What do you think it the best bike for the city

[bornfree]

What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
high street)

Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
would love to know what you think of them.

[Mark T[_2_]]

bornfree writtificated

> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> high street)
>
> Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> would love to know what you think of them.

I *love* road bikes, but you have to have good lungs and strong thighs to
get the most out of them. They're designed to be ridden fast and hard,
and going slow on one isn't great - twitchy handling, hard saddle that
doesn't get on with jeans, brake levers in the wrong place, tyres so hard
you can feel each individual chip of tarmac (realy - each piece. Through
yer bum). Trundling about the city on one isn't great. In fact, they're
awful for the city! I've used one almost exclusively for the last four
or five years, so I should know! The only thing worse than a road bike
in the city is a knobbly tyred mountain bike with full suspension. No
matter how fast you try to go, it's s-l-o-w.


If putting together a great city bike it'd have:

-Wide, *slick* high pressure tyres - at city speeds these will be more
efficient than narrower racing tyres yet still wheely comfy.

-Proper full length mudguards - because a wet crack and brown stains on
yer trousers is never going to be fashionable.

-Rear rack to take panniers, 'cos a sweaty back in summer ain't nice

-An 'upright' riding position with handlebars higher than the seat.
Better view over the cars in front, easier to check over your shoulder.

-Hub gears, because adjusting the gears to get them sweet is just too
tiresome

-Dynamo lights, so I don't get caught out when the clocks change

-The biggest D lock I can buy

[Tracker1972]

bornfree wrote:
> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> high street)
>
> Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> would love to know what you think of them.

My Claud Butler Urban 300 was about £300, kept me happy commuting in
Sheffield. The suspension fork was probably overkill along with the
suspension seatpost, but it was a fairly smooth ride.
Don't regret getting it, but that may just be because it got me back
into cycling!

Tracker.

[naked_draughtsman[_3_]]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:57:30 +0000, Mark T wrote:
> The only thing worse than a road bike
> in the city is a knobbly tyred mountain bike with full suspension. No
> matter how fast you try to go, it's s-l-o-w.

Mine goes pretty fast in town (although no rear suspension). I'm looking
forward to swapping over to my road tyres this weekend!

peter

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
> said in
>:

>What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
>London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
>high street)

The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[bornfree]

On 22 Apr, 18:57, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_r eply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> bornfree writtificated
>
> > What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> > London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> > high street)
>
> > Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> > road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> > would love to know what you think of them.
>
> I *love* road bikes, but you have to have good lungs and strong thighs to
> get the most out of them. They're designed to be ridden fast and hard,
> and going slow on one isn't great - twitchy handling, hard saddle that
> doesn't get on with jeans, brake levers in the wrong place, tyres so hard
> you can feel each individual chip of tarmac (realy - each piece. Through
> yer bum). Trundling about the city on one isn't great. In fact, they're
> awful for the city! I've used one almost exclusively for the last four
> or five years, so I should know! The only thing worse than a road bike
> in the city is a knobbly tyred mountain bike with full suspension. No
> matter how fast you try to go, it's s-l-o-w.
>
> If putting together a great city bike it'd have:
>
> -Wide, *slick* high pressure tyres - at city speeds these will be more
> efficient than narrower racing tyres yet still wheely comfy.
>
> -Proper full length mudguards - because a wet crack and brown stains on
> yer trousers is never going to be fashionable.
>
> -Rear rack to take panniers, 'cos a sweaty back in summer ain't nice
>
> -An 'upright' riding position with handlebars higher than the seat.
> Better view over the cars in front, easier to check over your shoulder.
>
> -Hub gears, because adjusting the gears to get them sweet is just too
> tiresome
>
> -Dynamo lights, so I don't get caught out when the clocks change
>
> -The biggest D lock I can buy


Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
(Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)

Here's a picture of it. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg

I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed. I was
thinking about getting a road bike but I am not a hardcore cyclist and
by the sounds of it, it's not for me. I am happy travelling any
distance within 4 miles.. I think for longer distances I might get a
low power motorbike.

[spindrift]

I commute on a Trek 4400, the front suspension protests against the
thousand shocks flesh is heir to.

I know people who commute on their tourers but I daren't risk my Dawes
being nicked so I save that for Norfolk jaunts.


I see more and more people on fixies and although I'm not prejudiced
most fixie riders are mental.

[Peter Clinch]

bornfree wrote:
> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> high street)
>
> Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> would love to know what you think of them.

What exactly do you want to do with the bike?

Racers are great for covering ground as fast as possible while carrying
a rider and pretty much nothing else, but lots of people want to carry
other stuff, or aren't in such a hurry because they prefer comfort (a
racer beating a trundler by 10 minutes but needing a shower on arrival
doesn't actually save much/any time).

For city use, like Guy, I think a Brompton folder is hard to beat, but
you'll need to up your budget. Having said that, you'll have to up your
budget if you want a racer worthy of the name.

The option that will get you a lot of bike for your money at £300 is a
hybrid. Don't forget to add in mudguards (unless you like being covered
in dirty water every time the road is wet), lights and a lock. And you
can do worthwhile things pumping up the budget for a hybrid too, which
will get you better components, built hub dynamo lighting etc. A hybrid
will carry things other than you better than a racer, in more comfort.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[POHB]

On 22 Apr, 23:41, bornfree > wrote:
> Here's a picture of it.http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg
>
> I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
> fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
> like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed. I was
> thinking about getting a road bike but I am not a hardcore cyclist and
> by the sounds of it, it's not for me. I am happy travelling any
> distance within 4 miles.. I think for longer distances I might get a
> low power motorbike.

You're always going to get people faster than you. Spending money on
a new bike will just make it more annoying when they zoom past. It's
the same with cars, being stuck in traffic in a fast car is much more
frustrating than being stuck in traffic in an old banger.

For 300 quid you can get a perfectly good city bike, but you aren't
going to get a superbike to help you win races. You might find
something with bigger wheels rolls a bit easier, especially on rough
roads, but I haven't got any experience with small wheeled bikes.

Having said that, a new bike is a great boost to enthusiasm and will
make you pedal harder and enjoy it more, at least for a bit. So why
not accept that your current bike is ideal for practical city use and
get something lightweight, stripped-down, probably second-hand and
most likely less reliable that you don't use very often but fetch out
on sunny days when you want to take on the roadies in the "commuter
challenge" and have fun?

[Rob Morley]

In article <e442ca95-99e9-4273-be3d-4ca8ab9b2049
@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bornfree
says...

> Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
> an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
> (Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)
>
> Here's a picture of it. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg
>
> I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
> fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
> like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed.

That's probably more about the rider than the bike. Having said that, I
wonder if your bike setup is right - it looks to me that either your
seat is much too low or your bars are much too high. Also make sure you
keep the tyres properly inflated, as that can make quite a difference to
efficiency - get a track pump with pressure gauge if you don't already
have one.

[TerryJ]

>
> I *love* road bikes, but you have to have good lungs and strong thighs to
> get the most out of them. *They're designed to be ridden fast and hard,
> and going slow on one isn't great - twitchy handling, hard saddle that
>
> If putting together a great city bike it'd have:
>
> -Wide, *slick* high pressure tyres - at city speeds these will be more
> efficient than narrower racing tyres yet still wheely comfy.
>
> -Proper full length mudguards - because a wet crack and brown stains on
> yer trousers is never going to be fashionable.
>
> -Rear rack to take panniers, 'cos a sweaty back in summer ain't nice
>
> -An 'upright' riding position with handlebars higher than the seat. *
> Better view over the cars in front, easier to check over your shoulder.
>
> -Hub gears, because adjusting the gears to get them sweet is just too
> tiresome
>
> -Dynamo lights, so I don't get caught out when the clocks change
>
> -The biggest D lock I can buy
http://www.btinternet.com/~randomeyes/Raleigh/index.htm
Here is a fine example of the archetypical city bike, the raleigh
three speed, on which sort I did many thousands of miles in
London .If you were lucky enough to buy it and did not polish it much
you would not need an expensive lock and the weight saving may mean it
would weigh the same as a 300pound job.
As for people passing you , that as has been said will happen on any
bike and is caused by :
short dashers , 400miles per week racers, people with no mudguards ,
spare tube and pump let alone briefcase on the back.It happens on any
bike I have ever ridden. I sometimes consider plaintively calling
after them ''oh, but I have just done 70miles and I'm not home yet''

http://www.cyclestore.co.uk/productDetails.asp?productID=9885

TerryJ

[Roger Merriman]

bornfree > wrote:

> On 22 Apr, 18:57, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_r eply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > bornfree writtificated
> >
> > > What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> > > London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> > > high street)
> >
> > > Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> > > road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> > > would love to know what you think of them.
> >
> > I *love* road bikes, but you have to have good lungs and strong thighs to
> > get the most out of them. They're designed to be ridden fast and hard,
> > and going slow on one isn't great - twitchy handling, hard saddle that
> > doesn't get on with jeans, brake levers in the wrong place, tyres so hard
> > you can feel each individual chip of tarmac (realy - each piece. Through
> > yer bum). Trundling about the city on one isn't great. In fact, they're
> > awful for the city! I've used one almost exclusively for the last four
> > or five years, so I should know! The only thing worse than a road bike
> > in the city is a knobbly tyred mountain bike with full suspension. No
> > matter how fast you try to go, it's s-l-o-w.
> >
> > If putting together a great city bike it'd have:
> >
> > -Wide, *slick* high pressure tyres - at city speeds these will be more
> > efficient than narrower racing tyres yet still wheely comfy.
> >
> > -Proper full length mudguards - because a wet crack and brown stains on
> > yer trousers is never going to be fashionable.
> >
> > -Rear rack to take panniers, 'cos a sweaty back in summer ain't nice
> >
> > -An 'upright' riding position with handlebars higher than the seat.
> > Better view over the cars in front, easier to check over your shoulder.
> >
> > -Hub gears, because adjusting the gears to get them sweet is just too
> > tiresome
> >
> > -Dynamo lights, so I don't get caught out when the clocks change
> >
> > -The biggest D lock I can buy
>
>
> Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
> an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
> (Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)
>
> Here's a picture of it. http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg
>
> I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
> fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
> like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed. I was
> thinking about getting a road bike but I am not a hardcore cyclist and
> by the sounds of it, it's not for me. I am happy travelling any
> distance within 4 miles.. I think for longer distances I might get a
> low power motorbike.

4 miles unless hilly should be fairly easy ride. drops are faster but
only over distance really, and though traffic i'm not so sure, in the
busy traffic on the big heavy hybrid i'm often able to see further which
is handy for large fast roundabouts and such.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Dan Gregory]

bornfree wrote:
> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> high street)

http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7333&f%5FFullProductVersion=1&f%5FSupersetQRY=C107%7E1&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002912m003020

[Doki]

bornfree wrote:
> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
> high street)
>
> Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on poorer
> road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the same?),
> would love to know what you think of them.

I like my racer as it allows me to travel fairly close to the speed of the
rest of the traffic. However, I'm not in London, and traffic there might be
much slower.

I don't find the racer unduly uncomfortable, as whilst the saddle is hard,
the steel frame is fairly flexy and your weight is further forward, so you
tend not to have so much weight on the saddle. OTOH on my steel mountain
bike (much less flexy, rigid forks rather than suspension), I still notice a
fair amount of bumpyness, and the wider handlebars make filtering more
difficult.

[Doki]

Doki wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
>> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
>> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
>> high street)
>>
>> Apparently a "racing" bike is the fastest, but not very good on
>> poorer road surfaces. If you have a road / racing bike (are they the
>> same?), would love to know what you think of them.
>
> I like my racer as it allows me to travel fairly close to the speed
> of the rest of the traffic. However, I'm not in London, and traffic
> there might be much slower.
>
> I don't find the racer unduly uncomfortable, as whilst the saddle is
> hard, the steel frame is fairly flexy and your weight is further
> forward, so you tend not to have so much weight on the saddle. OTOH
> on my steel mountain bike (much less flexy, rigid forks rather than
> suspension), I still notice a fair amount of bumpyness, and the wider
> handlebars make filtering more difficult.

The other main thing I noticed on the MTB is the gearing - lovely granny
gear for getting up hills, but the gaps between gears on the cassette are
*huge* compared to a road bike. If you do go down the MTB route, I'd get a
close ratio cassette.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> I don't find the racer unduly uncomfortable, as whilst the saddle is
> hard, the steel frame is fairly flexy and your weight is further
> forward, so you tend not to have so much weight on the saddle.

Discomfort can be places other than one's backside. I particularly
prefer more upright positions because I tend to suffer discomfort in my
arms and wrists rather than my arse, for example. Dutch bikes, built
for utilitarian comfort, have bolt upright seating positions... and
comfortable saddles if the owner uses it much!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[POHB]

On 23 Apr, 12:48, "Doki" > wrote:
> I like my racer as it allows me to travel fairly close to the speed of the
> rest of the traffic. However, I'm not in London, and traffic there might be
> much slower.

You said it! Average traffic speed in London is generally much slower
than a moderate cycling pace. Cycling speed is limited by having to
keep stopping and starting for traffic lights (for those of us who do)
and squeeze past stationary vehicles.

[Daniel Barlow]

POHB > writes:

> On 23 Apr, 12:48, "Doki" > wrote:
>> I like my racer as it allows me to travel fairly close to the speed of the
>> rest of the traffic. However, I'm not in London, and traffic there might be
>> much slower.
>
> You said it! Average traffic speed in London is generally much slower
> than a moderate cycling pace.

The key word here is "average", of course - it stops and starts. I
like commuting on a road bike (even though I have loaded it down
rather a lot with rack/mudguard/panniers) because it means I can keep
up with the starts as well as the stops.


-dan

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch > wrote:

> Doki wrote:
>
> > I don't find the racer unduly uncomfortable, as whilst the saddle is
> > hard, the steel frame is fairly flexy and your weight is further
> > forward, so you tend not to have so much weight on the saddle.
>
> Discomfort can be places other than one's backside. I particularly
> prefer more upright positions because I tend to suffer discomfort in my
> arms and wrists rather than my arse, for example. Dutch bikes, built
> for utilitarian comfort, have bolt upright seating positions... and
> comfortable saddles if the owner uses it much!
>
yup my big heavy hybrid has a fairly upright postion which is very
comftable, i have good clear sight lines it has good clearance for 38mm
tires to survive deep holes at speed and can carry a good load. plus is
deeply unsexy so has allways been where i've parked it, which is plus!

> Pete.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[lardyninja]

On Apr 23, 11:34 am, TerryJ > wrote:
> I sometimes consider plaintively calling
> after them ''oh, but I have just done 70miles and I'm not home yet''


Respect!!! That's one hell of a commute.

LN

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> I don't find the racer unduly uncomfortable, as whilst the saddle is
>> hard, the steel frame is fairly flexy and your weight is further
>> forward, so you tend not to have so much weight on the saddle.
>
> Discomfort can be places other than one's backside. I particularly
> prefer more upright positions because I tend to suffer discomfort in my
> arms and wrists rather than my arse, for example. Dutch bikes, built
> for utilitarian comfort, have bolt upright seating positions... and
> comfortable saddles if the owner uses it much!

Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the racer,
until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one type of bike is
always comfier than another.

[TerryJ]

On 23 Apr, 15:12, lardyninja > wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:34 am, TerryJ > wrote:
>
> > *I sometimes consider plaintively calling
> > after them ''oh, but I have just done 70miles and I'm not home yet''
>
> Respect!!! That's one hell of a commute.
>
> LN

well, yes it would be.
I forgot to mention solid build and big tyres mean that you can
survive the potholes that you have to crash through when you are
surrounded by traffic, and being able to look around easily is a big
plus.
This is usually recommended by someone:
http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=9452&f%5FSupersetQRY=C105&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002910

[Mark T[_2_]]

Doki writtificated

> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one type
> of bike is always comfier than another.

In the uncomfy corner we have the time trial bike. In the comfy corner we
have the dutch roadster.

That said, something as simple as an extra inch of reach to the bars,
saddle 10 degrees out etc can make riding a bike into a form of torture,
and I'd be more comfy trying to hold 25mph for 10 miles on a time trial
bike than doing the same on a roadster. Plenty of swings and roundabouts
to whizz around on this topic.

[Doki]

TerryJ wrote:
> On 23 Apr, 15:12, lardyninja > wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 11:34 am, TerryJ > wrote:
>>
>>> I sometimes consider plaintively calling
>>> after them ''oh, but I have just done 70miles and I'm not home yet''
>>
>> Respect!!! That's one hell of a commute.
>>
>> LN
>
> well, yes it would be.
> I forgot to mention solid build and big tyres mean that you can
> survive the potholes that you have to crash through when you are
> surrounded by traffic, and being able to look around easily is a big
> plus.

There is that. My road bike wheels need truing a hell of a lot.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one type of
> bike is always comfier than another.

Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both basically
sports machines designed with comfort as a distant priority behind going
over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in a bike where comfort
is one of the design priorities and it's a rather different case.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Doki]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>
>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
>> type of bike is always comfier than another.
>
> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant priority
> behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in a bike
> where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a rather
> different case.

Indeed. MTBs seem to be regarded as the standard basic transport for some
reason, rather than a comfort / utility bike.

[Don Whybrow]

spindrift wrote:
>
> I see more and more people on fixies and although I'm not prejudiced
> most fixie riders are mental.

Of the 3 fully working adult bikes in the shed [1], when I reach for the
steed to take me to work, it is invariably the fixed that I select. To
those that have never ridden fixed for any length of time [2], it is
difficult to express the experience. To those that have, it is not
necessary.

For most urban trips, and possibly many rural ones, you do not need any
gears. My commute is 6 miles each way with a change in elevation of
330ft. I am probably as fast on the fixed as I would be on either of the
geared bikes.


[1] As opposed to the 4 that are not working and the kids bikes.
[2] i.e. enough to get used to the differences.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Turn on, log in, fight spam.

[Don Whybrow]

Dan Gregory wrote:
>
> http://www.edinburghbicycle.com/ebwPNLqrymode.a4p?f%5FProductID=7333&f%5FFullProductVersion=1&f%5FSupersetQRY=C107%7E1&f%5FSortOrderID=1&f%5Fbct=c003155c002912m003020

I'll see your Langster & raise you a Touche

<http://www.pearsoncycles.co.uk/index.html?action=97>

Looking around their site I see that they have a new singlespeed out
that is built to a steel frame.

http://www.pearsoncycles.co.uk/page/113/Pearson_Hanzo


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

The media finally figured out that their "paying customers"
(i.e. advertisers) don't WANT an intelligent, thoughtful
audience. And they no longer have one." (Rich Tietjens)

[Don Whybrow]

Mark T wrote:
> Plenty of swings and roundabouts
> to whizz around on this topic.

Roundabouts I have ridden, yet to try a swing.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except
when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
(Keith F. Lynch)

[Don Whybrow]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>
>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one type of
>> bike is always comfier than another.
>
> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both basically
> sports machines designed with comfort as a distant priority behind going
> over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in a bike where comfort
> is one of the design priorities and it's a rather different case.

For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.

<http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html>

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except
when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
(Keith F. Lynch)

[Doki]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
>>> type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>
>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
>> in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
>> rather different case.
>
> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

[Don Whybrow]

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Doki wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>>>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
>>>> type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>>
>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
>>> in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
>>> rather different case.
>>
>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>
>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are up
the thread a bit.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"There is a wicked pretense that one has been informed. But no
such thing has truly occurred! A mere slogan, an empty litany.
No arguments are heard, no evidence is weighed. It isn't news at
all, only a source of amusement for idlers." (Gibson-Sterling,
The Difference Engine)

[Doki]

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> Doki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
>>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
>>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>>>
>>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
>>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
>>>> it's a rather different case.
>>>
>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>
>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>
>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> up the thread a bit.

Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

[[email protected]]

On 23 Apr, 19:23, "Doki" > wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
> > Doki wrote:
> >> Don Whybrow wrote:
> >>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >>>> Doki wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
> >>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
> >>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
>
> >>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
> >>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
> >>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
> >>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
> >>>> it's a rather different case.
>
> >>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> >>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> >> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> > You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> > up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike

Comfortable commuting? Strip down a tourer- designed for long stints
in the saddle, tough, plenty of gears etc.
I wouldn't want to be riding a 20Kg + roadster away from traffic
lights every two minutes, let alone into a headwind!

If you want fast- get fixed and get fit!

Cheers,
W.

[Don Whybrow]

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>>
>>> Almost 20 kilos!
>>
>> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
>> up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

There are lots of alternatives for comfort. Some would say to go
recumbent, or even semi-recumbent like the RANS Fusion.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,
which failed to start because of the following error: The
operation completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

[bornfree]

On 23 Apr, 11:02, Rob Morley > wrote:
> In article <e442ca95-99e9-4273-be3d-4ca8ab9b2049
> @d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bornfree
> says...
>
> > Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
> > an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
> > (Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)
>
> > Here's a picture of it.http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg
>
> > I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
> > fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
> > like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed.
>
> That's probably more about the rider than the bike. Having said that, I
> wonder if your bike setup is right - it looks to me that either your
> seat is much too low or your bars are much too high. Also make sure you
> keep the tyres properly inflated, as that can make quite a difference to
> efficiency - get a track pump with pressure gauge if you don't already
> have one.

Yes I know how important tire pressure is.

Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
position. A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
Mark pointed out.

[Rob Morley]

In article <ac11f436-0a31-417d-bdfb-
>, bornfree
says...

> Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> position.

Obviously it's more upright, but it's not "how it's meant to be" - a
folder is a bike like any other upright (although perhaps more honest
about its utilitarian nature than some with sporting pretensions).

> A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> Mark pointed out.
>
And a fair bit less aerodynamic. Are you sure the saddle is high enough
for optimal pedalling efficiency?

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:

>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>
>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> Almost 20 kilos!

One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
weight weenie...

My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
don't want super acceleration.

My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.

Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
and acceleration.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

bornfree wrote:

> Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> position.

Hmmmm, see http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/saddleheight.jpg

That's a folder and I'm in an upright position (my head is a bit forward
as it was just the state of balance leaning on the wall while the shot
was taken, look at the body rather than head and neck)

> A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> Mark pointed out.

But the shot of your bike, unless you have /very/ short legs, suggests
the saddle is a bit low. The rule of thumb of heel on pedal when it's
at 6 o'clock and a /little/ bent at the knee is still a good place to
start irrespective of whether it's a folder or not. A folder doesn't
make it more desirable to have a low saddle, and the most upright bikes
there are (Dutch style roadsters and Pedersens) have saddle more or less
the same height as the bars.

Too low a saddle will make for very inefficient pedalling, which will be
part of the reason you keep getting left behind!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>
>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>
>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>
>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
> weight weenie...
>
> My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
> and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
> don't want super acceleration.
>
> My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
> 20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.
>
> Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
> Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
> back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
> and acceleration.

An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could easily
produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds anything to the
experience.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
> anything to the experience.

It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
>> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
>> anything to the experience.
>
> It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
> bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
> so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
> better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
> how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
> a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at all.
Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong steel MTB
frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs without a great
deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a mountain bike's not got
hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no reason why a town bike should
be that sort of weight, particularly at that price.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
> that price.

You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
"but".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Jim Ley]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:29:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>Doki wrote:
>
>> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
>> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
>> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
>> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
>> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
>> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
>> that price.
>
>You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
>use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
>have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
>if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
>"but".

When I've watched commuting cyclists in holland of any distance - and
the ones I know who do it have pretty much all been on lightweight
racing machines - the Dutch bikes are used almost universally around
town, for short journeys at low speeds often carrying a lot of weight.
They maybe commuters, but they're only going 2 or 3 miles, not the 10
or more that is common in London.

Jim.

[Roger Merriman]

> wrote:

> On 23 Apr, 19:23, "Doki" > wrote:
> > Don Whybrow wrote:
> > > Doki wrote:
> > >> Don Whybrow wrote:
> > >>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > >>>> Doki wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
> > >>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
> > >>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
> >
> > >>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
> > >>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
> > >>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
> > >>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
> > >>>> it's a rather different case.
> >
> > >>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
> >
> > >>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
> >
> > >> Almost 20 kilos!
> >
> > > You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> > > up the thread a bit.
> >
> > Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> > Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike
>
> Comfortable commuting? Strip down a tourer- designed for long stints
> in the saddle, tough, plenty of gears etc.
> I wouldn't want to be riding a 20Kg + roadster away from traffic
> lights every two minutes, let alone into a headwind!
>
> If you want fast- get fixed and get fit!
>
> Cheers,
> W.

it doesn't make that much differnce away from the lights, even fully
loaded to 60lb or there abouts big green can pull across the lights
before the racers and cars have got them selfs in gear. yes you do feel
the gradients but on the other hand, your not trying to go fast your
trying to get from A to B big paniers to carry stuff what ever that
might be, big tires to absorbe lumps and bumbs, and armored against
puntures. yes with a more upright postion wind is horrible but again the
bike is less twichy.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
>> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
>> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
>> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
>> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
>> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
>> that price.
>
> You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
> use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
> have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
> if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
> "but".

Perhaps they're of the same school of thought as my mate who built a jump
bike using the heaviest components available, on the basis that they won't
break.

On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty much
universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about driving. I
see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a missed
opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you have
something heavy and leaden.

[Peter Clinch]

Jim Ley wrote:

> When I've watched commuting cyclists in holland of any distance - and
> the ones I know who do it have pretty much all been on lightweight
> racing machines - the Dutch bikes are used almost universally around
> town, for short journeys at low speeds often carrying a lot of weight.
> They maybe commuters, but they're only going 2 or 3 miles, not the 10
> or more that is common in London.

For some values of "common", methinks, but not others...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
> people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty
> much universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about
> driving.

So you say, but that strikes me as sweeping conjecture rather than a
real truism about the quality of Vauxhall cars.

> I see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a
> missed opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you
> have something heavy and leaden.

Where you have something to fix or fettle very often, they have
something they hardly ever to have to do anything with: who's having the
fun then?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, they're probably like most people. There are a lot of
>> people who are happy driving things like Vauxhalls, which are pretty
>> much universally despised by anyone who's vaguely enthusiastic about
>> driving.
>
> So you say, but that strikes me as sweeping conjecture rather than a
> real truism about the quality of Vauxhall cars.

I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big RWD
execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of Vauxhalls sold
are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says so. People do tend
to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas of life.

>> I see cars like that and bikes that are needlessly heavy as a
>> missed opportunity. Where you could have something fun and joyous you
>> have something heavy and leaden.
>
> Where you have something to fix or fettle very often, they have
> something they hardly ever to have to do anything with: who's having the
> fun then?

There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that never
broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike. You could
build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub dynamos,
gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's not got the
comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a comfy shape has
to be heavy.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big
> RWD execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of
> Vauxhalls sold are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says
> so. People do tend to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas
> of life.

Well, I don't read many car reviews, so I just dropped in to Honest
John's and looked at the Vauxhall that might interest me, an Astra
estate. And it has 4 stars (out of 5), which isn't a good start for
your thesis. Of course, if you're into boring estate cars like I am and
not hot performance sports equipment we might be looking for different
things, as with bikes. Another couple, just for a bigger sample...
current Corsa gets 3 stars, Zafira gets 4 stars, so you seem to be
overtstaing the horror

> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> comfy shape has to be heavy.

So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".

I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Don Whybrow]

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>>
>>> Almost 20 kilos!
>>
>> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
>> up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

I happen to have a Ridgeback in the shed, a Nemesis, with some
modifications like pannier rack, mudguards and dynamo. This brings it
closer to the spec of the bikes above. What it doesn't have is a
chain-guard or skirt-guard. I have just been out with the bathroom
scales and without these additions it comes in at just under 18kg. Also
comparable to the bikes above.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"My God! The thought of that evil man, loose in London--with
money, from God only knows what source--fomenting riot and
rebellion during a public emergency--and in control of an Engine-
driven press! It's nightmarish!" (Gibson-Sterling, "The
Difference Engine")

[Squashme]

On 24 Apr, 20:18, Don Whybrow > wrote:
> Doki wrote:
> > Don Whybrow wrote:
> >> Doki wrote:
> >>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>
> >>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> >>>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> >>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> >> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> >> up the thread a bit.
>
> > Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> >Ridgebackor Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.
>
> I happen to have aRidgebackin the shed, a Nemesis, with some
> modifications like pannier rack, mudguards and dynamo. This brings it
> closer to the spec of the bikes above. What it doesn't have is a
> chain-guard or skirt-guard. I have just been out with the bathroom
> scales and without these additions it comes in at just under 18kg. Also
> comparable to the bikes above.
>

When my old Holdsworth finally collapsed last October, I found that
things had moved on in the last 25 years. I bought a Ridgeback
Velocity, and added a rack and bags. I'm happy with it, although, for
me, it's awfully modern. It would probably fit your budget if you
checked around (seen at £249 and less, I believe).

Similar to mine:-
http://www.elmycycles.co.uk/pics/velocity.jpg

[Jim Price[_2_]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
> > said in
> >:
>
>> What do you think it the best bike for the city? More specifically,
>> London. I'm thinking in the region of £300 (online price, rather than
>> high street)
>
> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets :-)

I was going to suggest a folder if any public transport options might
need to be used, and the Brommie is a very good one, but getting one in
the region of £300 is not going to be easy for a new one.

--
JimP
Disclaimer - I have one too, so I'm biased.

[Doki]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> I like a good sweeping conjecture, but it is mainly true barring the big
>> RWD execumobiles, and the rebadged Holdens - the vast majority of
>> Vauxhalls sold are horrible, and pretty much every review of them says
>> so. People do tend to buy stuff that isn't great in droves in all areas
>> of life.
>
> Well, I don't read many car reviews, so I just dropped in to Honest
> John's and looked at the Vauxhall that might interest me, an Astra
> estate. And it has 4 stars (out of 5), which isn't a good start for
> your thesis. Of course, if you're into boring estate cars like I am and
> not hot performance sports equipment we might be looking for different
> things, as with bikes. Another couple, just for a bigger sample...
> current Corsa gets 3 stars, Zafira gets 4 stars, so you seem to be
> overtstaing the horror

I now suggest that all car reviewers are on crack. Top Gear gave the Meriva
3 stars for christ's sake. It's the most terrifying car I've ever driven,
mainly because you can barely see out of it and you get more steering feel
from a computer game.

OTOH I've just been out buying a boring estate car - it's a boring turbo
diesel but the designers didn't completely forget that someone might
actually want to have a smile on their face whilst they drive it.

>> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
>> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
>> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
>> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
>> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
>> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
>> comfy shape has to be heavy.
>
> So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
>
> I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> all of us want it, or would benefit from it.

I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets :-)

Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Frozen gorillas can be used to control the temperature of a warm
and stuffy room.

[Peter Clinch]

Doki wrote:

> OTOH I've just been out buying a boring estate car - it's a boring turbo
> diesel but the designers didn't completely forget that someone might
> actually want to have a smile on their face whilst they drive it.

We got one yesterday, as it happens (a Fabia), but there's things to put
smiles on our faces that don't involve speed. If I'm driving for 4
hours then adjustable seat and steering wheel height actually make more
of a smile difference to me than what's under the bonnet, as long as it
isn't chronically under-powered. The air conditioning will be nice if
we're stuck in a queue on a hot summer day, the cruise control for
motorway stints down to England, and so on. The Stig might prefer
something else, but then we're different people with different
perspectives on cars.

> I'm not exactly a sporting person.

You're cycling choices suggest differently. You at least have a
personal liking for sportive equipment (and there's nothing wrong with
that). You have an MTB (a sports bike) and a racer (another sports
bike). You worry about angles on the frames, and so on.

> I just don't see why a utility bike
> shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm
> not suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything
> like that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town
> than my racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600
> odd quid for what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

Because it will last (quite possibly for another 50 years) with minimal
maintenance fuss while being very comfortable to ride as long as you're
not in a hurry and carrying large amounts of stuff without the carriers
wobbling around or breaking.

If you look at contemporary Dutch roadster design you'll see they take
advantage of lightweight materials, but rather than make the bike
significantly lighter they add more stuff. The Batavus reviewed in the
latest Velovision being an excellent case in point.
Lightness is a real virtue if you're carrying it up stairs (lots of
people live up stairs in towns, so fair dos) or want rapid acceleration
(those in a hurry, especially couriers, so again fair dos), but if not
then it's just a way to spend extra money on something that doesn't help
and makes the bike more desirable for thieves. Light is generally a
good thing, but there's other stuff you can have instead which may be
worth more to a lot of people. Which is why I ride a 20 Kg tourer
(comfort and robustness) and a 20 kg freighter (loading potential).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[bornfree]

On 24 Apr, 08:38, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> > position.
>
> Hmmmm, seehttp://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/pix/saddleheight.jpg
>
> That's a folder and I'm in an upright position (my head is a bit forward
> as it was just the state of balance leaning on the wall while the shot
> was taken, look at the body rather than head and neck)
>
> > A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> > Mark pointed out.
>
> But the shot of your bike, unless you have /very/ short legs, suggests
> the saddle is a bit low.

Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
leap off one side every time I stop.

I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
won't be the same here.

But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Dave Larrington wrote:
>Just zis Guy, you know? > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>> The Brompton. There is no finer machine on the mean streets :-)
>
>Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)

A Brompton? Is that one of those things that fold and unfold?

[Peter Clinch]

bornfree wrote:

> Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
> leap off one side every time I stop.

It's not in any way unusual for a correct saddle height to require
coming off the saddle (forwards is as good as to the side, often better)
when stopping a bike unless the bottom bracket is relatively low,
whether on a folder or a "normal" bike.

> I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
> 16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
> wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
> won't be the same here.

The wheel size isn't really anything to do with it: it's quite typical
for the bars and the seat to be more or less the same height,
irrespective of wheel size. A low seat height well below the bars,
unless the bars are particularly high (they usually aren't on folders as
it makes the fold more problematical) or there is a laid-back "chopper"
style riding position, usually means excessively bent knees and low
pedalling efficiency.

The thing to look at in the picture of the Brom isn't the wheel size
relative to anything, but the absolute saddle height compared to the
ground. I'm only 5'8" with a 31" inside leg but I have the standard
seatpost as high as it will go.

> But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.

What matters here is it might make /you/ happy, by way of faster and
much more comfortable over any sort of distance.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[bornfree]

On 25 Apr, 11:22, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> > Umm, no it is at the correct height. If it was higher I would have to
> > leap off one side every time I stop.
>
> It's not in any way unusual for a correct saddle height to require
> coming off the saddle (forwards is as good as to the side, often better)
> when stopping a bike unless the bottom bracket is relatively low,
> whether on a folder or a "normal" bike.
>
> > I think you are confusing my Rayleigh bike with a Brompton, which has
> > 16" wheels. A Rayleigh Boardwalk Lite has 20" wheels. It has a bigger
> > wheel size to frame size ratio, so what "looks right" to a Brompton
> > won't be the same here.
>
> The wheel size isn't really anything to do with it: it's quite typical
> for the bars and the seat to be more or less the same height,
> irrespective of wheel size. A low seat height well below the bars,
> unless the bars are particularly high (they usually aren't on folders as
> it makes the fold more problematical) or there is a laid-back "chopper"
> style riding position, usually means excessively bent knees and low
> pedalling efficiency.
>
> The thing to look at in the picture of the Brom isn't the wheel size
> relative to anything, but the absolute saddle height compared to the
> ground. I'm only 5'8" with a 31" inside leg but I have the standard
> seatpost as high as it will go.
>
> > But I'll try it higher if it makes you happy.
>
> What matters here is it might make /you/ happy, by way of faster and
> much more comfortable over any sort of distance.
>
> Pete.
..

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:32:27 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
> said in
>:

>Have you got a Brompton, Guy? And if so, why didn't you tell us? ;-)

I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Roger Merriman]

Doki > wrote:

> "Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Doki wrote:
> >
snip cars
>
> >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> >> comfy shape has to be heavy.
> >
> > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
> >
> > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.
>
> I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
> racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.

um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.

Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[bornfree]

On 26 Apr, 15:56, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Doki > wrote:
> > "Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Doki wrote:
>
> snip cars
>
> > >> There is that aspect to it, it's often said that the car people end up
> > >> liking the most isn't the fastest or the comfiest one but the one that
> > >> never broke down. 20KG still seems grossly overbuilt for a town bike.
> > >> You could build say, a singlespeed steel mountain bike frame up with hub
> > >> dynamos, gears and brakes and have something much lighter. Granted, it's
> > >> not got the comfort angles, but AFAIK there's no reason that a bike in a
> > >> comfy shape has to be heavy.
>
> > > So you build one up with all of that, and that makes life easier than
> > > getting something off the peg that happens to the job required and can
> > > be left outside the pub on a Friday evening and still be there when you
> > > come out? There is a lot more to a utility bike than maximum
> > > performance in the saddle. You're still looking at with a sports hat
> > > on. If you're not in a hurry (for example, don't want to having a
> > > shower when you arrive) and/or aren't doing much in the way of hills
> > > then it's really not the problem you're assuming. My previous 'bent was
> > > a light sports one, and yes, it was much more enjoyable in a hunt down
> > > things and scream past them manner, but the current one is more
> > > enjoyable in a cruise along regally and just feel happy manner. I'm not
> > > racing, I don't like to be in a hurry the whole time, I am not bothered
> > > by the image of what I ride. I appreciate this doesn't apply to all
> > > people, but there are good reasons to ride heavy bikes that apply to
> > > some people that go beyond "hadn't heard of light ones".
>
> > > I don't doubt you prefer sports equipment,a dn you're not alone, but not
> > > all of us want it, or would benefit from it.
>
> > I'm not exactly a sporting person. I just don't see why a utility bike
> > shouldn't be cleverly designed to be nice and light if it can be. I'm not
> > suggesting they have race bike angles, fancy paint jobs or anything like
> > that - hell, my relatively slack angled MTB is more fun around town than my
> > racer by a long way. I just don't see how they can justify £600 odd quid for
> > what is effectively a bike that follows a 50 year old design.
>
> um the whole point is that is a 50 year old design.
>
> Even the slackest mtb is not going to be as sit up and beg, and is quite
> likely to weight close to the same by time, hubgears, brooks saddle,
> chainguard, skirt guard on the rear wheel, basket etc, where added.
>
> roger
> --www.rogermerriman.com