Bike for bunch rides

[OzCableguy]

Ok, the kilos are coming off and the times are coming down so sometime in
the next 6 to 12 months (probably closer to the latter) I hope to get to a
level of fitness where I can get in on some bunch rides. Naturally starting
off on some recovery rides and working up to the quicker ones over time. So
the time has come to start putting away some $$ for an appropriate roadie of
some sort.
Initially I was thinking something around $1-1500 or so like a Giant OCR
type thing but there seems to be some groovy stuff in the $1500-2000 bracket
like the Specialized Allez Sport type of bike.
So, how much should I be spending to get a reasonably competitive bike with
a reasonable level of comfort? Am I looking at the right types of bikes for
the task? Which price bracket represents the best value for money?
Seems to be hundreds of makes and models to choose from. I guess the main
thing is to get the one that fits and feels the best once you're in the
right price bracket to get the right quality, but any pointers will be
appreciated.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[Bleve]

OzCableguy wrote:
> Ok, the kilos are coming off and the times are coming down so sometime in
> the next 6 to 12 months (probably closer to the latter) I hope to get to a
> level of fitness where I can get in on some bunch rides. Naturally starting
> off on some recovery rides and working up to the quicker ones over time. So
> the time has come to start putting away some $$ for an appropriate roadie of
> some sort.
> Initially I was thinking something around $1-1500 or so like a Giant OCR
> type thing but there seems to be some groovy stuff in the $1500-2000 bracket
> like the Specialized Allez Sport type of bike.

The 1500-2000 range is very good value. You'll get a good bike if you
buy carefully.

My advice, shop on frame, not components. components wear out, frame
lasts ...

> So, how much should I be spending to get a reasonably competitive bike with
> a reasonable level of comfort?

Any roady will be "competitive", it's your legs & lungs that matter.
It has to fit and be reliable and comfortable. Testride .. and then
testride some more .. and then testride ...

[SomeGuy]

OzCableguy Wrote:
> Ok, the kilos are coming off and the times are coming down so sometime
> in
> the next 6 to 12 months (probably closer to the latter) I hope to get
> to a
> level of fitness where I can get in on some bunch rides. Naturally
> starting
> off on some recovery rides and working up to the quicker ones over
> time. So
> the time has come to start putting away some $$ for an appropriate
> roadie of
> some sort.
> Initially I was thinking something around $1-1500 or so like a Giant
> OCR
> type thing but there seems to be some groovy stuff in the $1500-2000
> bracket
> like the Specialized Allez Sport type of bike.
> So, how much should I be spending to get a reasonably competitive bike
> with
> a reasonable level of comfort? Am I looking at the right types of bikes
> for
> the task? Which price bracket represents the best value for money?
> Seems to be hundreds of makes and models to choose from. I guess the
> main
> thing is to get the one that fits and feels the best once you're in the
> right price bracket to get the right quality, but any pointers will be
> appreciated.
>
> --
> www.ozcableguy.com
> www.oztechnologies.com
Me and two friends have bought road bikes in that price bracket in the
last couple of weeks. I bought a secondhand litespeed, and they bought a
Merida 904-20 and a GT GTR Series 3.

I ride a Giant MTB (which was great value), so I originally looked at
Giants road bike but I was really unimpressed. The Felt 80 looked nice,
the Merida 904-20 nicer, but in the end I just couldn't resist the
Litespeed. Good luck with your purchase, and have fun :). Oh and
lastly, fit really is important. Test ride all the bikes you are
thinking about, it gives you a better idea about them.


--
SomeGuy

[OzCableguy]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Any roady will be "competitive", it's your legs & lungs that matter.
> It has to fit and be reliable and comfortable. Testride .. and then
> testride some more .. and then testride ...
>
That's what I like to hear, but yeah I'd probably spend more if I thought
I'd get a lot more, but I have a strong feeling there's a point of seriously
diminishing returns somewhere around the $2000 mark.

At the moment I wondering why some have sloping top tubes while others have
more traditional hortizontal top tubes (the seat/handlebar/bottombracket
position appears to end up pretty much the same), whether a double or triple
crankset is better, close set of ratios or a wide spread, which shifters and
so on.

[Bleve]

OzCableguy wrote:
> "Bleve" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Any roady will be "competitive", it's your legs & lungs that matter.
> > It has to fit and be reliable and comfortable. Testride .. and then
> > testride some more .. and then testride ...
> >
> That's what I like to hear, but yeah I'd probably spend more if I thought
> I'd get a lot more, but I have a strong feeling there's a point of seriously
> diminishing returns somewhere around the $2000 mark.

Yep, that's around where it starts to hit deep, yes.

> At the moment I wondering why some have sloping top tubes while others have
> more traditional hortizontal top tubes (the seat/handlebar/bottombracket

Fashion, and compact frames mean that manufacturers can get away with
less sizes.
Personally, I hate 'em (compact/sloping top tube frames), I like having
lots of room for drink bottles etc. and a long seat tube is flex-city.
YMMV, some people love 'em.

> position appears to end up pretty much the same), whether a double or triple
> crankset is better, close set of ratios or a wide spread, which shifters and
> so on.

Depending on your riding, a triple may not be necessary, and it won't
win you any cred in a bunch (which may or may not matter much to you :)
). Generally triples are for touring rather than racing or training,
and they're heavier (a little) and more difficult to get right in terms
of gear shifting smoothly. It's trivially easy to change a 12:23 to a
12:27 cassette so a wide range is not really an issue, it's a 5 minute
swap. I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit) that at
least a 12:25 as a minimum, and a 12:27 ideally - there's no shame in
spinning up a hill. You're in Sydney if I recall correctly? Or
Brisbane? Both have some hilly roads, so the tight ratios in a 12:23
aren't really worth having, I'd be going for a 12:27.

[OzCableguy]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Depending on your riding, a triple may not be necessary, and it won't
> win you any cred in a bunch (which may or may not matter much to you :)
> ). Generally triples are for touring rather than racing or training,
> and they're heavier (a little) and more difficult to get right in terms
> of gear shifting smoothly. It's trivially easy to change a 12:23 to a
> 12:27 cassette so a wide range is not really an issue, it's a 5 minute
> swap. I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit) that at
> least a 12:25 as a minimum, and a 12:27 ideally - there's no shame in
> spinning up a hill. You're in Sydney if I recall correctly? Or
> Brisbane? Both have some hilly roads, so the tight ratios in a 12:23
> aren't really worth having, I'd be going for a 12:27.
>
Yep, Brisbane. Great stuff. Thx.

[OzCableguy]

"SomeGuy" > wrote in message
...
> Me and two friends have bought road bikes in that price bracket in the
> last couple of weeks. I bought a secondhand litespeed, and they bought a
> Merida 904-20 and a GT GTR Series 3.
>
> I ride a Giant MTB (which was great value), so I originally looked at
> Giants road bike but I was really unimpressed. The Felt 80 looked nice,
> the Merida 904-20 nicer, but in the end I just couldn't resist the
> Litespeed. Good luck with your purchase, and have fun :). Oh and
> lastly, fit really is important. Test ride all the bikes you are
> thinking about, it gives you a better idea about them.
>
That's the ticket. There's so many to choose from it's almost impossible to
decide just on spec sheets or price. The only way to get the real picture is
to jump on and try them out.

[Donga]

So how is the Litespeed? After all the agonising you did, I'm
interested in the report.

Donga

[flyingdutch]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> Depending on your riding, a triple may not be necessary, and it won't
> win you any cred in a bunch (which may or may not matter much to you
> :)
> ). Generally triples are for touring rather than racing or training,
> and they're heavier (a little) and more difficult to get right in
> terms
> of gear shifting smoothly. It's trivially easy to change a 12:23 to a
> 12:27 cassette so a wide range is not really an issue, it's a 5 minute
> swap. I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit) that at
> least a 12:25 as a minimum, and a 12:27 ideally - there's no shame in
> spinning up a hill. You're in Sydney if I recall correctly? Or
> Brisbane? Both have some hilly roads, so the tight ratios in a 12:23
> aren't really worth having, I'd be going for a 12:27.

you may also find more common this year the availability of Compact
chainsets. A great idea as you get a good range of gears, (especially
at the mid/lower end), are same/lighter than 53/39 doubles and you dont
lose street cred as glances still show you are riding a double :D

34x23 = 39.91"
OR 34x25 = 36.72" VS 39x25 = 42.12"
& 50x11 122.73" VS 53x12 119.25"
(closer shifting = better shifting)

F"stuck with a triple at present"Dutch


--
flyingdutch

[OzCableguy]

"Absent Husband" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Of course, the more important question is - when will be seeing you on
> a Friday Lard Arse ride?????
>
>
Heh. I've got that one dog-eared as a possible good one to get started with,
but I want to be sure I can manage a 25kph average on my own first so I
don't disgrace myself...
I average 25-30 on the flats at the moment (on a slick shod comfort MTB) but
a bit of a headwind or too many hills and I'm cactus and the round trip time
ends up well below 25. ;-)

[TimC]

On 2006-03-14, flyingdutch (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> F"stuck with a triple at present"Dutch

Do you have a triple? All this time you've been telling me to get a
double, and you've been on a triple? Oooh, payback time :)

--
TimC
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

[SomeGuy]

Donga Wrote:
> So how is the Litespeed? After all the agonising you did, I'm
> interested in the report.

I've only done two proper rides on it so far, but from that limited
experiance it seems good. Apart from a rather disturbing clunk coming
from the bottom bracket that is. You'll get the full story later :-).


--
SomeGuy

[petulance]

Bleve wrote:
> OzCableguy wrote:
>

>
>>position appears to end up pretty much the same), whether a double or triple
>>crankset is better, close set of ratios or a wide spread, which shifters and
>>so on.
>
>
> Depending on your riding, a triple may not be necessary, and it won't
> win you any cred in a bunch (which may or may not matter much to you :)
> ). Generally triples are for touring rather than racing or training,
> and they're heavier (a little) and more difficult to get right in terms
> of gear shifting smoothly. It's trivially easy to change a 12:23 to a
> 12:27 cassette so a wide range is not really an issue, it's a 5 minute
> swap.


My 2 cents, since I did the same thing recently ...

it is trivial to change cassettes with the right tools. However, you
might need to do the following as well

- install a new chain if the old chain is too short for the new 27 teeth
sprocket
- adjust the the rear derailleur to accomodate the new larger sprockets


> I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit)

Bleve, how light would you consider to be light for a male cyclist?


> that at least a 12:25 as a minimum, and a 12:27 ideally - there's no shame in
> spinning up a hill. You're in Sydney if I recall correctly? Or
> Brisbane? Both have some hilly roads, so the tight ratios in a 12:23
> aren't really worth having, I'd be going for a 12:27.

Agreed. That's why I got a 12-27 so I can do some hills. I managed to do
Bobbin Head Road
(4km climb with a gradient of 4%) in Sydney with my 12-23 though, and I
was 2 gears above granny gear
for most of the climb.

My 12-23 will now be used for my criterium debut ...

[Bleve]

petulance wrote:

> My 2 cents, since I did the same thing recently ...
>
> it is trivial to change cassettes with the right tools. However, you
> might need to do the following as well
>
> - install a new chain if the old chain is too short for the new 27 teeth
> sprocket
> - adjust the the rear derailleur to accomodate the new larger sprockets

In my experience this is rarely an issue. I've banged a 27 on my bikes
with no chain length or other issues, and they shipped with 12:23's or
12:25's. It may be an issue if you go to a compact or odd size
chainrings, but all we're talking abuot is a standard Shimano
39:53/12:[23..27] arrangement.

> > I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit)
>
> Bleve, how light would you consider to be light for a male cyclist?

I'd say anything around 70kg or lighter, but I mainly work with older
riders (25-30+ years old). It's different for younger or elite riders.

> > that at least a 12:25 as a minimum, and a 12:27 ideally - there's no shame in
> > spinning up a hill. You're in Sydney if I recall correctly? Or
> > Brisbane? Both have some hilly roads, so the tight ratios in a 12:23
> > aren't really worth having, I'd be going for a 12:27.
>
> Agreed. That's why I got a 12-27 so I can do some hills. I managed to do
> Bobbin Head Road
> (4km climb with a gradient of 4%) in Sydney with my 12-23 though, and I
> was 2 gears above granny gear
> for most of the climb.
>
> My 12-23 will now be used for my criterium debut ...

Have a read of this :

http://www.aboc.com.au/perl/tips.pl?p=first_crit

If it's your first crit, that may be useful to you.

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:41:46 GMT, OzCableguy wrote:

> Ok, the kilos are coming off and the times are coming down so sometime in
> the next 6 to 12 months (probably closer to the latter) I hope to get to a
> level of fitness where I can get in on some bunch rides. Naturally starting
> off on some recovery rides and working up to the quicker ones over time.

There are bound to be flattish group rides around that you could do
already. The sooner you start, the sooner you will experience the
powerful motivations of (a) the desire to not be dropped (b) coffee
and cake awaiting you at the end :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[Michael Warner]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 02:41:46 GMT, OzCableguy wrote:

I meant to point out that mountain bikes are fine for slower
flat group rides, and sometimes people show up for mine on one.
They don't usually last, but it's interesting to watch :-)

Don't use not having a road bike as an excuse to put off
group riding.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[petulance]

Bleve wrote:
> petulance wrote:

>>it is trivial to change cassettes with the right tools. However, you
>>might need to do the following as well
>>- install a new chain if the old chain is too short for the new 27 teeth
>> sprocket
>>- adjust the the rear derailleur to accomodate the new larger sprockets
>
>
> In my experience this is rarely an issue. I've banged a 27 on my bikes
> with no chain length or other issues, and they shipped with 12:23's or
> 12:25's. It may be an issue if you go to a compact or odd size
> chainrings, but all we're talking abuot is a standard Shimano
> 39:53/12:[23..27] arrangement.

I'll admit I didn't measure the length of the old chain before I put the
new one on, but I had to adjust the derailleur because the jockey wheels
were touching the 2 largest sprockets on the 12-27.

>
>
>>>I'd suggest if you're not a climber (light and fit)
>>
>>Bleve, how light would you consider to be light for a male cyclist?
>
>
> I'd say anything around 70kg or lighter, but I mainly work with older
> riders (25-30+ years old). It's different for younger or elite riders.

Ah, that's my age group, and I'm under 70kg by quite a bit.

It looks like I have the weight, now to work on the fitness ...

:)


>>My 12-23 will now be used for my criterium debut ...
>
>
> Have a read of this :
>
> http://www.aboc.com.au/perl/tips.pl?p=first_crit
>
> If it's your first crit, that may be useful to you.
>

Thanks, I have read that before, I'll read it again before my first crit.

[OzCableguy]

"Michael Warner" > wrote in message
...
> Don't use not having a road bike as an excuse to put off
> group riding.
>
Nah, being a big fat slow poke is the only concern. I'd go out and buy a
road bike today if I didn't think I'd squash it or have difficulty breathing
all hunched over and aero. Mind you, there were some heaps porkier riders
than me at the GBBR on road bikes. They even had the audactity to wear
lycra. Eww..
Getting the roadie is also a motivator for me. It's a goal/present I want to
buy myself when I reach double figures on the scales.

[Ashley]

Howdy OzCableguy,

Been in the same position, done the same thing.

Started cycling on a hybrid 8 months ago. As a fat overweight 50yo with
a bad back, did just 3 km in my first week. Kept at it, and was doing
100 km weeks in 4 months (with less back trouble, too).

Bought my son a Giant OCR1 for his 21st. Went for a 40 km ride with him
last month, and he disappeared into the distance - gotta get myself a
road bike.

Bought me a Giant TCR1, and we now race 2x weekly with Coffs Harbour
Club doing crits with my son.

I did lots of research before spending my bucks.

1. The frame must fit. Only drawback to Giants is there are just 6 frame
sizes. Most manufacturers have a limited range of sizes, and if you
can't get the right size, you'll have to pick something like Cannondale
that has incremental sizes.

2. Giant is the best value, period. Volume works. Avanti is next best
for value, the rest cost some more, to lots more, for the same spec.
I'll get flamed for this, probably, but it's true.

3. A lot of manufacturers might use a splashy derailleur where you see
it, and crap for parts where you don't. Just know what you are paying,
or not paying for, as the case may be to know if you are getting value.

My TCR1 is just out of your price range - paid $2300 (list $2450)- but
it came with pure Ultegra - brakes levers bottom bracket crank - the
works. Similar spec in other brands runs $200 to $2000 more. My frame
will last the same as any other frame, so I couldn't see much advantage
paying more. The OCR1 was $1900 with a wireless computer.

The OCR1 has Shimano 105 9 speed. The TCR1 with Ultegra is much nicer to
use, feels much nicer, crisper to change, and brakes way better (I've
ridden both, obviously). I've been told the new 105 10 speed is good.
I'm hoping the 2007 range (which will be out in September 06) might have
105 10 speed on the OCR1 - I want to get the smaller 'w' model for my wife.

I was worried that I might not be able to ride the more extreme geometry
of a racing bike, but it has turned out OK. Started off with the stem
turned over, to raise the bars a little, and as I adapted, have now
reversed the stem to normal position, and am even getting used to riding
in the drops. Am much faster into a headwind on the drops.

The OCR has a slightly more relaxed geometry, with a higher stem and
longer wheelbase. It races just as well as the TCR (we are club racing
for fun, and not life or death on the Tour). The OCR1 does have carbon
forks and rear end, which makes it more comfortable, but now I've got my
TCR1 adjusted for me, I don't notice a lot of difference (TCR1 = carbon
front and aluminium frame and rear end). I prefer riding the TCR1
though, as the Ultegra is just nicer to use. Oh yeah - the only
deficiency of the OCR1 is crappy Tectro brakes - need a much harder pull
to stop. With Ultegra brakes I can crash stop with just 2 fingers on
each lever.

Just out of interest we weighed our bikes - OCR1 = 8.7kg TCR1 = 8.4kg.

The less rotating mass, the faster the bike. Cheap heavy wheels will
keep you slower. Double chainring weighs a lot less than triple
chainring (OCR2 and down have triple). Remember, the total weight of the
bike matters less than the rotating mass.

If you need lower gears (don't know if you are an old fart like me, or a
super fit elite athlete), the dealer can put different ratios on the
rear cluster. Standard is 11-23. I got 12-27. I could use the 11-23 on
the track, but on the road, with the hills around our place, 12-27 was
more realistic. My son manages fine with 11-23. Didn't cost extra for
the gearing change.

We are starting to do bunch rides. Both bikes work well. I've just got
to keep my engine in good shape.

My experience is that even with quite different geometries, when
adjusted correctly, both bikes are effective, and give a good ride. I
suspect that will be the same going from brand to brand, so for me, the
actual nature of the frame became less important than the gear on the
bike. The Ultegra is high quality, and the bike was pure Ultegra,( not
just some Ultegra) for the price. No other pure Ultegra bike came close
for price.

If your budget can stretch, see if the dealer can swap out the Shimano
550 wheels for 600 wheels - maybe $200 more. This would make it a weapon
for the money. I'm going to get some 600 wheels for use with the
standard Michelin Pro2 Race tyres on the track, and use the 550 wheels
for training and general road rides, with rugged Continental GP4000 tyres.

The Bike Buyers Guide in the newsagents has the specs on thousands of
bikes - it might help.

You've got plenty of time to choose, and the '07 bikes start becoming
available from September, so the models will change later in the year.

Hope this helps.

Keep the black stuff down,

Ashley


OzCableguy wrote:
> Ok, the kilos are coming off and the times are coming down so sometime in
> the next 6 to 12 months (probably closer to the latter) I hope to get to a
> level of fitness where I can get in on some bunch rides. Naturally starting
> off on some recovery rides and working up to the quicker ones over time. So
> the time has come to start putting away some $$ for an appropriate roadie of
> some sort.
> Initially I was thinking something around $1-1500 or so like a Giant OCR
> type thing but there seems to be some groovy stuff in the $1500-2000 bracket
> like the Specialized Allez Sport type of bike.
> So, how much should I be spending to get a reasonably competitive bike with
> a reasonable level of comfort? Am I looking at the right types of bikes for
> the task? Which price bracket represents the best value for money?
> Seems to be hundreds of makes and models to choose from. I guess the main
> thing is to get the one that fits and feels the best once you're in the
> right price bracket to get the right quality, but any pointers will be
> appreciated.
>

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Ashley > wrote:

> The less rotating mass, the faster the bike.

Only if you can measure extrememly minute differences. See: http://www.biketechreview.com/archive/wheel_theory.htm

"even if this mass is out at the rim, is so small compared to your body
mass that the differences in wheel inertia will be unperceivable. Any
difference in acceleration due to bicycle wheels that is claimed by your
riding buddies is primarily due to cognitive dissonance, or the placebo
effect (they paid a lot of money for the wheels so there must be some
perceivable gain)"

--
Shane Stanley

[SomeGuy]

Hi Ashley. Firstly I'd like to say I agree with most of what you've
said, and I'm not having a go at you. There are just a few points on
which I disagree:

Ashley Wrote:
> 2. Giant is the best value, period. Volume works. Avanti is next best
> for value, the rest cost some more, to lots more, for the same spec.

While Giant and Avanti do give you good value for money spec level
wise, they are not always the best. Have a look at Felt and Merida
bikes for an example.

> The less rotating mass, the faster the bike... [snip] remember, the
> total weight of the bike matters less than the rotating mass.

It's a popular theory, but largely baseless. Rotating weight only
matters when accelerating, and even then the effect is pretty minimal.
Overall weight is definatly the more important number.

> Double chainring weighs a lot less than triple chainring (OCR2 and down
> have triple).

A lot? An examination of http://weight-weenies.com/ showed me that the
triple on my Capella cost me 100gr. I note you're using a 12-27 on your
double. Running an 11-21 with a triple gives you a more range (at both
ends) than a 53/39 with a 12-27, and much tighter spacing. And the
11-21 is 40 grams lighter, so you're now down just sixty grams extra
for the triple. It's there, and a double does have other advantages
over a triple, but I really don't think it weighs *that* much less.


--
SomeGuy

[TimC]

On 2006-03-18, Ashley (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Hi Shane,
>
> It is a lucid article. It correctly identifies aerodynamics as vitally
> important.
>
> I should have said - the less the rotating mass, the less the effort to
> cycle at a given speed. Which is true.
>
> As you know, rotation means acceleration. Acceleration requires energy
> input.

Not at all!

A rotating body has angular momentum. There is an imaginary force
called centrifugal force, that is an artifact of you looking at
rotating frame of reference. There is a real force, called
centripital force, which extracts no energy from the system because
the distance moved is perpendicular to the force.

A rotating body will keep rotating without you putting more energy
into it.


You also seem to be saying a triple chainring rotating is going to
have a big effect over a double. Also not the case -- if there is any
noticable difference in accelaration of a wheel, it's because it is
rotating 8 times a second at 60km/h. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to
start a wheel from stop to spinning 8 times a second. But it doesn't
take much energy to start spinning a triple chainring from 0 to 1.5
times a second, does it? My hand can give a gentle shove to the
pedals, and it will keep rotating (at least initially) at that rate,
until friction takes it all out.

> My hybrid bike with me on it weighs 114.5 kg.
> My road bike with me on it weighs 108.5 kg.
> The hybrid is only 5.5% heavier at riding weight.
>
> Both have slicks for not dissimilar rolling resistance. (Although
> rolling resistance is a major factor IMO)

What are the widths on the tires? I can tell you the three 5cm wide
tires on the citybikes add *significant* drag on the thing. Top speed
on the flat without the motor is about 10km/h.

> The hybrid has triple chainrings, heavier wheels, a heavier drive train
> altogether, but similar riding weight. Both use Ultegra pedals/same
> shoes Fizik Airione saddle. A big factor is that the road bike gets me
> in a better aerodynamic position with less drag.
>
> Crit distance is 25 mins plus 1 lap.
>
> Road bike (Giant TCR1)- average 31 kmh
> Hybrid bike (Giant Innova)- average 22 kmh
> (Haven't done it on the OCR1, but I am going to swap bikes with my son
> one day)
> The road bike is way faster.
>
> It is a lot more work for my diabetic ageing body to maintain the effort
> on the hybrid bike, and I cannot maintain the speed that I can on the
> road bike. Your physique and metabolism is no doubt very different to
> mine. This represents my physical limit.
>
> Initially when I rode my son's OCR1, I could not understand why I was SO
> much faster than my hybrid. I feel reduced rotating mass is a PART of
> the story. With less rotating mass I can cycle further, and faster if I
> want, than on a bike with more rotating mass. If I can get less rotating
> mass for similar money - thats basically good.

It would be the aerodynamics and tires. If you are staying at a
constant speed (no hills, no sprinting, no accelarating out of
hairpins), then the rotating mass simply can't have any effect.

--
TimC
Unsubscribing from a mailing list you subscribed to is a basic IQ
test for Internet users. -- Author unknown, seen on the PCR-1000 list

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
Ashley > wrote:

> I should have said - the less the rotating mass, the less the effort to
> cycle at a given speed. Which is true.

No -- the less the effort to _accelerate_ to a given speed. Big
difference.

> Regardless, with my understanding of physics, I know reducing rotating
> mass is more effective in reducing required effort than reducing overall
> mass by the same amount.

In fact, there are some analyses that say in some cases -- like climbing
-- having more of the mass rotating is actually better, because it
smoothes out the small accelerations, and hence reduces overall drag.
But again, the differences are minute.

> And it sure feels better.

That's a much better reason to choose one piece of equipment over
another.

--
Shane Stanley

[Ashley]

Yeah, I was too liberal with my words. You are correct in all. It is
just my opinion and choices, when facing a similar situation to OzCableguy.

But I do find a double ring to be more convenient (for me) than a
triple. I ride both.

I did look at Felt - studied their catalogue in great depth. In short,
F65 was a heavier bike without full Ultegra group (and definitely not
Ultegra brakes)for the same money. But, nice bikes. Merida are much the
same spec and price as Giant- just not available in my area.

The Aust Buyers Guide 2006 is a good place to get a feel for the market,
and the value in it.

Interesting site, Weight Weenies. Thanks.

Now, my fitness and health has dramatically improved. I can do my
training ride with its hills on the top ring alone. I am considering
changing to a smaller rear sprocket and using the small ring more, but
not just yet. That's cheaper than changing my chainring, and gets back
some of the weight benefits. But I'll let this setup wear out some more.
Nah, probably won't change anything.

I definitely don't need the 12-27 for racing, which is something I know
now having raced, but it made the transition from my hybrid a whole lot
easier. That was 12-34. Mainly it gave me security that I did not have
to get off and walk. My fitness has extended during my month on the road
bike, and this is reducing my need for lower gears.

So, I guess I am saying that weight was not an overiding factor. How I
felt about it was the most important part of my equipment choice. Maybe
I don't really need those R600s. But if I was buying again, I'd still
see if the dealer would swap the 550s for 600s, and pay the difference.
It would make me feel better.

Reading the previous replies to the OP, now, I note that OzCableguy is
in not too dissimilar physical/age shape to myself, and is considering
similar decisions as I faced.

Sorry, this has got a bit too opinionated and emphatic, which was not my
intention.

I do want to say, OzCableguy, if you're reading, that moving to a road
bike has been fantastic. I love the speed and feel. But best of all has
been becoming part of a group.

Went into the bike shop with my son, and a few of the A-graders were in
the back eating pizza with the crew. They called us into the back to
talk and share pizza with them. I felt on top of the world. I think you
will love riding with a group, they're a good bunch, these cyclists.

Cheers,
Ashley

SomeGuy wrote:
> Hi Ashley. Firstly I'd like to say I agree with most of what you've
> said, and I'm not having a go at you. There are just a few points on
> which I disagree:
>
> Ashley Wrote:
>> 2. Giant is the best value, period. Volume works. Avanti is next best
>> for value, the rest cost some more, to lots more, for the same spec.
>
> While Giant and Avanti do give you good value for money spec level
> wise, they are not always the best. Have a look at Felt and Merida
> bikes for an example.
>
>> The less rotating mass, the faster the bike... [snip] remember, the
>> total weight of the bike matters less than the rotating mass.
>
> It's a popular theory, but largely baseless. Rotating weight only
> matters when accelerating, and even then the effect is pretty minimal.
> Overall weight is definatly the more important number.
>
>> Double chainring weighs a lot less than triple chainring (OCR2 and down
>> have triple).
>
> A lot? An examination of http://weight-weenies.com/ showed me that the
> triple on my Capella cost me 100gr. I note you're using a 12-27 on your
> double. Running an 11-21 with a triple gives you a more range (at both
> ends) than a 53/39 with a 12-27, and much tighter spacing. And the
> 11-21 is 40 grams lighter, so you're now down just sixty grams extra
> for the triple. It's there, and a double does have other advantages
> over a triple, but I really don't think it weighs *that* much less.
>
>

[Ashley]

TimC wrote:
snip
> A rotating body will keep rotating without you putting more energy
> into it.
> snip
>

Yes, I s'pose that's why a satellite keeps spinning once accelerated in
rotation.

Anyway, I've found a roadie to be more fun than a hybrid, and riding
with a group is waaaaay better than riding alone. I guess my other post
sums it up.

Cheers
Ashley

[Ashley]

Thanks Bleve, was useful to me. I'm pretty green, even after a month of
racing, and everything I learn helps.

Ashley
>
> Have a read of this :
>
> http://www.aboc.com.au/perl/tips.pl?p=first_crit
>
> If it's your first crit, that may be useful to you.
>

[OzCableguy]

"Ashley" > wrote in message
...
> I do want to say, OzCableguy, if you're reading, that moving to a road
> bike has been fantastic. I love the speed and feel. But best of all has
> been becoming part of a group.
>

Thanks Ashley. Following the thread with interest.
Lots to learn about the who's who of components etc and I'm both excited and
a little disappointed to hear of the difference in speeds from the hybrid to
the roadie. I suspected as much and I don't think I'm going to be too
interested in the hybrid any more once I get the roadie. I was hoping it
still might have it's place for touring the bike paths around the Redcliffe
peninsular etc but going faster is my primary motivator and I doubt I'll be
able to bear riding the slower bike once I get a taste of real speed. ;-)

[Euan]

OzCableguy wrote:
> I suspected as much and I don't think I'm going to be too interested
> in the hybrid any more once I get the roadie. I was hoping it still
> might have it's place for touring the bike paths around the Redcliffe
> peninsular etc but going faster is my primary motivator and I doubt
> I'll be able to bear riding the slower bike once I get a taste of
> real speed. ;-)

As you say it all depends on what you want out of the bike. As a day to
day workhorse a road bike has its limitations, carrying luggage is
problematic and if you've got a bling machine then leaving it locked up
for a couple of hours while you go do some chores is going to rack the
nerves.

You may find that your hybrid just doesn't cut it any more, that's fine.
That's why N+1 exists. You may find that a proper touring bike with
drop handlebars and plenty of braze ons for mounting stuff is a
necessity (note, not want ;-) ). A well set up tourer is a thing of
beauty and I've got my own ideas about how to get what I want; call it a
five year plan.

I stuffed up, I got a Trek1200. It makes a very passable every day
machine as it can accommodate a rack and therefore panniers. Take the
commuting crap off of it and it's an OK road bike. Not great and I'd
certainly like something better but given that I head out for a ride
just to ride every other weekend or so I can hardly justify the expense.

My wife however did it correctly. She got a hybrid which was enough to
get her thinking about bikes in a more serious way and then got a very
nice Cannondale road bike. How could I possibly expect her to jump on
the hybrid after tasting the delights of a road bike? So it was a
Cannondale mountain bike next on the shopping list, one that could
accommodate a rack for commuting and thankfully one that was second hand
so it didn't hurt the balance too much. Interestingly the M400 was only
about $100 cheaper second hand than the hybrid was new.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

[Bleve]

Ashley wrote:
> Thanks Bleve, was useful to me. I'm pretty green, even after a month of
> racing, and everything I learn helps.

Great! I'm glad it helped :)

[Bleve]

OzCableguy wrote:
> "Ashley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I do want to say, OzCableguy, if you're reading, that moving to a road
> > bike has been fantastic. I love the speed and feel. But best of all has
> > been becoming part of a group.
> >
>
> Thanks Ashley. Following the thread with interest.
> Lots to learn about the who's who of components etc and I'm both excited and
> a little disappointed to hear of the difference in speeds from the hybrid to
> the roadie. I suspected as much and I don't think I'm going to be too
> interested in the hybrid any more once I get the roadie. I was hoping it
> still might have it's place for touring the bike paths around the Redcliffe
> peninsular etc but going faster is my primary motivator and I doubt I'll be
> able to bear riding the slower bike once I get a taste of real speed. ;-)

My experience with my old hybrid was once I got the roady, I never (!)
rode the hybrid again. I gave it to a mate so he could do the RTB on
it. He had a $500 pogo (****ter dualy) to do it on! The hybrid was a
better choice than that for the RTB. I think he may still have it, but
now he has a roady and maybe he's donated it too? I dunno ... awful
things :)

[Donga]

So how is the Litespeed SomeGuy? (have one myself, hehehe)