Considering a Road bike for commuting... good idea?

[Mike Beauchamp]

Hey all,
I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it mainy
for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
weekends, stuff like that).

I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids riding
on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.

I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and get
me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.

Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?

I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but I'm
wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
riding I want to do.

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

[Preston Crawford]

I ride a road bike for commuting everyday and no, it isn't that harsh. At
least in my opinion. I think the reason you don't see them as often is
because of that misconception.

Preston

[Steve McDonald]

I used road bikes with 1-inch or 1 1/8-inch high-pressure tires on
all sorts of city streets and country roads for many years and thought
nothing about discomfort or relative safety. But, several years ago, I
got a very good, unsuspended mountain bike. I put on gears that give me
101 inches of travel in high. It has light but sturdy alloy rims and
hubs and I've put Tioga City-Slicker smooth treads on it. I pump them
to 65-70 lbs. (high-pressure for 1.95 tires) and get a great ride.
I use a HyperPlush spring-loaded seat and the chronic saddle-sores from
road-biking have disappeared. It's like sailing on a cloud, compared to
riding a typical road bike. I will now use a narrow-tired road bike
only on smooth, newer roads and bikepaths and never after dark, if I can
help it. The wide tires give so much more safety in adverse conditions,
last longer and resist punctures and sidewall breakdowns better. I can
make this rig go pretty fast, for a mountain bike. If anyone passes me
on a road bike, they have to work hard for it.

Borrow a road bike and navigate your commuting route a few times
and you'll have your answer about
how much difference it makes to you.

Steve McDonald

[Preston Crawford]

"Gazoo" > wrote in message
. ca...
> or a cyclocross bike?

Not a bad idea. I started without much funds so I bought an entry level road
bike. Then I had it fit and they had to add a funky high stem to adjust the
angle. Then I decided I wanted to add "suicide levers". Then I added a rack.
Before you know it I had more or less some weird hybrid of a cyclecross and
touring bike. I love it, though. It's right where I want to be so I won't
change it. But yeah, first time around if you have the money this would be a
good way to go. Thing with entry level road bikes is you can get one for
$599 or less and then work with it.

Preston

[Preston Crawford]

"Slider2699" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Preston Crawford" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > I ride a road bike for commuting everyday and no, it isn't that harsh.
At
> > least in my opinion. I think the reason you don't see them as often is
> > because of that misconception.
> >
> > Preston
>
> Of course the stock answer here is to buy a touring bike. That being said,
I
> also commute on a road bike(Schwinn Peloton) and it's not harsh at all.

Yeah, touring bike isn't a bad idea. Like I said in my other post, I went
the route I did because it was cheaper entry level. I ended up with
essentially the same thing, but it took longer to get there. Some tinkering
and experimenting. I love my bike, though.

Preston

[Rick Onanian]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:12 -0400, Mike Beauchamp
> wrote:
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
> than a mountain bike.

Absolutely.

> I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids on the side of the
> road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike the seat all the way
> down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.

I don't know how they do it, with their knees coming up above
their chest...how do they develop any power that way? And usually
pushing a heavy $65 Wal-mart FS "downhill" bike, at that.

Funny note: I've acquired one such bike, and it says "DH" and
"Downhill" and "Off-road" and such all over it; and buried in
a little nook you can barely see, a label that says that it is
NOT to be used for any off-road riding or conditions. It's got
fat very knobby low pressure tires, excessively plush front and
rear suspension...

> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
> me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

It depends on the terrain, yourself, and the traffic. In urban
traffic, with level land, you probably can get there just as
fast as you would powered by gasoline.

> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh with
> the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in road
> going to be as bad as I think they are?

Possibly. However, I've found that my bike takes the edge off
the bumps pretty well; this may be because of the long carbon
fiber seatpost and the carbon fiber fork legs. At least, that
is the conventional thought on carbon stuff. I've recently
acquired an old steel Peugeot, and haven't ridden it much, but
have been impressed by it's ride too.

> Is that why I don't see too
> many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?

No, that's because:
-- They're expensive
-- Most people don't realise that there's bikes beyond Wal-mart
-- The ones who do, can't see spending $500 (let alone $1000)
on a bike
-- Road bikes, to such people, don't look manly enough, so guys
are afraid to ride them; and women don't seem to ride as
much, nor do they care as much what they ride. Disclaimer:
That was an observation I've made locally. It may differ
in other areas. It is not a judgement of the female gender.

> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
> wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?

No. You will be faster; you will be more comfortable for the
road [after proper fit and break-in and so on]; and you will
feel better after a pavement ride. You will also get in better
shape -- a nice road bike makes you want to go faster and uses
your muscles more efficiently.

Mountain bikers have said to me about road biking: "It's like
steroids for your mountain biking." I would add that they're
complimentary; while road biking builds your pedalling ability,
mountain biking enhances your bike-handling skill -- while you
will never jump your road bike over a big log, in an emergency
you might have to get up a curb, or for that matter...a big log
that you suddenly realise is in front of you.

> Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> riding I want to do.

That is a very fun setup...and common in this newsfroup.

> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com
--
Rick Onanian

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:12 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
> may have said:

>I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
>a mountain bike.

Road bikes, largely due to their narrow tires, tend to inherently be
more efficient. If the posture doesn't bother you, and your roads are
in reasonably good shape, a road bike is probably a good replacement
for the mtb.

>I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and get
>me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
>definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
>them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

Your results may vary; I find that I can, indeed, go faster on my road
bike than on my various mtbs, but I would not want to try to keep up
with the impatient homicidal maniacs who infest our streets at rush
hour.

>In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
>the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.

So you've already narrowed the gap in performance, probably by quite a
bit.

>Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
>with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
>road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
>many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?

If the experience of others is a predictor, then the perception of the
harshness is probably worse than the reality. Some of the mtb
favoritism is actually pragmatic, in my opinion, but a lot of it is
baseless. I see a combination of the underinformed thinking the fat
tires are just better, the one-bike folks who want to be able to ride
in the dirt some of the time, a few who prefer the tolerance for bumps
and resistance to curb-hopping punctures that the fatter tires can
afford, and perhaps most prevalent, the people who buy the mtb either
because it looks like the best value or it looks neat. The only way
to be sure if a road bike's going to suit you, in my opinion, is to
try one and see. Do you know someone whose road bike you could borrow
for a day or two?

>I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but I'm
>wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
>Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
>mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
>riding I want to do.

If the rides on the road bikes don't prove too harsh for you, I'd say
that having both types would not be a bad thing.

By the way, in a very unscientific sampling at Rice University here in
Houston several months back, I counted 22 mtbs (a few with slicks) and
only 7 road bikes locked up at a popular location on campus. This is
at a school where there isn't a dirt trail suitable for the real use
of an mtb within 15 miles. Up at Texas A&M, where bicycles are
perhaps more common than Democrats, I didn't try to count them, but
the ratio looked like it was on the order of the same magnitude and
distribution...and with just as little apparent reason. I rather
suspect that the fact that inexpensive mtbs are more widely available
than road bikes is the primary driving force behind those results. I
will note that the mtbs tended to be cheap more so than high-end, but
the road bikes included a fair number of good units.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 00:50:27 GMT, Werehatrack >
wrote:
> suspect that the fact that inexpensive mtbs are more widely available
> than road bikes is the primary driving force behind those results. I
> will note that the mtbs tended to be cheap more so than high-end, but
> the road bikes included a fair number of good units.

Additionally, even when you go to an LBS, you can get a
rather nice MTB for $500, but you can only get a really
cheap, bottom-of-the-barrel road bike for that.

Why are road bikes so much more expensive? More precision
machining and workmanship, and exotic materials required?

> --
> My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
> Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
> it's also possible that I'm busy.
--
Rick Onanian

[Donald Gillies]

"Mike Beauchamp" > writes:

>Hey all,
>I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
>my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike.

Do it. The faster the bicycle, the more uses for the bicycle.

>Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
>with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc.

Untrue. Get a spongey reynolds 531 frame or equivalent (maybe a
used bike), and it will be softer to ride than a mountain bike with
slicks. Or maybe an Alan or Vitus not-oversized aluminum frame.

>Are small bumps in the road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is
>that why I don't see too many people riding around the streets on nice
>road bikes?

What do you care what other people think ?? Sometimes when you follow
the herd you find out too late that its a hurd of lemmings.

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

[Preston Crawford]

"Eric Murray" > wrote in message
...
> I find a real road bike both faster and more comfortable than
> a MTB on the road. The drop bars allow more hand positions.

That's the big selling point to me. Especially now that I have my "suicide
levers" I can ride on top like a moutain bike, ride in the drops or ride on
the hoods.

Preston

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 01:10:22 GMT, Pete > wrote:
> "Rick Onanian" > wrote
>> Why are road bikes so much more expensive? More precision
>> machining and workmanship, and exotic materials required?
>
> Image.

Why do those of us who don't care and just want an
efficient bike for pavement have to pay for that?

I guess we pay for worse things...

> Pete
--
Rick Onanian

[Mike Beauchamp]

Thats a good point, I'll definately look into it..

What is sort of getting to me with my sort of converted mountain bike is
that the position is pretty high up, and wind REALLY gets to me. Also the
straight bar (even with bar ends) don't have a lot of hand positions. From
what I know about road bikes is that you can hold onto the tops, the hoods
(is that what they are called) and lower on that curved surface. That seems
like a lot of comfortable positions for distance riding.

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Preston Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> "Gazoo" > wrote in message
> . ca...
> > or a cyclocross bike?
>
> Not a bad idea. I started without much funds so I bought an entry level
road
> bike. Then I had it fit and they had to add a funky high stem to adjust
the
> angle. Then I decided I wanted to add "suicide levers". Then I added a
rack.
> Before you know it I had more or less some weird hybrid of a cyclecross
and
> touring bike. I love it, though. It's right where I want to be so I won't
> change it. But yeah, first time around if you have the money this would be
a
> good way to go. Thing with entry level road bikes is you can get one for
> $599 or less and then work with it.
>
> Preston
>
>

[Mike Beauchamp]

Speaking of saddles, I'm using a Selle Italia Flight titanium (I forget the
exact spelling or model) But it's quite a narrow road seat.. it made sense
when I bought it because I was doing so much offroad racing that I was
barely in the saddle anyways. I'll consider getting something new, it should
help the bum. My friend and I are planning a 120KM ride soon..

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Steve McDonald" > wrote in message
...
>
> I used road bikes with 1-inch or 1 1/8-inch high-pressure tires on
> all sorts of city streets and country roads for many years and thought
> nothing about discomfort or relative safety. But, several years ago, I
> got a very good, unsuspended mountain bike. I put on gears that give me
> 101 inches of travel in high. It has light but sturdy alloy rims and
> hubs and I've put Tioga City-Slicker smooth treads on it. I pump them
> to 65-70 lbs. (high-pressure for 1.95 tires) and get a great ride.
> I use a HyperPlush spring-loaded seat and the chronic saddle-sores from
> road-biking have disappeared. It's like sailing on a cloud, compared to
> riding a typical road bike. I will now use a narrow-tired road bike
> only on smooth, newer roads and bikepaths and never after dark, if I can
> help it. The wide tires give so much more safety in adverse conditions,
> last longer and resist punctures and sidewall breakdowns better. I can
> make this rig go pretty fast, for a mountain bike. If anyone passes me
> on a road bike, they have to work hard for it.
>
> Borrow a road bike and navigate your commuting route a few times
> and you'll have your answer about
> how much difference it makes to you.
>
> Steve McDonald
>

[Mike Beauchamp]

That's exactly what I mean. A few extra KM/h feels more safe to me, and I
usually try to go as fast as possible in traffic because I prefer the cars
to go past me slowly.. I don't think I could keep up with traffic
(50-60KM/h) for more than a few seconds in the shape I'm in, unless it's
downhill or something :)

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> ...
>
> > I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> > a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
riding
> > on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike
with
> > the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
> >
> > I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
get
> > me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> > definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> > them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> Depends on how strong a rider you are, but you usually won't be keeping
> up with the cars unless traffic's pretty slow. It's nice to have them
> slowly catch and then pass you, rather than just blowing by you, though
> <GGG>.
>
> > Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
ride,
> > with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in
the
> > road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
>
> Not in my experience. If you don't like it, you can put just slightly
> larger, lower-pressure tires and soften that up a lot.
>
> ....
>
> --
> Dave Kerber
> Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!
>
> REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Mike Beauchamp]

Thanks for the help... I think definately trying one out is in order!

Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Eric Murray" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mike Beauchamp > wrote:
> >I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> >a mountain bike.
>
> If you want to do only road riding, then yes.
>
> I find a real road bike both faster and more comfortable than
> a MTB on the road. The drop bars allow more hand positions.
>
> >I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
get
> >me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> >definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> >them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> It's not like you're going to be keeping up with motorcycles
> or anything, but it will be a bit faster.
>
> >Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
ride,
> >with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in
the
> >road going to be as bad as I think they are?
>
> It's hard to read your mind from here so I don't know
> exactly how hard you think its going to ride, but my
> guess is it wont be as bad as you think.
>
> Especially if you get a commuteable touring bike instead of
> a full-on racing bike. Touring or "sport" touring bikes have
> longer chainstays that leave room for
> fenders, slightly relaxed geometry, and larger tires. All of
> which will make the ride a little smoother and won't
> slow you appreciably from the full race bike.
>
> >I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
I'm
> >wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
> >Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> >mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> >riding I want to do.
>
> An excellent reason.
>
> A 'sport' touring bike would be ideal for commuting.
> Fenders are a must unless it never rains where you live.
>
> Eric
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.misc Mike Beauchamp > wrote:
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).

Consider a touring bike like the Bianchi Volpe. It has cantilever brakes
which leaves plenty of room for fenders if you intend intend on riding
in the rain. If your going to carry books, it will have the proper fittings
for a rear rack. 700x28 tires are a good choice comfort wise and still
have a low rolling resistance. Beware. Some road bikes don't have enough
clearance to mount a 700x28 tire. A touring bike has enough clearance to
mount cyclocross style knobby tires if you wish.

A triple chainring is STRONGLY reccomended for those of us with bad knees.
The gearing of a double chainring equipped bike is quite high compared to
a typical mountain bike.

---
Eric

[Mike Beauchamp]

Hey thanks a lot Rick.. very convincing!!


Mike
http://mikebeauchamp.com

"Rick Onanian" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:12 -0400, Mike Beauchamp
> > wrote:
> > I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
> > than a mountain bike.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids on the side of the
> > road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike the seat all the way
> > down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
>
> I don't know how they do it, with their knees coming up above
> their chest...how do they develop any power that way? And usually
> pushing a heavy $65 Wal-mart FS "downhill" bike, at that.
>
> Funny note: I've acquired one such bike, and it says "DH" and
> "Downhill" and "Off-road" and such all over it; and buried in
> a little nook you can barely see, a label that says that it is
> NOT to be used for any off-road riding or conditions. It's got
> fat very knobby low pressure tires, excessively plush front and
> rear suspension...
>
> > I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
> > me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> > definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> > them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> It depends on the terrain, yourself, and the traffic. In urban
> traffic, with level land, you probably can get there just as
> fast as you would powered by gasoline.
>
> > Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
with
> > the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in road
> > going to be as bad as I think they are?
>
> Possibly. However, I've found that my bike takes the edge off
> the bumps pretty well; this may be because of the long carbon
> fiber seatpost and the carbon fiber fork legs. At least, that
> is the conventional thought on carbon stuff. I've recently
> acquired an old steel Peugeot, and haven't ridden it much, but
> have been impressed by it's ride too.
>
> > Is that why I don't see too
> > many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
> No, that's because:
> -- They're expensive
> -- Most people don't realise that there's bikes beyond Wal-mart
> -- The ones who do, can't see spending $500 (let alone $1000)
> on a bike
> -- Road bikes, to such people, don't look manly enough, so guys
> are afraid to ride them; and women don't seem to ride as
> much, nor do they care as much what they ride. Disclaimer:
> That was an observation I've made locally. It may differ
> in other areas. It is not a judgement of the female gender.
>
> > I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
> > wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain
bike?
>
> No. You will be faster; you will be more comfortable for the
> road [after proper fit and break-in and so on]; and you will
> feel better after a pavement ride. You will also get in better
> shape -- a nice road bike makes you want to go faster and uses
> your muscles more efficiently.
>
> Mountain bikers have said to me about road biking: "It's like
> steroids for your mountain biking." I would add that they're
> complimentary; while road biking builds your pedalling ability,
> mountain biking enhances your bike-handling skill -- while you
> will never jump your road bike over a big log, in an emergency
> you might have to get up a curb, or for that matter...a big log
> that you suddenly realise is in front of you.
>
> > Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> > mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> > riding I want to do.
>
> That is a very fun setup...and common in this newsfroup.
>
> > Mike
> > http://mikebeauchamp.com
> --
> Rick Onanian

[Ed]

In article >, "Mike says...

>Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

No. I have done the experiment. On a paved bike trail with several required
stops for street crossings, a fair simulation of commuting, my average speed
measured by computer was:

road bike 14.1 mph, mountain bike 14.3 mph.

The road bike was however felt faster and was more fun to ride because of the
more lively steering.

Notes:

Both rides were in ideal weather, cool, no wind, approximately 16 miles.
The mountain bike had no suspension.
The mountain bike had 1.5 slicks the road bike 25mm tires.
The mountain bike ride was slightly later in the season so I might have been in
slightly better condition.
The mountain bike was steel, the road bike aluminum, considerable lighter.
The trail was flat so gearing made no difference.
Most importantly the mountain bike had a Jan Ullrich model racing saddle while
the road bike had a heavy leather Brooks-like saddle (actually Belt.)

[Buck]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it
mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
riding
> on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
> the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.

As has been stated before, much of this choice has to do with the roads you
are riding. While most of the roads I ride are smooth, the rough sections
are rough enough and long enough to warrant something with a bit more
cushion than my road bike offers. I personally wouldn't ride anything
without fenders for my commute. Even though it doesn't rain every day, there
are plenty of puddles from poorly aimed lawn sprinklers every morning.

I used a full-suspension mountain bike with slicks for years on my commute.
Suspension movement due to pedalling is good sign that your suspension is
set too soft and your pedalling technique needs a lot of work. I would still
be riding that setup if my commute wasn't now a combination of driving and
riding. The beater bike is less likely to be stolen out of my truck if I
have to make a stop or two on the way home.

Many folks around here split the difference and either equip a mountain bike
for road duty or get a hybrid. I find that typical commuting obstacles
(curbs and potholes) are easier to deal with if you have a flat bar. The
more upright position also helps with traffic awareness. If I were in the
market for a new bike (instead of more diapers for the new baby), I would
seriously consider the Specialized Sirrus or Cannondale's Bad Boy or Road
Warrior. Flat bars, 700c wheels, room for fenders... these are great
commuting machines. I built one similar to these out of an old Schwinn but
found that the toe overlap was a bit too much. Once I find a new frame and
some time to fix it up, I'll be rebuilding it.

Good luck in your search.

-Buck

[Robin Hubert]

My favorite commuting bike is my favorite road bike (Waterford RS-22). My
second favorite commuting bike is my second favorite road bike (Cannondale
T1000) Depending on the situation, I prefer one or the other.

--
Robin Hubert >


"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it
mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
riding
> on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
> the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
>
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
get
> me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
> the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
>
> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
> with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in
the
> road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
> many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
I'm
> wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
> Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> riding I want to do.
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com
>
>
>

[Robin Hubert]

"David Kerber" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>
> ...
>
> > I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> > a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
riding
> > on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike
with
> > the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
> >
> > I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
get
> > me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> > definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> > them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> Depends on how strong a rider you are, but you usually won't be keeping
> up with the cars unless traffic's pretty slow. It's nice to have them
> slowly catch and then pass you, rather than just blowing by you, though
> <GGG>.

Yes. On a good day, on my 15 mile commute, perhaps 6 or so cars will pass
me. That's in the Chicago suburbs, at about 11:00am or 8:00 pm.



--
Robin Hubert >

[Hunrobe]

>

wrote:

>In article >, "Mike says...
>
>>Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
>No. I have done the experiment. On a paved bike trail with several
>required
>stops for street crossings, a fair simulation of commuting, my average speed
>measured by computer was:
>
>road bike 14.1 mph, mountain bike 14.3 mph.
>
>The road bike was however felt faster and was more fun to ride because of the
>more lively steering.
>
>Notes:
>
>Both rides were in ideal weather, cool, no wind, approximately 16 miles.
>The mountain bike had no suspension.
>The mountain bike had 1.5 slicks the road bike 25mm tires.
>The mountain bike ride was slightly later in the season so I might have been
>in
>slightly better condition.
>The mountain bike was steel, the road bike aluminum, considerable lighter.
>The trail was flat so gearing made no difference.
>Most importantly the mountain bike had a Jan Ullrich model racing saddle
>while
>the road bike had a heavy leather Brooks-like saddle (actually Belt.)

I'd check your computers' calibrations if I were you since your experiment's
results are diametrically opposed to everyone else's experience.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Bill Davidson]

Mike Beauchamp wrote:
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and get
> me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

Probably not. It will be faster than the MTB but unless you are a very
strong rider or traffic is congested, you won't be as fast as cars--even
in 25mph zones.

> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
> with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
> road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
> many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?

It's not that bad. It's just that the general public likes MTB's and SUV's.
This is not for any particularly well thought out reason. They just do.
I've seen tons of people on MTB's that don't seem to ever go off road. It
seems silly to me. Come to think of it, the same could be said of SUV's.
I live in Southern California and most SUV's here have never seen a dirt
road much less mud or snow. A little rain for 5 minutes a year is about it.

> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but I'm
> wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
> Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> riding I want to do.

I'd recomend a touring bike. They tend to have wider tires which run lower
pressures and so have a less harsh ride (not to mention having better
traction in the rain). They also have eyelets for racks and fenders which
can be really nice for commuting. Racing bikes tend not to have those.

--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.

I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now

[trg]

I use my mtb (unsprung, aluminum) to commute in the winter (rain here rather
than snow) and my touring bike(steel) to commute when it's dry. The mtb has
650x1.7 slicks and the tourer has 700x32. On the same route, I find the
tourer to be smoother (especially over cobblestones).

While I like the tourer, especially for extended touring, just for commuting
and training/fitness riding, I'd get a road bike (and in fact am buying
one). For that type of riding I don't need to be able to carry 40 pounds of
gear on the bike. Aggressive riding and responsiveness is more important
than cargo capacity.

Depends on the type of riding you do.

I do go faster on the tourer than the mtb according to the computer.


"Mike Beauchamp" > a écrit dans le message
news: ...
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it
mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
than
> a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
riding
> on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
> the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
>
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
get
> me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
> the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
>
> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
> with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in
the
> road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
> many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
I'm
> wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
> Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> riding I want to do.
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com
>
>

[Peter Cole]

"Werehatrack" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:12 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
> > may have said:
>
> >I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
> >a mountain bike.
>
> Road bikes, largely due to their narrow tires, tend to inherently be
> more efficient. If the posture doesn't bother you, and your roads are
> in reasonably good shape, a road bike is probably a good replacement
> for the mtb.

At typical speeds, the efficiency of a road bike comes from aerodynamics. You
can get a similar position on any MTB, but the flat bar means you'll have to
stay in it. Road bikes are significantly lighter, which helps a little in
hilly country. The real problem with MTBs is that they're geared all wrong for
road riding.

[mark freedman]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...


> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace


> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
As I pointed out in Email, theft is an issue when a bike is
locked up for extended lengths of time. By all means, buy a
road bike or touring bike for your recreational rides, but use
a clunker for the 10Km ride to and from school. Anything valuable
will tempt thieves.

Unless you live in an unspoiled Eden.

hth

[ant]

"Gazoo" > wrote in message >...

> or a cyclocross bike?

yes!

my commutermobile of choice: surly crosscheck, with 28c tires, and a
front cross lever. burly, fast, comfortable, etc.

'course, these run somewhere around 8-900 US last time i looked, so
thats more than what you were looking to spend, maybe.

[ant]

(mark freedman) wrote in message

> theft is an issue when a bike is
> locked up for extended lengths of time. By all means, buy a
> road bike or touring bike for your recreational rides, but use
> a clunker for the 10Km ride to and from school. Anything valuable
> will tempt thieves.

a good point, but remember that your 'clunker' only has to *look* like
a clunker. if you have a friendly LBS, or spend a little time on
rbmarket, or have a stock of parts, you can put together a beater, or
fix up a yardsale special into a completely solid bike. just not so
much a looker, and probably nothing youd want to run up and down
stairs with.

i have a couple really sweet looking bikes. i never lock them up
anywhere ever. i also have a couple bikes assembled from odds and
ends, that look like complete trash. but they're not. besides weighing
a tad more because the components are not high end, i think id be hard
pressed to rationally say the well-maintained beaters would get me
anywhere any slower than the prissy racy bikes.

one beater in particular withstood four years of hard daily bicycling,
as well as being locked outside day and night in new haven, ct, which
has about as high a rate of bicycle theft as any city, it would seem.
great bike to ride, though.

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article >, says...
> In article >, "Mike says...
>
> >Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> No. I have done the experiment. On a paved bike trail with several required
> stops for street crossings, a fair simulation of commuting, my average speed
> measured by computer was:
>
> road bike 14.1 mph, mountain bike 14.3 mph.
>
snipped

I, too, have done the experiment, and came to the opposite conclusion,
with the roadbike being 3 to 4 kph faster over almost any city route not
requiring curb jumping.

Rick

[Timothy J. Lee]

In article >,
Mike Beauchamp > wrote:
>Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
>with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
>road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
>many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?

A road bike should be good for on-road commuting. If you are concerned
about ride comfort, consider a road bike that can have wider (smooth)
tires installed, such as a touring variety (which also has mountings
and clearance for racks and fenders).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

[Boyd Speerschneider]

(RDSMIT) wrote in
:

> A ROAD BIKE WILL BE FASTER, BUT IF YOUR RIDING ON SIDEWALKS YOU WILL
> FELL THE BUMPS.ROAD BIKES ALSO DON'T HANDLE MUD AND GRAVEL VERY WELL.
> YOU CAN TRY A CROSS BIKE. THEY HAVE ROAD COMPONENTS AND MOUNTAIN BIKE
> PARTS. THEY HAVE 700 WHEELS AND WIDER 28-30 TIRES GIVING YOU A SOFTER
> RIDE WHILE LETTING YOU BENEFIT FROM THE FASTER RIDE.CANNONDALE HAS THE
> BAD BOY AND SPECIALIZED HAS THE SEQUIOA, CHECK IT OUT. I RIDE A AIRBORNE
> TITANIUM CARPE DIUM WITH BOTH ULTEGRA COMPONENTS ( ROAD) AND XTR
> COMPONENTS ( MOUNTAIN BIKE) IT HAS A STRAIGHT HANDLEBAR AND ROAD WHEELS.
>

Yo!!!
AOL boy!!!
No need to shout!!!
There's this little button on your keyboard called the "Caps Lock".
Hit it once.

[Joe Potter]

Mike Beauchamp wrote:

> Well, there's no use me spending all my money on a new road bike if I'm
> going to be so paranoid as to leave it home all the time when I have to go
> somewhere...
>

I got a nice Nishiki road bike (say 1980?) for $30 US. The poor old girl
could stand a paint job, but for now it rides very nice. It is a touring
bike with 15 gears; a lot of fun.

I got a 1990 Fuji for $41 US on ebay, but had to pay $30 for shipping. It is
a real hoot to ride. I had had trouble with the darn tires, but I have that
sorted out. It looks like a couple of years old --- not 13.

So, I am saying you need not just ride a beater in town. Get an older bike
that you really like. SURE, someday it will be stolen, but they all are if
you live in the USA.



--
Regards, Joe

[Boyd Speerschneider]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in
:

> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to
> replace my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to
> use it mainy for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past
> few years I've used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back,
> 30-40K rides on weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
> than a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those
> kids riding on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill
> mountain bike with the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on
> each pedal stroke.
>
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
> get me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure,
> it's definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of
> having them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All
> in the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
>
> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
> ride, with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small
> bumps in the road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I
> don't see too many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
> I'm wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain
> bike? Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can
> convert my mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for
> whatever type of riding I want to do.
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com
>
>

One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road handlebars
are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a car
while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.

- Boyd S.

[Benjamin Lewis]

Mike Beauchamp wrote:

> Hey all, I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total)
> to replace my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used
> to use it mainy for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the
> past few years I've used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and
> back, 30-40K rides on weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
> than a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
> riding on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain
> bike with the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal
> stroke.
>
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
> get me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?

Probably not; I find the difference in speed between my touring bike and my
"beater bike", a MTB with slick tires, to be fairly small, especially in
the city. There is a difference though, especially at higher speeds or in
headwinds.

> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
> ride, with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small
> bumps in the road going to be as bad as I think they are?

I've never found it to be an issue on paved roads, except for some "chip
and seal" country roads.

> Is that why I don't see too many people riding around the streets on nice
> road bikes?

That's more to do with marketing and consumer misconceptions, in my
opinion.

> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
> I'm wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain
> bike? Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can
> convert my mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for
> whatever type of riding I want to do.

If you're like me, you'll find that road bikes are much more enjoyable on
roads than MTBs, especially if you start going longer distances, where the
added hand positions of the drop bars can make a big difference to comfort.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

[Benjamin Lewis]

mark freedman wrote:

> "Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
> >...
>
>
>> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to
>> replace
>
>
>> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
>> weekends, stuff like that).
>>
> As I pointed out in Email, theft is an issue when a bike is
> locked up for extended lengths of time. By all means, buy a
> road bike or touring bike for your recreational rides, but use
> a clunker for the 10Km ride to and from school. Anything valuable
> will tempt thieves.
>
> Unless you live in an unspoiled Eden.

.. . . or unless you have the luxury of being able to take it inside with
you.

You can get used clunker road bikes as well, of course, which may be even
less of a target to thieves than mountain bikes.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Seeing is deceiving. It's eating that's believing.
-- James Thurber

[Hunrobe]

>Boyd Speerschneider

wrote:

>One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road handlebars
>are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
>Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a car
>while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.
>
>- Boyd S.

The difference in handlebar width makes you "*way* less likely" to be clipped?
No offense meant, but exactly how wide are your flat bars? Your shoulders are
the same width no matter what kind of bike you ride. I think you're picking
non-existent nits.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Hunrobe) writes:

> The difference in handlebar width makes you "*way* less likely" to be clipped?
> No offense meant, but exactly how wide are your flat bars? Your shoulders are
> the same width no matter what kind of bike you ride. I think you're picking
> non-existent nits.

A tape measure stretched from tip to tip on the riser bar on my
MTB reads 27 inches. It's pretty wide. It's great for steering
a straight line while spinning up steep slopes in bull low.

And I think it gets drivers to give me a *wider* berth than
I might otherwise get. The handlebar sort of automatically
takes the lane for me. I even have a mirror on it, extending
to the left. The handlebar also compels me to ride even further
out from the door zone than I would with something narrower.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Sherman]

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> At typical speeds, the efficiency of a road bike comes from aerodynamics. You
> can get a similar position on any MTB, but the flat bar means you'll have to
> stay in it. Road bikes are significantly lighter, which helps a little in
> hilly country. The real problem with MTBs is that they're geared all wrong for
> road riding.

Most road bikes are geared too high for their riders. If the
professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from
lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[ant]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...
> Well, there's no use me spending all my money on a new road bike if I'm
> going to be so paranoid as to leave it home all the time when I have to go
> somewhere...
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com

then it sounds like building yourself a good bike that doesn't *look*
good should work out. plus, since youll expect to pay far less, you
can feel good about upgrading a few bits and pieces. just nothing
shiny ;)

a beater doesnt have to feel like a beater. in fact, 'beater' is a
misleading term. ill call my beaters 'city bikes' from now on. great
bikes. they just dont look too tempting, and you can lock them to a
streetsign without fretting about he paint job.

dont keep cruising on your mtb if you feel the need for speed. buy
yourslef an old used bike your size, replace the tires, put some nice
brakepads on, all set! insta-citybike.

[Lewdvig]

My suggestion would be to find a nice old steel bike with 130mm rear spacing
and get some 8 or 9 spd STI/Ergo going.

It can be cheaper than you think. Try eBay or your LBS.

"Lewdvig" > wrote in message
. ..
> Its faster and the roads are smoother than they look - at least they are
> here in Calgary.
>
> "Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hey all,
> > I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to
replace
> > my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it
> mainy
> > for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years
I've
> > used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> > weekends, stuff like that).
> >
> > I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate
> than
> > a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids
> riding
> > on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike
with
> > the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
> >
> > I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and
> get
> > me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> > definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> > them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
> >
> > In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All
in
> > the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
> >
> > Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh
ride,
> > with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in
> the
> > road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
> > many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
> >
> > I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but
> I'm
> > wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain
bike?
> > Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> > mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> > riding I want to do.
> >
> > Mike
> > http://mikebeauchamp.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(ant) writes:

> a beater doesnt have to feel like a beater. in fact, 'beater' is a
> misleading term.

I hear ya.

A neglected bike is a beater at the moment we acquire it, but
once it's been fixed up, I don't see the point in insulting
one's own handiwork by continuing to call it a 'beater'.

> ill call my beaters 'city bikes' from now on.

I like that. 'Runabout' might be nice, too. Right now
my current main bike is an AFW (anti Fabrizio weapon).
It's armed with a milk crate, horn, handlebar mirror --
the whole fredly gamut.

If I didn't have so much work to do these days, I'd go
park it out in front of the local VD clinic (if it's
still around), just to further erode the "image" of
cyclists that Fabrizio is so desparately trying to
establish. Ain't I a stinker? :-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:13:11 GMT, "Peter Cole"
> may have said:

>
>"Werehatrack" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:12 -0400, "Mike Beauchamp"
>> > may have said:
>>
>> >I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
>> >a mountain bike.
>>
>> Road bikes, largely due to their narrow tires, tend to inherently be
>> more efficient. If the posture doesn't bother you, and your roads are
>> in reasonably good shape, a road bike is probably a good replacement
>> for the mtb.
>
>At typical speeds, the efficiency of a road bike comes from aerodynamics. You
>can get a similar position on any MTB, but the flat bar means you'll have to
>stay in it. Road bikes are significantly lighter, which helps a little in
>hilly country. The real problem with MTBs is that they're geared all wrong for
>road riding.

Rider positioning is, however, more a function of the rider, and not
solely due to the bike improving things. It's possible for an mtb
rider to get tucked in well, but most don't. Similarly, some road
bike riders only fall into the drops infrequently, in which case the
aerodynamic advantage vanishes and it's just weight and rolling
resistance left. If all that's being considered is the bike, the
aerodynamics are less of a consideration than the other two. I will
support the idea that the road bike *encourages* an aerodynamic
position, but it can't *guarantee* one.


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > writes:

> I am considering building a bike like this one and putting "Fabrizio
> Mazzoleni" on the side with electrical tape lettering. ;)
> <
> http://www.outsideconnection.com/photocat/pix/JoeK/fs/jk20010303-0922-08.jpg

Oooh, that would just about kill him.

How's about doing the lettering in eye-catching
blinking LEDs? :-)

If that rig has windshield wipers, it would be
just the thing for riding in the rain.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Tom Sherman wrote in message >...
>
> they could no longer say, "I climbed such and
such with a 39/22 gear".
>
Tom, you only need 39x21 on a road bike,
there are only eight climbs in North America
that require a 23 cog.

Show up for a group ride with a 23 cog and
guys like me will notice!

Anyway, no one ever climbs with a even number
cog. You must use a 19 or 21.

In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Sherman > wrote:

> Most road bikes are geared too high for their riders. If the
> professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
> use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
> will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from
> lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
> say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".

I can't really agree with this. My top gear is a 52/12 and I use it every
day when I ride to and fro work. Every day. I don't quite hit my bottom
gear every day (but close) with a 30/24. If I remember correctly Tom, you
live in a fairly flat section of the country, so I could see you not
needing/wanting as much of a top gear.

However in riding around Bellevue/Seattle I break 40 mph every day on my
way to and from work. Sure, I could coast down those hills a little slower
instead of pumping, but why?

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Sixth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment and I can't say anything.

Tom Sherman > wrote:

> I am considering building a bike like this one and putting "Fabrizio
> Mazzoleni" on the side with electrical tape lettering. ;)

I wonder if someone in rec.bikes would have the facilities to run off some
vinyl bike stickers. I would take great amusement in putting that on the
side of my shopping / cyclocross bike.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the Sixth Amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the Second Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the First Amendment and I can't say anything.

[Luigi de Guzman]

(Tom Keats) wrote in message >...
>
> And I think it gets drivers to give me a *wider* berth than
> I might otherwise get.

Respectfully, the key word here is *think*.

Many drivers have a very poor idea of the dimensions of their own car.
To suggest that the difference of a few inches between flat bars and
drops is enough to convince them to take a wider line vastly
overestimates the judgement of the motorist at speed....

-Luigi

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:34:14 -0500, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
> Most road bikes are geared too high for their riders. If the

This can certainly be changed. That's what I did. Also, a
road bike with a triple doesn't even need any changes for
most riders on most terrain.

> professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
> use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
> will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from

Didn't you read the 12-25 vs. 12-27 thread? :)

> lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
> say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".

Just like a stem with a rise is not macho. I don't care, I've
got one. Any elitist 140 pound cyclist in a tight fitting jersey
wants to fight a 210 pound roofer, is welcome to come and see my
stem and cassette.

Their SPD-R cleats won't damage my head as much as my SPD cleats
will destroy theirs, too.

> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 22:24:51 -0700, Tom Keats > wrote:
> If that rig has windshield wipers, it would be
> just the thing for riding in the rain.

Add heat and studded tires for winter riding, and A/C
for summer. Wow, this is great!

> cheers,
> Tom
--
Rick Onanian

[James Cassatt]

I have used a road bike for comuting the past 10 years. I have gone
from a Fuji to a 'dale R500 to my new TREK 5200. There are
limitations. First, I only commute 2 or 3 times a week and not in the
rain if I can avoid it. Second my round trip commite is 38 miles, so
I decent bike is prefered. Third, I carry in my clothes on the days I
do not commute and carry work on a memory stick, so I don't have to
haul extra stuff. Fourth, I have a secrue sheltered place to lock my
bike. Finally I would note that although most of my route is on
paved trails or city streets, there are places where the ride is a bit
rough. The change from the harsh 'dale to the more comfortable carbon
fiber TREK was welcome in this regard.

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
> a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids riding
> on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
> the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
>
> I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and get
> me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
> definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
> them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
> In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
> the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
>
> Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
> with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
> road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
> many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
> I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but I'm
> wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
> Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
> mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
> riding I want to do.
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com

[Corvus Corvax]

(ant) wrote
>
> my commutermobile of choice: surly crosscheck, with 28c tires, and a
> front cross lever. burly, fast, comfortable, etc.

Right on, brother. Count me as another delighted Crosscheck owner.
I've got mine set up as a fixed-gear (74 gear inches) with
inverted-tread tires (rated as 38c, actually measure as 34c). Rides
like a freight train, and goes anywhere, including dirt, with no
worries. To my mind, it is the perfect commuter bike: fast,
comfortable, nearly indestructible, and extremely low-maintenance.

Way fun to ride, too.

CC

[Mike Latondresse]

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in
. ca:

> Tom, you only need 39x21 on a road bike,
> there are only eight climbs in North America
> that require a 23 cog.
>

Name them.

[Wayne Pein]

>
>
> One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road handlebars
> are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
> Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a car
> while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.
>
> - Boyd S.

I ride both and I find this statement to not be true at all. If motor vehicles
are close enough that a few extra inches of handlebar width is the difference
between getting hit or not, then you must be either Superman or a nut case or
both. I've certainly been passed very closely and very fast but never that
close. And over the years I've come to realize that how I position myself
laterally has a lot to do with how motorists pass me. If you teeter on the
edge using as little lane as possible, you are inviting motorists to pass, and
sometimes they do it unsafely. Counterintuitively, if you move further out
into the lane than at first feels comfortable, overtaking motorists are
induced into being more cautious when passing. They tend to slow down and move
over. Your lateral position is critical in how you expect motorists to
overtake.

Wayne

[Paul Bielec]

I own a small size SUV and a MTB. The SUV allows me to transport up to 3
bikes inside without the need of rack.
I never felt comfortable on a road bike. Even when I ride on a bike path, I
prefer a MTB because I prefer its riding position.
Since keeping in good shape is one of the reasons I bike, I get more
exercise with the same distance on a MTB too.
It's nice too not to get a flat tire every week.
On the ohter hand, I love cross-country trails where a light MTB with front
suspension is a must. So there you go, a MTB is a "on model fits all" for
me.

[Boyd Speerschneider]

(Hunrobe) wrote in
:

>>Boyd Speerschneider
>
> wrote:
>
>>One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road
>>handlebars are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
>>Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a
>>car while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.
>>
>>- Boyd S.
>
> The difference in handlebar width makes you "*way* less likely" to be
> clipped? No offense meant, but exactly how wide are your flat bars? Your
> shoulders are the same width no matter what kind of bike you ride. I
> think you're picking non-existent nits.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt

My handlebars aren't flat (except across the tops).
I use drop handlebars like most road cyclists.
They measure 40cm across the top, which is less than 16".
Another poster in this tread mentioned that his MTB handlebars are 27".
27" is considerably wider than my shoulders; it might not be for you.
So that's like adding another 5" of unnecessary "please clip me" length to each side of the bar.
No thanks.

I have been passed within 2 inches of my current handlebars, so I don't care whether or not any of you have.
The driver might have known where his SUV stops and I start.
But I'm not willing to bet my life on it.

So I stand by my original statement.
If you don't like it ... blow me.

- Boyd S.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
(Luigi de Guzman) writes:
> (Tom Keats) wrote in message >...
>>
>> And I think it gets drivers to give me a *wider* berth than
>> I might otherwise get.
>
> Respectfully, the key word here is *think*.
>
> Many drivers have a very poor idea of the dimensions of their own car.

I've witnessed much evidence of that lately. Y'know how sometimes
trends among drivers become apparent? For example, one might notice
an increase in drivers parking/pulling out of the wrong side of the
street for awhile. The trend I've noticed lately is folks trying
to parallel park and getting their cars stuck sideways in the street
so they can't advance or reverse. And then getting flustered as
traffic builds up on either side of them. Maybe it has to do with
kids learning to drive while they're on summer vacation.

> To suggest that the difference of a few inches between flat bars and
> drops is enough to convince them to take a wider line vastly
> overestimates the judgement of the motorist at speed....

Perhaps. But /this/ handle bar is 3/4 of a yard wide; more, with
the mirror attached. That's considerably more than a few inches.
The drop bar on my road bike is 14 1/2 inches at its widest, and
that's with plush foam tape on it. The flattish handlebar on my
mixte is 21 1/2 inches wide. I'm quite sure that I do get more
leeway with the wider bars. Maybe it's because, as I previously
mentioned, the wider bars induce me to ride more into the lane and
away from the door zone. To a large extent, motorists around here
seem to be quite trepadatious. I often have to encourage them to
pass me. I do get buzzed by yahoos every now & then, but I doubt
handlebars have anything to do with that.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Wayne Pein > writes:

> Counterintuitively, if you move further out
> into the lane than at first feels comfortable, overtaking motorists are
> induced into being more cautious when passing. They tend to slow down
> and move over.

I guess when drivers /have/ to move over somewhat, they
figure "in for a dime, in for a dollar", and are the more
willing to move over even more. OTOH, if they see an
opening right in front of them, they might be more likely
to try to just squeeze through it.

> Your lateral position is critical in how you expect motorists to
> overtake.

That has been my experience, too. If mere width was much of
a concern, all kinds of trikes, pedicabs, bike trailers,
cargo-carrying "work bikes" and other stuff would be getting
clipped all over the map.

As you say, riding further (deeper?) into the lane makes a huge
positive difference, as compared to the closer passes one
experiences while cringing in the gutter.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:50:13 -0400, "Paul Bielec" > may have
said:

>I never felt comfortable on a road bike. Even when I ride on a bike path, I
>prefer a MTB because I prefer its riding position.

That seems to be a factor for a lot of people, probably a majority of
the general public if the grousing I used to hear about road bikes in
the '70s was any indicator. People used to bitch and moan about how
they couldn't get a "real" bike anymore, just "those ones with those
stupid upside-down handlebars that force you to ride standing on your
head". I was riding a road bike at that point, but there was no hope
of convincing a lot of folks to try one. I suspect the general
public's attitude toward road bikes is probably not much different
today.

>Since keeping in good shape is one of the reasons I bike, I get more
>exercise with the same distance on a MTB too.

Yup. Efficiency and speed are secondary to convenience and enjoyment
for lots of folks, and there is *nothing* wrong with that if you're
not trying to win races.

>It's nice too not to get a flat tire every week.

Now, *that* sounds familiar!

>On the ohter hand, I love cross-country trails where a light MTB with front
>suspension is a must. So there you go, a MTB is a "on model fits all" for
>me.

You're certainly not alone in that category. (But there are also a
lot of folks on knobby-tire mtbs whose better choice would be a
smooth-tire hybrid; on the other hand, the mtb probably cost them a
lot less than they would have spent for the other bike, and if they
like it, I fail to see where it's a bad choice.)

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[jacques]

I tend to agree with Buck. To ride in town I prefer a hybrid or whatever
it is called with 700x35 tires and a straight bar. When I go downtown with my
road bike I don't feel too comfortable in the traffic. If you have to ride
any distance on unpaved roads don't get a road bike. I also favor my
hybrid because it has lights (half of the year I commute by night),
fenders (it may rain), and rack (I do sweat much more if I carry my bag on
my back). Overall it certainly costs weight, but I feel it is worth it.
And you will still have a better efficiency than with a mountain bike.
Can't give you a recommendation for a model as I don't know what is on the
US market...

Jacques

[Paul Bielec]

My wife has a hybrid as she does only very light off-roading (dirt paths).
The hybrid suits her riding style perfectly.
As for me, my Giant has an aluminium frame so it is light, 24 speeds,
adjustable front fork, and I inflate my tires to full pressure when on
pavement. So I still cruise at 15 mph on a bike path.

"Rick Onanian" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:01:32 GMT, Werehatrack >
> wrote:
> > You're certainly not alone in that category. (But there are also a
> > lot of folks on knobby-tire mtbs whose better choice would be a
> > smooth-tire hybrid; on the other hand, the mtb probably cost them a
> > lot less than they would have spent for the other bike, and if they
> > like it, I fail to see where it's a bad choice.)
>
> Those people would probably still be better off with the minor
> expense of smooth tires; then again, the gnarly-looking knobbies
> found on very inexpensive MTBs tend to be much more smooth and
> pavement-efficient than they look at first. That is, often enough,
> the only effective difference between a MTB and a specific hybrid.
>
> --
> Rick Onanian

[Benjamin Lewis]

Paul Bielec wrote:

> I own a small size SUV and a MTB. The SUV allows me to transport up to 3
> bikes inside without the need of rack. I never felt comfortable on a
> road bike. Even when I ride on a bike path, I prefer a MTB because I
> prefer its riding position. Since keeping in good shape is one of the
> reasons I bike, I get more exercise with the same distance on a MTB too.
> It's nice too not to get a flat tire every week.

It's been over 3000 miles since my last flat tire on my road bike.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is superior, but they
are held by most to be the lunatic fringe of Foil Deflector Beanie science.

[Suzy Jackson]

"jacques" > wrote in message
...
> I tend to agree with Buck. To ride in town I prefer a hybrid or whatever
> it is called with 700x35 tires and a straight bar. When I go downtown with
my
> road bike I don't feel too comfortable in the traffic. If you have to ride
> any distance on unpaved roads don't get a road bike. I also favor my
> hybrid because it has lights (half of the year I commute by night),
> fenders (it may rain), and rack (I do sweat much more if I carry my bag on
> my back). Overall it certainly costs weight, but I feel it is worth it.
> And you will still have a better efficiency than with a mountain bike.

I take the opposing position. When I started my degree in Sydney, I bought
myself a "sensible" hybrid bike, a GT Tachyon, to which I fitted mudguards
and a rear rack. I rode it for perhaps a fortnight, and hated every minute,
so on my next trip home brought my roadie back with me. Ever since then
I've commuted every day on my roadie; 700x23c tyres, 12-23 sprocket and all.

The reason I don't ride the hybrid is simply that it's no fun to ride. It's
dead boring and slow. When I ride I like to ride at a good pace, and I like
to be able to sprint when I like. Sure, I end up with a sweaty back from
carrying my clothes in my backpack, and with a muddy line up my bum when it
rains, but this is small penance to pay for an enjoyable, exhilirating ride
to and from work.

Since then I've changed bikes, as I've become involved in local club racing,
so now I commute on a gorgeous Colnago race bike, which I race most
weekends. My workmates think I'm nuts, and some of my clubmates as well,
but I'm in hog heaven. Who else gets to ride the bicycle equivalent of a
Ferrari to work each day?

Regards,

Suzy

[Luigi de Guzman]

(Tom Keats) wrote in message >...

> > Many drivers have a very poor idea of the dimensions of their own car.
>
> I've witnessed much evidence of that lately. Y'know how sometimes
> trends among drivers become apparent? For example, one might notice
> an increase in drivers parking/pulling out of the wrong side of the
> street for awhile. The trend I've noticed lately is folks trying
> to parallel park and getting their cars stuck sideways in the street
> so they can't advance or reverse. And then getting flustered as
> traffic builds up on either side of them. Maybe it has to do with
> kids learning to drive while they're on summer vacation.

I'll fess up right now, actually: I only got my driver's licence last
year (I was 21 at the time) and I very rarely drive *anywhere*, and
where I do it's a borrowed car. So I am a bit overcautious when it
comes to nudging things with the car...

[BTW, passengers have commented on how my cycling has influenced my
driving--my mother and dad are amazed with just how often I
shoulder-check. I think all kids should be required to do two years'
real vehicular cycling--no sidewalks!--before being issued a motor
vehicle licence. things like blind spots are more than academic to
cyclists, after all...]


> To a large extent, motorists around here
> seem to be quite trepadatious. I often have to encourage them to
> pass me. I do get buzzed by yahoos every now & then, but I doubt
> handlebars have anything to do with that.

You must be in the suburbs. Here in London, nobody needs any
encouragement to pass me.

They do, however, need space. And that, as a cyclist, is the one
thing I have plenty of that they can never have.

-uigi

>
>
> cheers,
> Tom

[Tom Sherman]

wrote:
>
> In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Sherman > wrote:
>
> > Most road bikes are geared too high for their riders. If the
> > professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
> > use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
> > will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from
> > lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
> > say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".
>
> I can't really agree with this. My top gear is a 52/12 and I use it every
> day when I ride to and fro work. Every day. I don't quite hit my bottom
> gear every day (but close) with a 30/24. If I remember correctly Tom, you
> live in a fairly flat section of the country, so I could see you not
> needing/wanting as much of a top gear.
>
> However in riding around Bellevue/Seattle I break 40 mph every day on my
> way to and from work. Sure, I could coast down those hills a little slower
> instead of pumping, but why?

I have the equivalent of a 50T large chainring on a road bike on my bike
[1] and I can pedal up to over 50 mph. I am also more aerodynamic than a
road bike (I easily out coast upright tandems).

As for where I live, the streets going up and down the bluffs to the
Mississippi and Rock River alluvial plains can have grades of up to 20%
or so.

[1] 44T large ring, 13T/20T step-up, 19.5 in. diameter drivewheel on my
bike, assuming the road bike has 23-622 tires.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote in message >...
> >
> > they could no longer say, "I climbed such and
> such with a 39/22 gear".
> >
> Tom, you only need 39x21 on a road bike,
> there are only eight climbs in North America
> that require a 23 cog.
>
> Show up for a group ride with a 23 cog and
> guys like me will notice!
>
> Anyway, no one ever climbs with a even number
> cog. You must use a 19 or 21.

I have a 22T granny ring and 24, 28 and 34T [1] cogs on my bike.

[1] Among others: cluster is an 11/12/14/16/18/21/24/28/34 XT.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> I've witnessed much evidence of that lately. Y'know how sometimes
> trends among drivers become apparent? For example, one might notice
> an increase in drivers parking/pulling out of the wrong side of the
> street for awhile. The trend I've noticed lately is folks trying
> to parallel park and getting their cars stuck sideways in the street
> so they can't advance or reverse. And then getting flustered as
> traffic builds up on either side of them. Maybe it has to do with
> kids learning to drive while they're on summer vacation....

If they can't get into a spot 12 inches (30.5 cm) longer than the
vehicle they are driving, they should not have a driver's license.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Tom Keats wrote:
> ...
> That has been my experience, too. If mere width was much of
> a concern, all kinds of trikes, pedicabs, bike trailers,
> cargo-carrying "work bikes" and other stuff would be getting
> clipped all over the map....

Motor vehicle operators give me a much wider berth when I am riding my
tadpole trike than a single-track bicycle. Many of them probably think I
am handicapped.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Zoot Katz]

6 Aug 2003 16:19:03 -0700,
>,
(Luigi de Guzman) wrote:

>I think all kids should be required to do two years'
>real vehicular cycling--no sidewalks!--before being issued a motor
>vehicle licence. things like blind spots are more than academic to
>cyclists, after all...]

That's a great idea though too sensible to ever become law. I'm afraid
it would discriminate against those who are physically incapable of
riding.

There was a time London taxi drivers spent a year learning the city on
a bicycle. Now, I hear, they get to do it on motor scooters.
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Tom Sherman > writes:
>
> If they can't get into a spot 12 inches (30.5 cm) longer than the
> vehicle they are driving, they should not have a driver's license.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of them didn't ;-)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Pete]

"Mike Latondresse" > wrote in message
...
> "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > wrote in
> . ca:
>
> > Tom, you only need 39x21 on a road bike,
> > there are only eight climbs in North America
> > that require a 23 cog.
> >
>
> Name them.

and video, please.

Pete

[Joel Lowrie]

I just did this last week, a car munched my old mountain bike (trek
830) and a very guilt ridden motorist bought me a new cannondale (R4).
I enjoy a 12 mile each way commute through downtown chicago every day,
and i have to say that the road bike actually has a smoother ride than
the mountain bike. That and the road bike cut nearly 10 min. off of my
commute. I would recommend either getting fitted at your LBS or
breaking out the measuring tape and go to this site
(http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html). I took a 20 min. test ride
before and after fitting. you would not believe how much more
comfortable a road bike is when it actually fits.

Mike Beauchamp wrote:

>Hey all,
>I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
>my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it mainy
>for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
>used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
>weekends, stuff like that).
>
>I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
>a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids riding
>on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
>the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.
>
>I want something that can use my energy as efficiently as possible, and get
>me going as fast as possible. Like many commuters here I'm sure, it's
>definately more fun going nearly the speed of the cars instead of having
>them wizz past you. Is a road bike as fast as I think it is?
>
>In the past few years, I've added slicks to my mountain bike, etc. All in
>the name of a smoother and more efficient ride on pavement.
>
>Here's my concern. Obviously a road bike is going to be a more harsh ride,
>with the small tires and the high air pressure, etc. Are small bumps in the
>road going to be as bad as I think they are? Is that why I don't see too
>many people riding around the streets on nice road bikes?
>
>I'm going to go try a few road bikes out tomorrow, mainly for fun.. but I'm
>wondering what people think in here. Should I stick with a mountain bike?
>Another reason for wanting to get a road bike is that I can convert my
>mountain bike back to offroad and have two bicycles for whatever type of
>riding I want to do.
>
>Mike
>http://mikebeauchamp.com
>
>
>
>

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Tom Sherman wrote in message >...
>I have a 22T granny ring and 24, 28 and 34T [1] cogs on my bike.

Tom did you read my post awhile back where I
stated the well known fact that roadies NEVER
climb with a even number cog!

Use a 19 or 21. And a 23 for climbing mount
Zoncolan and the Alto L'Angliru.

If you're stuck stateside then keep the 23 off, you
only need a 21. Guys will check your cogset out
before the ride starts, you don't want someone
like me finding a girly 23 on your bike.

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:39:05 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
may have said:

>It's been over 3000 miles since my last flat tire on my road bike.

Ride through downtown Houston once and say that.

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Eric S. Sande]

>Ride through downtown Houston once and say that.

Everybody knows you Texans aren't Catholic.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Tom Sherman]

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote in message >...
> >I have a 22T granny ring and 24, 28 and 34T [1] cogs on my bike.
>
> Tom did you read my post awhile back where I
> stated the well known fact that roadies NEVER
> climb with a even number cog!
>
> Use a 19 or 21. And a 23 for climbing mount
> Zoncolan and the Alto L'Angliru.
>
> If you're stuck stateside then keep the 23 off, you
> only need a 21. Guys will check your cogset out
> before the ride starts, you don't want someone
> like me finding a girly 23 on your bike.

Fabrizio,

Wouldn't an "elite roadie" such as yourself be rather embarrassed if you
were seen to be checking out my bike [1]?

You are also forgetting that I am not a roadie, but a degenerate
recumbent lowracer rider. ;)

[1] < http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Sorni]

"Tom Sherman" > wrote in message
...
> You are also forgetting that I am not a roadie, but a degenerate
> recumbent lowracer rider. ;)
>
> [1] < http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >

WARNING! DO NOT LOOK AT THIS!!!

Bill "conjuring visions of mad chiropractic torture devices" S.

[Luigi de Guzman]

Zoot Katz > wrote in message >...
> 6 Aug 2003 16:19:03 -0700,
> >,
> (Luigi de Guzman) wrote:
>
> >I think all kids should be required to do two years'
> >real vehicular cycling--no sidewalks!--before being issued a motor
> >vehicle licence. things like blind spots are more than academic to
> >cyclists, after all...]
>
> That's a great idea though too sensible to ever become law. I'm afraid
> it would discriminate against those who are physically incapable of
> riding.

well at minimum I'd prevent very young drivers from being able to
drive very high-powered cars. Have four classes, or so, based on
engine displacement. Have them wait two years before they can drive
the next-highest class--and when time comes around for the highest
class, administer a second, more comprehensive, knowledge and skills
examination.

I came late to driving and in my opinion it wasn't a bad thing. At
21, my capacity for doing *stupid* things with the car is a lot less
than it would have been at 16...especially since I know that doing
similarly stupid things on a bike would have gotten me killed.

>
> There was a time London taxi drivers spent a year learning the city on
> a bicycle. Now, I hear, they get to do it on motor scooters.

I think The Knowledge, the course for taxi drivers in London, runs two
to four years (cribbed from an online FAQ
<http://www.taxiknowledge.co.uk/faq.html#If>) I think they've moved
to motorcycles in order to put an instructor, riding pillion. I know,
they could have used tandems, but.

The black cabs in London have been extremely good to me, as a cyclist.
They pick up my signals, give me (just) enough room to move, and
don't run me down. in the City, it's the City gents with their
expensive cars and disdain for human life that vex me.

-Luigi

[David Damerell]

Werehatrack > wrote:
>In the early '70s, when road bikes were All the Rage, and the mtb
>wasn't even a gleam in a marketer's eye, cheap road-pattern bikes were
>plentiful...and just as crummy as the Mall-Wart mtbs that are being
>pumped out today.

I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[David Damerell]

Rick Onanian > wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:34:14 -0500, Tom Sherman >
>wrote:
>>professional racers who can have an average power output of 400 watts
>>use nothing higher than a 53/11 top gear, then riders of lesser ability
>>will have no practical use for such high gears. Many would benefit from
>Didn't you read the 12-25 vs. 12-27 thread? :)

I was just wondering if Mr. Sherman had opened that can of worms again.

>>lower climbing gears, but that would not be macho - they could no longer
>>say, "I climbed such and such with a 39/22 gear".
>Just like a stem with a rise is not macho. I don't care, I've
>got one.

Curiously luggage is not macho either - which is odd, because those of us
with luggage have to push it up the hills as well.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:15:28 -0500, Tom Sherman >
wrote:
>> to parallel park and getting their cars stuck sideways in the street
>
> If they can't get into a spot 12 inches (30.5 cm) longer than the
> vehicle they are driving, they should not have a driver's license.

I guess it depends what type of vehicle you're talking
about...it may be possible to do that in a small car,
but I've never driven anything less than 3500 pounds.

Now, maybe the new GM full size pickup with 4 wheel steering...

Anyway, it doesn't matter here -- I so rarely have to
parallel park, and when I do, it's easy, just like it
says in textbooks -- pull up until the rear bumper of
the vehicle you'll park behind is centered with yours;
cut the wheel and back up, cutting the other way when
you can clear it. Works every time.

> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
--
Rick Onanian

[Dan Musicant]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 16:23:13 GMT, Wayne Pein > wrote:

:>
:>
:> One thing I can't believe no one has mentioned yet is that road handlebars
:> are considerably safer than MTB handlebars.
:> Since they are narrower, you are *way* less likely to be clipped by a car
:> while riding on a road with little to no shoulder.
:>
:> - Boyd S.
:
:I ride both and I find this statement to not be true at all. If motor vehicles
:are close enough that a few extra inches of handlebar width is the difference
:between getting hit or not, then you must be either Superman or a nut case or
:both. I've certainly been passed very closely and very fast but never that
:close. And over the years I've come to realize that how I position myself
:laterally has a lot to do with how motorists pass me. If you teeter on the
:edge using as little lane as possible, you are inviting motorists to pass, and
:sometimes they do it unsafely. Counterintuitively, if you move further out
:into the lane than at first feels comfortable, overtaking motorists are
:induced into being more cautious when passing. They tend to slow down and move
:over. Your lateral position is critical in how you expect motorists to
:overtake.
:
:Wayne

Wayne, you are absolutely right and you make a great point and I've
maybe never seen it said before. You also explain it well enough and
EVERYBODY should read and reread what you say. I've been very well aware
of this stuff for a long time and that's why I don't get in bike
accidents. It's also important to resist the temptation to ride busy
streets. I used to do it and broke myself of this foul habit. Ride the
safest routes you can find. And ride them safely.

However, Wayne, you are wrong to think that a car can't wing you with
wide handlebars. I believe it happened to me once and I prefer my narrow
Maes bars for this reason. If your handlebars are 2.5 feet wide, you are
asking for trouble regardless of the way you ride. There's only so much
room in some circumstances.

That being said, read Wayne's admonitions. Give yourself those extra
inches just in case if you have to veer away from traffic, never ever
(if you can possibly help it) ride so close to a vehicle so that an
opening door can whack you, and jockey for position with traffic, be
conspicuous and get into the heads of the drivers so they give you some
room, like Wayne says.

Dan

[Dan Musicant]

On 07 Aug 2003 14:20:30 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:

:Werehatrack > wrote:
:>In the early '70s, when road bikes were All the Rage, and the mtb
:>wasn't even a gleam in a marketer's eye, cheap road-pattern bikes were
:>plentiful...and just as crummy as the Mall-Wart mtbs that are being
:>pumped out today.
:
:I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
:reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/

What are we talking about here? Nishiki's, Raleighs, Schwinns?

[Dan Musicant]

On 07 Aug 2003 14:27:42 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:

:jacques > wrote:
:>If you have to ride
:>any distance on unpaved roads don't get a road bike. I also favor my
:>hybrid because it has lights (half of the year I commute by night),
:>fenders (it may rain), and rack (I do sweat much more if I carry my bag on
:>my back).
:
:But these are not inherent properties of the design - my light touring
:bike has all of these things.

Definitely. My road bike has a large back basket and a removeable very
adequate rechargable light. I don't require fenders.

[Dan Musicant]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:12:24 GMT, Joel Lowrie >
wrote:

:I just did this last week, a car munched my old mountain bike (trek
:830) and a very guilt ridden motorist bought me a new cannondale (R4).
:I enjoy a 12 mile each way commute through downtown chicago every day,
:and i have to say that the road bike actually has a smoother ride than
:the mountain bike. That and the road bike cut nearly 10 min. off of my
:commute. I would recommend either getting fitted at your LBS or
:breaking out the measuring tape and go to this site
:(http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html). I took a 20 min. test ride
:before and after fitting. you would not believe how much more
:comfortable a road bike is when it actually fits.

This fitting is fine but I'm American and converting to Kg and cm I can
do, but European shoe size is beyond me. Is there a site that won't
require these conversions?

Dan

[Dan Musicant]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:37:29 -0500, Tom Sherman >
wrote:

:
:Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
:>
:> Tom Sherman wrote in message >...
:> >I have a 22T granny ring and 24, 28 and 34T [1] cogs on my bike.
:>
:> Tom did you read my post awhile back where I
:> stated the well known fact that roadies NEVER
:> climb with a even number cog!
:>
:> Use a 19 or 21. And a 23 for climbing mount
:> Zoncolan and the Alto L'Angliru.
:>
:> If you're stuck stateside then keep the 23 off, you
:> only need a 21. Guys will check your cogset out
:> before the ride starts, you don't want someone
:> like me finding a girly 23 on your bike.
:
:Fabrizio,
:
:Wouldn't an "elite roadie" such as yourself be rather embarrassed if you
:were seen to be checking out my bike [1]?
:
:You are also forgetting that I am not a roadie, but a degenerate
:recumbent lowracer rider. ;)
:
:[1] < http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >
:
:Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

At the risk of getting flamed I'd like to ask what's the appeal of
recumbents. I see them often in Berkeley, CA and I always think they
look silly. They look as though they are not very manueverable. I wonder
what I would do if I had to avoid trouble quickly. Also the extremely
low riding position appears to me to be extremely dangerous. You can't
see over many objects. Are all these people suffering from back
conditions?

Dan

[Joel Lowrie]

make a search for shoe size conversion. you'll get a table that will
list your size in american and european.

Dan Musicant wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 04:12:24 GMT, Joel Lowrie >
>wrote:
>
>:I just did this last week, a car munched my old mountain bike (trek
>:830) and a very guilt ridden motorist bought me a new cannondale (R4).
>:I enjoy a 12 mile each way commute through downtown chicago every day,
>:and i have to say that the road bike actually has a smoother ride than
>:the mountain bike. That and the road bike cut nearly 10 min. off of my
>:commute. I would recommend either getting fitted at your LBS or
>:breaking out the measuring tape and go to this site
>:(http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/ergobike.html). I took a 20 min. test ride
>:before and after fitting. you would not believe how much more
>:comfortable a road bike is when it actually fits.
>
>This fitting is fine but I'm American and converting to Kg and cm I can
>do, but European shoe size is beyond me. Is there a site that won't
>require these conversions?
>
>Dan
>
>
>

[David Damerell]

Dan Musicant > wrote:
> wrote:
>>I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
>>reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/
>What are we talking about here? Nishiki's, Raleighs, Schwinns?

In Britain I remember Raleigh and Peugeot as the most prolific
manufacturers, although given my age I saw only the end of the ten-speed
boom.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:25:39 GMT,
>, Dan Musicant
> wrote:

>What's an "MTB?" Multi-terrain bicycle?

"Mountain Bike", as in, Mt.B.
--
zk

[Rick Onanian]

On 7 Aug 2003 03:48:33 -0700, Luigi de Guzman > wrote:
> well at minimum I'd prevent very young drivers from being able to
> drive very high-powered cars. Have four classes, or so, based on
> engine displacement. Have them wait two years before they can drive
> the next-highest class--and when time comes around for the highest
> class, administer a second, more comprehensive, knowledge and skills
> examination.

This is not good. For one thing, displacement is not a good
predictor or measure of anything at all, except maybe fuel usage.

If you're trying to limit their speed, then power-to-weight ratio
might be more useful. Even then, they'll upgrade their cars; and
the ones who don't have their own will drive their parents car,
even if it's overpowered. You can't fault them for driving their
parent's car, even if it's otherwise more powerful than you think
they should be allowed.

> I came late to driving and in my opinion it wasn't a bad thing. At
> 21, my capacity for doing *stupid* things with the car is a lot less
> than it would have been at 16...especially since I know that doing
> similarly stupid things on a bike would have gotten me killed.

At 17, I learned to drive on:
--A 10,000 pound dumptruck
--A 7,500 pound van
--A 4,000 pound old Caddillac.

Driving large, underpowered, ill-handling vehicles taught me
how to be very careful and how to control a vehicle well, as
well as interacting with and predicting behaviour of traffic.

There's something to be said for that, then, as well as the
"give them a little bit at a time" approach.

What's _really_ going to work, however, is not controlling
what vehicles can be driven at what age. Instead, proper
education and practice could make all the difference. I
don't know about how it is elsewhere, but here in the US,
specifically in Rhode Island, here's how we do it:

- Take a "Driver's education" course. Learn the rules.
- Take a written test, get a "learning permit" allowing
you to drive with a licensed driver as a passenger
- Keep the permit for X number of weeks or months, I don't
remember how long. You're supposed to get X amount of
hours of driving experience.
- Take a _useless_ road test. They have you drive slowly
around the block and down the street a bit, and
all. It doesn't prove anything, and safe drivers can
fail it from inconsequential mistakes (example: I was
nervous and driving a car I wasn't used to, and ran
over a curb on a tight corner. I barely passed
because of that).

At no point are they concerned with safe or courteous
driving, nor the ability to drive on the many different
types of roads you will encounter, in many different
types of conditions.

I can't imagine a single test that would certify all of
those abilities, but some system could probably be made
to work. Either way, it's not realistic to expect any
good standards, so to hell with it...I'll just expect
every single driver to be a bad driver who's additionally
had a few drinks.

> -Luigi
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On 07 Aug 2003 14:20:30 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at
> least
> reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/

My girlfriend has a Schwinn Caliente from the end
of that period, maybe 1992 or so. It's quite a nice
ride, actually, even with only a double crank and
5 speeds, and friction shifters mounted to the stem,
and a pink, ladies frame.

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:40:53 -0500, wrote:
> If you have a long beard, a beer belly and love to wear sandals, a 'bent
> is like the second coming.

Kevan, this is the first thing you've ever said that's
actually convinced me of something. While I'm usually
clean shaven [except for some bushy sideburns], I have
the belly and love to wear sandals.

Maybe I should seriously consider a 'bent.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> mouse cuts a dog hence
> 12:40:40 PM 7 August 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Benjamin Lewis]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:39:05 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
> from Simon Fraser University wrote:
>
>> It's been over 3000 miles since my last flat tire on my road bike.
>
> Wow, did you ever just jinx yourself.

That's okay, jinxes only work if you believe in them.

Anyway, after a year of no flat repair I'm getting out of practice.

--
Benjamin Lewis

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking
about.
-- John von Neumann

[Zoot Katz]

Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:54:30 +0100,
>, David Bertenshaw
> wrote:

>On 07 Aug 2003 17:07:06 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>Dan Musicant > wrote:
> wrote:
>>>>I don't think that's quite true - the mass market ten-speeds were at least
>>>>reasonably good at going from one place to another quite quickly. :-/
>>>What are we talking about here? Nishiki's, Raleighs, Schwinns?
>>
>>In Britain I remember Raleigh and Peugeot as the most prolific
>>manufacturers, although given my age I saw only the end of the ten-speed
>>boom.
>
>Ah memories - first 'proper' bike was a Peugeot 10 speed (from the YHA
>shop in Manchester) in '78. Then a Raleigh Record Ace (not the early
>one but the updated model they released later) in '80.
>
>10 gears was quite posh, back then...
>
>David
>
I remember in 1970-71, Raleigh, Dawes and Falcon being the premier
British bikes. Mercier, Gitane, Motobecane and Peugeot as the leading
French brands with Atala and Torpado representing Italy. Schwinn made
only one bike worthy of consideration, the Paramount. There were odd
batches of other lesser known brands of mass produced bikes being
imported. Basically anything with skinny tires and drop bars would
sell out as soon as it arrived. There were few, if any, Japanese bikes
imported and they were scoffed at even though Sun Tour was making the
most advanced derailleurs.
--
zk

[Pete]

"Dan Musicant" > wrote
>
> At the risk of getting flamed I'd like to ask what's the appeal of
> recumbents. I see them often in Berkeley, CA and I always think they
> look silly. They look as though they are not very manueverable. I wonder
> what I would do if I had to avoid trouble quickly. Also the extremely
> low riding position appears to me to be extremely dangerous. You can't
> see over many objects. Are all these people suffering from back
> conditions?
>

Fun, can be fast, appeal to your inner geek, and for some riders, can be
more comfortable.
It does take some getting used to. Slightly different muscle group,
different balance and reflexes.

Recumbents encompass many different designs. Some more agile than others.
Some more aerodynamic than others.

The apparent lowness is not really as low as you think. On many bents, the
riders head is the same height as a sports car driver. And because you are
sitting head up rather than head down, often you have better visibility than
on a regular DF bike.

They are merely different style bikes. Nothing magical or evil about them.
Unless of course you are a failed, hasbeen boy racer, like our boy Flabby.

Pete
vive l' differance

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:47:51 GMT, Dan Musicant
>
> from SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com wrote:
>
> >At the risk of getting flamed I'd like to ask what's the appeal of
> >recumbents. I see them often in Berkeley, CA and I always think they
> >look silly.
>
> If you have a long beard, a beer belly and love to wear sandals, a 'bent
is like
> the second coming.

It's not a beer belly, it's an aerobelly. Provides a nice curved surface to
the airstream.

Pete

[Pete]

"David Damerell" > wrote
>
> Curiously luggage is not macho either - which is odd, because those of us
> with luggage have to push it up the hills as well.

Luggage is too utilitarian. Go fast, stupid light bikes are the macho thing.
Everyone knows this. Ask Flabby.

Pete

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 20:09:44 GMT, Paul Southworth <cnhyf-
> wrote:
> dorks. Having your parents choose your bike is like going to
> school in home-made clothes and hair-cut, as I know too well.

Choosing your own bike doesn't always work out so
well either. I'm young enough that as a child, I
was right at the beginning of the department-store
MTB boom; the Huffy I got as my first 26" (or maybe
it was 24") bike, it turned out, was also bought
around the same time by somebody else in the
neighborhood.

Guess who was called the poser?

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:19:47 -0500, wrote:
>> clean shaven [except for some bushy sideburns], I have
>> the belly and love to wear sandals.
>> Maybe I should seriously consider a 'bent.
>
> You're a bit too conservative, but, if you don't mind the Libertarian
> label, I think it would fit you.

Last time I looked at a Libertarian website, I did
come away thinking I might make a pretty good one,
if a bit conservative in practice.

--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:48:28 GMT, Pete > wrote:
> It's not a beer belly, it's an aerobelly. Provides a nice curved surface
> to the airstream.

Thank you. You've just upgraded my bike!

> Pete
--
Rick Onanian

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Pete wrote in message ...

>
>. Go fast, stupid light bikes are the macho thing.

Sorry, can't go stupid light, the UCI has capped the
minimum legal weight at 6.8kg.

Go weigh your bike, if you're much over that then don't
leave the house.

[Tom Sherman]

Dan Musicant wrote:
>
> At the risk of getting flamed I'd like to ask what's the appeal of
> recumbents....

Recumbents annoy Fabrizio - what more could one ask for? ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Tom Sherman]

Rick Onanian wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:15:28 -0500, Tom Sherman >
> wrote:
> >> to parallel park and getting their cars stuck sideways in the street
> >
> > If they can't get into a spot 12 inches (30.5 cm) longer than the
> > vehicle they are driving, they should not have a driver's license.
>
> I guess it depends what type of vehicle you're talking
> about...it may be possible to do that in a small car,
> but I've never driven anything less than 3500 pounds....

I used to live in an area with very limited on street parking, so I
usually ended up squeezing my VW Rabbit or Renault Encore into spaces no
one else would try to get into. One was only 8 inches longer than the
Rabbit (and I did not hit either parked vehicle with mine).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

[Rick Onanian]

On 08 Aug 2003 14:40:20 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
> than wide straight bars - hence a motorist with poor judgement will
> always
> slap the pannier first, which doesn't always result in a spill in the way
> that a clipped handlebar does.

How about sharp spikes sticking off the sides of your
bars, or a blowtorch head off each end? Maybe they'd
give more room if they thought it could damage their
car more than a minor paint scratch...

--
Rick Onanian

[jacques]

Well it probably also depends on the distance you ride, the clothes you
wear at work and so on. I'm only doing 4 miles one way, and I don't have
to wear very formal clothes; besides, there is no shower at work. It would
be ridiculous for me to get to work with that muddy line and have to carry
clean clothes on such a short distance. I don't consider my
daily ride as "sport". If you ride a much longer route and you have the
proper facilities at work then I can imagine your way makes sense.

Jacques

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:25:39 GMT, Dan Musicant
> may have said:

>What's an "MTB?" Multi-terrain bicycle?

Mountain bike. From the common abbreviation for mountain as "mt".
(Mall-Wart is a slightly pejorative term for a certain ubiquitous US
retailer.)

--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 01:14:05 -0400, "Eric S. Sande" >
may have said:

>>Ride through downtown Houston once and say that.
>
>Everybody knows you Texans aren't Catholic.

Well, some of us aren't, but there are lots of folks named Rodriguez
and such who've been here a lot longer than *my* family, and a lot of
them sure are.

(I'm not a catholic myself, though; I can stop bringing home cats any
time I want to.)


--
My email address is antispammed;
pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
it's also possible that I'm busy.

[Rick Onanian]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:01:33 GMT, Werehatrack >
wrote:
> (I'm not a catholic myself, though; I can stop bringing home cats any
> time I want to.)

Eh? Is that it?

There's been a rash of cat hoarding discoveries here in
Rhode Island recently; apartments with 50 cats or more.

Maybe the people involved are catholic.

--
Rick Onanian

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > writes:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 02:01:33 GMT, Werehatrack >

> There's been a rash of cat hoarding discoveries here in
> Rhode Island recently; apartments with 50 cats or more.
>
> Maybe the people involved are catholic.

Cat-o-holics, anyways.

cheers,
Tom


--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Donny Harder Jr.]

Someone in this thread mentioned installing drop bars on a hybrid. Is
there a link that suggests how one sizes and chooses the bars? I imagine
some modification is in order (brakes, shifters, lights). Thanks.

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:12:48 -0500,
>, "Donny Harder Jr."
> wrote:

>Someone in this thread mentioned installing drop bars on a hybrid. Is
>there a link that suggests how one sizes and chooses the bars? I imagine
>some modification is in order (brakes, shifters, lights). Thanks.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/surly-rohloff/index.html

This article explains changing bars and stems:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/handsup.html

Though it's mostly about raising them, it discusses the principles.

Handlebar bends are all over the place. I've no idea how to size them
but their widths are fairly consistent within a limited range. Larger
person preferring the wider styles. Small hands could be problematic
with some bends. Moustache bars might get you low enough.

You'd have to assure compatibility between the new controls and your
present brakes and derailleurs.

A different size and style stem might also be required to accommodate
the new bars.

The radically changed riding posture might lead to a different saddle.
--
zk

[Suzy Jackson]

"Donny Harder Jr." > wrote in message
...
> Someone in this thread mentioned installing drop bars on a hybrid. Is
> there a link that suggests how one sizes and chooses the bars? I imagine
> some modification is in order (brakes, shifters, lights). Thanks.

It's simple enough. Swap bars for bendy ones. Put on proper road bike
brake levers (with shifters in them if you're of a mind). Buy some real
700C wheels so you can run proper narrow slicks (Michelin axial carbon are
good IMHO) and throw away that silly mountain bike cranket in favour of a
real roady one, with 39 and 53 tooth chainwheels, and no sissy "granny"
gears.

That should do it. Of course it'd be cheaper to start with a proper road
bike to begin with, but just think what you could do with all the junk you
take off...

Regards,

Suzy

[Chalo]

Tom Sherman > wrote:

> one would
> expect MTB components and frames to sell for less than the equivalent
> road bike components. This is even more apparent when one compares
> upright bike prices to the Dark Side, where a Cro-Moly frame bike with
> Deore/Tiagra level components will often sell for 2 to 3 times as much
> as the MTB and road bike equivalents.

You failed to mention the toothpasty, lawn mower quality welds and
smashed-flat-&-bolted frame details. That stuff ain't free, you know.
;-)

Chalo Colina

[Van Bagnol]

In article >,
Rick Onanian > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:44:51 GMT, Dan Musicant
> > wrote:
> > This fitting is fine but I'm American and converting to Kg and cm I can
> > do, but European shoe size is beyond me. Is there a site that won't
> > require these conversions?
>
> For shoe sizes, look at sizing charts on bike product
> sites like nashbar and performance. Unfortunately,
> biking shoes are sized that way.
>
> For general conversions, try
> http://www.isaedmonton.ca/AlbertaDirectory/Technical/ConvertM.htm

A quick check on the inside of my Reebok and Nike shoes shows that both
brands are labeled with US, UK, EUR, and CM sizes.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"

[[email protected]]

One advantage of a road bike over a MTB or hybrid:

Drop handlebar bikes are easier to carry thru narrow doorways and
stairways.

[trg]

Advantage of a MTB over a road bike- smaller frame/wheels and straight bars
make it easier to carry up flights of stairs (especially with a frame pack).


> a écrit dans le message news:
...
> One advantage of a road bike over a MTB or hybrid:
>
> Drop handlebar bikes are easier to carry thru narrow doorways and
> stairways.

[Steven Scharf]

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message >...
> Hey all,
> I'm considering purchasing a new bicycle (Maybe $800 CDN total) to replace
> my nearly 8 year old Mongoose IBOC Pro mountain bike. I used to use it mainy
> for offroad but a knee injury stopped that, and in the past few years I've
> used it purely for commuting (10K's to school and back, 30-40K rides on
> weekends, stuff like that).
>
> I'm just wondering if purchasing a road bike would be more appropriate than
> a mountain bike. I most certainly don't want to be one of those kids riding
> on the side of the road with a fully suspended downhill mountain bike with
> the seat all the way down bouncing up and down on each pedal stroke.

I commute on a road bike, but if I were buying a bike
strictly for commuting then I'd buy something like
the Trek T300.

Unfortunately it is sold at only one store in all of
North America.
"http://bikegallery.com/site/intro.cfm"

If you're in Vancouver then it wouldn't
be too much of a drive.

[Harpie]

I'd like to add another suggestion, and I hope I'm not repeating someone
else (I've been on vacation for the past week):

You might want to check your local police department for a bike auction. You
can sometimes find a very good road bike for half of its original cost, or
even less.

I also would suggest that you carefully examine where you're going to keep
your bike at work. Is there a secured area where only you have the key? A
bike locker?

Where I work (at a university) we have had nearly a dozen bicycles stolen
this summer, six of them worth close to $10,000. The bikes were kept in a
locked bicycle cage, but the thieves just lifted the door off its hinges and
off they went. The second round of thefts they just blasted through the door
with a cart or other motorized vehicle. The building management responded by
forbidding people from bringing their bikes to work (asshats!). I now keep
my bicycle in my office, which brings the security guards a runnin' but
until they provide a safe place for my bike that's the solution.

Good luck. I'd be cautious about spending a lot of money on a bike to ride
to work. Thieves can spot quality a long way off and it's a pain in the rear
to lose something you've spent a lot of money on. I ride a 20-year old trek
and have not had any problems (and I use a U-lock).
Marianne

"Mike Beauchamp" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the help... I think definately trying one out is in order!
>
> Mike
> http://mikebeauchamp.com