower maximum pressure, which increases the contact patch and the
flexing of the side wall. Narrow tyres can have some weight bearing
capacity in the side walls, so they do not behave simply like a party
balloon. There are reasons why racing tyres are as narrow as they can
be, and since the OP has made it clear that minimising energy use when
cycling is a priority, I thought it was worth mentioning the tyres.
However, I agree that fatter tyres are usually more comfortable.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

[Clive George]

"JLB" > wrote in message
...

>> At any given pressure, a wider tyre will roll with less effort that a
>> narrower one.
>
> That's fair enough, but not the whole story. Larger tyres tend to have a
> lower maximum pressure, which increases the contact patch and the flexing
> of the side wall. Narrow tyres can have some weight bearing capacity in
> the side walls, so they do not behave simply like a party balloon. There
> are reasons why racing tyres are as narrow as they can be, and since the
> OP has made it clear that minimising energy use when cycling is a
> priority, I thought it was worth mentioning the tyres. However, I agree
> that fatter tyres are usually more comfortable.

You've forgotten to mention the key reason for using skinny tyres -
aerodynamics and weight. A decent fat tyre can be run at over 100psi (see
tandem use), so there isn't a difference in rolling resistance - however
rolling resistance isn't as important as it is occasionally made out to be.
The OP isn't interested in going fast (yet), so the aero advantage doesn't
really matter.

(I'd recommend something in the 32-37mm range, but use 1.75" on our road
tandem :-) )

cheers,
clive