Inexpensive entry level road bike decision...

[abrown360]

So I have been riding a mountain bike for the past 6 years; I lived in
a mountain town where most of the bike paths were road-bike killers.

Now I have moved to Seattle, and I am shopping for a ROAD bike under
$600. Before anyone tells me to spend a little more to get a better
bike, understand that I have ONLY $600 to spend, and I want a NEW bike.


I have narrowed it down to 2 bikes.

1. Fuji Ace for $475 + tax
2. Giant OCR 3 for $600 + tax

Should I just go for the cheaper of the two? For $125 more, is the
Giant really that much better than the Fuji?

Is one bike more upgradeable than the other? I have heard a lot about
people upgrading their Giants over time, but there is not much
information on Fuji bikes out there.

What do you all think?

[Neil Brooks]

"abrown360" > wrote:

>So I have been riding a mountain bike for the past 6 years; I lived in
>a mountain town where most of the bike paths were road-bike killers.
>
>Now I have moved to Seattle, and I am shopping for a ROAD bike under
>$600. Before anyone tells me to spend a little more to get a better
>bike, understand that I have ONLY $600 to spend, and I want a NEW bike.

>What do you all think?

Is it rude to answer your question thusly:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=69273

??

Happy hunting!

[Rich Clark]

"abrown360" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> 1. Fuji Ace for $475 + tax
> 2. Giant OCR 3 for $600 + tax
>
> Should I just go for the cheaper of the two? For $125 more, is the
> Giant really that much better than the Fuji?
>
> Is one bike more upgradeable than the other? I have heard a lot about
> people upgrading their Giants over time, but there is not much
> information on Fuji bikes out there.

They're comparable bikes. Both suffer from having Sora 8-speed drivetrains,
making them equally bad candidates for upgrading (since you would have to
replace the levers, the most expensive parts, in order to move up to any
other Shimano drivetrain, all of which are 9- or 10- speed).

That's the main reason for the recommendation you don't want to hear.

The Fuji price represents a bigger discount off MSRP, common with Fuji.

Still, with road bikes, fit is paramount. Fit is important with any bike,
but with a bike you may spend hours at a time riding almost exclusively in
the same position, fit is absolutely critical. Bikes that don't fit right
can hurt you. Buy the bike that fits best. It may be neither of these.

RichC

[jj]

On 30 May 2005 13:57:06 -0700, "abrown360" > wrote:

>So I have been riding a mountain bike for the past 6 years; I lived in
>a mountain town where most of the bike paths were road-bike killers.
>
>Now I have moved to Seattle, and I am shopping for a ROAD bike under
>$600. Before anyone tells me to spend a little more to get a better
>bike, understand that I have ONLY $600 to spend, and I want a NEW bike.
>
>
>I have narrowed it down to 2 bikes.
>
>1. Fuji Ace for $475 + tax
>2. Giant OCR 3 for $600 + tax
>
>Should I just go for the cheaper of the two? For $125 more, is the
>Giant really that much better than the Fuji?

Do you have an idea of what 'size' bike you need? If you're about 5'9", and
have 30-31" inseam, then a frame size of about 56cm might be a good place
to start.

Next go ride both bikes. Try to spend about 20 minutes riding around,
shifting through the gears, ride the bike(s) standing up and make sure you
can do that (I had one bike that seemed to fit but it must have had an
unusually short top tube - the saddle kept hittin me in the behind).

Ride the drops, make sure that's comfortable, ride the hoods. Often times
one bike will feel -much- better than the other.

If the angle of the stem feels too short, be aware that it's common for
them to swap out for a longer stem.

If you ride clipless, now's the time (at purchase) to see if you can get
them to throw in a pair of pedals if the original set up toeclips - for
example.

So I guess you get my drift - it's not so much about which has the most
'bang-for-the-buck', or which has more features - it's about the bike
fitting you, and taking your time test riding several bikes. Having said
all of that I tend to lean toward Fuji, b/c Giant just feels heavy and
slightly 'cheap' to me - plus are you aware that Giant only comes in three
sizes? Also, you might want to compare weights by hefting them.

Finally have you been to roadbikereview.com and looked up the various
comments on them?

>Is one bike more upgradeable than the other? I have heard a lot about
>people upgrading their Giants over time, but there is not much
>information on Fuji bikes out there.

As far as upgrading your bike - I have to say if you end up really getting
into riding that -most- people probably don't upgrade - they just end up
bying a new bike - so if Sora works for you, I wouldn't worrry too much
about that. (actually it can be quite expensive trying to upgrade, like
from Tiagra to Ultegra is almost half the original cost of my bike - it
would be much cheaper to sell my current ride while it's still in good
shape and get Ultegra from the start, iirc.)

HTH,

jj

>
>What do you all think?

[PanFan]

"abrown360" > wrote in news:1117486626.027614.315380
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> 1. Fuji Ace for $475 + tax
> 2. Giant OCR 3 for $600 + tax
>
> Should I just go for the cheaper of the two? For $125 more, is the
> Giant really that much better than the Fuji?

Both of these bikes are nearly identical -- compact aluminum frames,
aluminum forks, a mix of Sora and other components, and Alex wheels. The
only difference I see is that the Giant has a 9-speed 12-26T SRAM rear
cassette while the Fuji has an 8-speed SunRace 12-24T cassette.

If where you ride is especially hilly you might appreciate the extra gear
on the Giant. Otherwise the Fuji is the better deal.

> Is one bike more upgradeable than the other?

You should consider both bikes non-upgradeable. These are entry-level road
bikes and the frames aren't worth hanging expensive parts on. Just enjoy
your new bike, and if after a couple of years you're still serious about
riding, then upgrade to a higher-level bike.

[Rich Clark]

"PanFan" > wrote in message
...
> "abrown360" > wrote in news:1117486626.027614.315380
> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
The
> only difference I see is that the Giant has a 9-speed 12-26T SRAM rear
> cassette

Yet it has 8-speed shifters. Something's wrong here, and I suspect it's a
mispring in the cassette spec. They show the same cassette on the OCR2 with
its 9-speed Tiagra shifters.

> If where you ride is especially hilly you might appreciate the extra gear
> on the Giant.

I don't think it really has one.

RichC

[Matt O'Toole]

jj wrote:

> As far as upgrading your bike - I have to say if you end up really
> getting into riding that -most- people probably don't upgrade - they
> just end up bying a new bike - so if Sora works for you, I wouldn't
> worrry too much about that. (actually it can be quite expensive
> trying to upgrade, like from Tiagra to Ultegra is almost half the
> original cost of my bike - it would be much cheaper to sell my
> current ride while it's still in good shape and get Ultegra from the
> start, iirc.)

I agree.

Actually Sora shifters work well -- you shouldn't be concerned with their
"quality." In fact they have a very positive action that's arguably better than
any other Shimano shifters. The problem is they're hard to upshift from the
drops, because the little thumb lever is too far away. But many riders don't
use the drops much, and it really isn't too much trouble to reach up and over to
shift either. Sometimes I even do this with my Ultegra shifters, especially
when wearing winter gloves.

You may be perfectly happy with Sora. But if you're not, don't buy it with
plans to upgrade later. This will cost much more in the long run. The more
expensive, Tiagra (or whatever) bike will be cheaper.

Barend shifters are another low-budget consideration, although I don't know
specifically of a bike in your price range so equipped.

It's nice to see the entry level road bike price points coming down, and more
(and improved) choices. Perhaps we'll eventually get sub-$400 road bikes, as
with mountain bikes. It'll be like the 70s all over again!

Matt O.

[jj]

On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:45:42 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote:

>It's nice to see the entry level road bike price points coming down, and more
>(and improved) choices. Perhaps we'll eventually get sub-$400 road bikes, as
>with mountain bikes. It'll be like the 70s all over again!
>
>Matt O.
>

I'm telling ya, Matt, I'm really, really happy with my 05 Trek 1000. This
is a -lot- of bike for the money ($600 plus tax). If I had a bike like this
when I was riding a lot in the 70s, well...dayum, I'da been in heaven.

Everyday when I go out and ride it I enjoy the stability, the ease of
shifting, and positive and quiet shifting of the Tiagra group - it's
actually -fun- to operate and to me the ride is very smooth. Even though I
put a fair amount of stress on it, weighing 230, the bike seems to handle
it like I'm a lightweight. I can easily get up to above 30mph on the flats
on this thing and it only gets -more- stable at that speed...

I rode the '04 version with the Sora group and the regular aluminum fork,
and toe clip pedals last year when I was test riding and really didn't like
the feel, the shifting or the road handling. The '05 is the same price, but
seems like a lot more bike (carbon fork, Tiagra, etc.). You couldn't buy a
bike in the 70s or 80s that would ride and shift like this bike. ;-)

jj

[abrown360]

Wow, I didn't know that the Trek 1000 had Tiagra parts on it. I will
check that one out also.

Reading all this has made me realize that the Tiagra components are
gonna be a cool thing to have.

[Claire Petersky]

abrown360 wrote in message
. com>...

>Now I have moved to Seattle, and I am shopping for a ROAD bike under
>$600. Before anyone tells me to spend a little more to get a better
>bike, understand that I have ONLY $600 to spend, and I want a NEW bike.

What's the shop? Gregg's?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[rdclark]

jj wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:45:42 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
> wrote:
>
> >It's nice to see the entry level road bike price points coming down, and more
> >(and improved) choices. Perhaps we'll eventually get sub-$400 road bikes, as
> >with mountain bikes. It'll be like the 70s all over again!
> >
> >Matt O.
> >
>
> I'm telling ya, Matt, I'm really, really happy with my 05 Trek 1000. This
> is a -lot- of bike for the money ($600 plus tax). If I had a bike like this
> when I was riding a lot in the 70s, well...dayum, I'da been in heaven.
>
> Everyday when I go out and ride it I enjoy the stability, the ease of
> shifting, and positive and quiet shifting of the Tiagra group - it's
> actually -fun- to operate and to me the ride is very smooth. Even though I
> put a fair amount of stress on it, weighing 230, the bike seems to handle
> it like I'm a lightweight. I can easily get up to above 30mph on the flats
> on this thing and it only gets -more- stable at that speed...
>
> I rode the '04 version with the Sora group and the regular aluminum fork,
> and toe clip pedals last year when I was test riding and really didn't like
> the feel, the shifting or the road handling. The '05 is the same price, but
> seems like a lot more bike (carbon fork, Tiagra, etc.). You couldn't buy a
> bike in the 70s or 80s that would ride and shift like this bike. ;-)

The Trek site shows one Tiagra part -- the rear derailleur -- on a bike
with Sora levers and and mix of lower-end house-brand, SRAM, and
Shimano drivetrain parts. IOW, same as 2004 but with an upgraded rear
derailleur. Is your sample different from this?

RichC

[jj]

On 31 May 2005 06:30:44 -0700, "rdclark" > wrote:

>> I rode the '04 version with the Sora group and the regular aluminum fork,
>> and toe clip pedals last year when I was test riding and really didn't like
>> the feel, the shifting or the road handling. The '05 is the same price, but
>> seems like a lot more bike (carbon fork, Tiagra, etc.). You couldn't buy a
>> bike in the 70s or 80s that would ride and shift like this bike. ;-)
>
>The Trek site shows one Tiagra part -- the rear derailleur -- on a bike
>with Sora levers and and mix of lower-end house-brand, SRAM, and
>Shimano drivetrain parts. IOW, same as 2004 but with an upgraded rear
>derailleur. Is your sample different from this?
>
>RichC

D'oh. Yeah. <hangs head> That's true...

Fooled again by the clever marketers at Trek. ;-)

Seriously, I did think that I'd rather have STI shifters than the Sora
type, but that's worked out to be just fine.

Do I get points for not getting a 1200 and race-light wheels, lol?

jj

[rdclark]

jj wrote:

> Seriously, I did think that I'd rather have STI shifters than the Sora
> type, but that's worked out to be just fine.

The whole subject is overblown, IMO. My three bikes have Sora, 105, and
Ultegra levers. Switching among them is no big deal. They're different,
but they all work. Of interest, perhaps, is that the one with Sora
levers has an otherwise Tiagra drivetrain (about 5 years old now).

> Do I get points for not getting a 1200 and race-light wheels, lol?

I think your earlier point, that these bikes, even the "low end" ones,
generally blow away anything that was available to us 30 years ago, is
the important one.

RichC

[jj]

On 31 May 2005 09:01:24 -0700, "rdclark" > wrote:
>
>jj wrote:
>
>> Seriously, I did think that I'd rather have STI shifters than the Sora
>> type, but that's worked out to be just fine.
>
>The whole subject is overblown, IMO. My three bikes have Sora, 105, and
>Ultegra levers. Switching among them is no big deal. They're different,
>but they all work. Of interest, perhaps, is that the one with Sora
>levers has an otherwise Tiagra drivetrain (about 5 years old now).
>
>> Do I get points for not getting a 1200 and race-light wheels, lol?
>
>I think your earlier point, that these bikes, even the "low end" ones,
>generally blow away anything that was available to us 30 years ago, is
>the important one.
>
>RichC

My basic plan is to ride the hell out of this bike (is there any other
way?<g>), and then every two, possibly three years get a new bike.

Will I get another Trek 1000? Probably not. Right now, the plan is to get
another Trek mid-to-low end, but with 105 components. Basically I don't see
the point of having a better bike than I am a rider. (I could be using
horribly flawed logic here. <g>)

If things go well beyond that, the next bike I plan to get would be
something under 18lbs - perhaps spend the 2K bucks and get a Ti, or a
Carbon. By then I hope to be able to ride A-class group rides, and thus
will be 'deserving' of a light bike. If I improve faster than that, I can
imagine going for the 'light bike' sooner and skipping over the mid-level
Trek with 105 components.

Sound reasonable? Thanks for your comments.

jj

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 31 May 2005 12:25:42 -0400,
>, >
wrote:

>Will I get another Trek 1000? Probably not. Right now, the plan is to get
>another Trek mid-to-low end, but with 105 components. Basically I don't see
>the point of having a better bike than I am a rider. (I could be using
>horribly flawed logic here. <g>)
>
>If things go well beyond that, the next bike I plan to get would be
>something under 18lbs - perhaps spend the 2K bucks and get a Ti, or a
>Carbon. By then I hope to be able to ride A-class group rides, and thus
>will be 'deserving' of a light bike. If I improve faster than that, I can
>imagine going for the 'light bike' sooner and skipping over the mid-level
>Trek with 105 components.
>
>Sound reasonable? Thanks for your comments.

Why not ride a bike you just find aesthetically, ergonomicaly and
technically delightful rather than worry that you be seen as
"unworthy"?
It's your money and if you want to spend it all on a bicycle that
ain't nobody's business but your own.
--
zk

[jj]

On Tue, 31 May 2005 10:01:43 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Tue, 31 May 2005 12:25:42 -0400,
>, >
>wrote:
>
>>Will I get another Trek 1000? Probably not. Right now, the plan is to get
>>another Trek mid-to-low end, but with 105 components. Basically I don't see
>>the point of having a better bike than I am a rider. (I could be using
>>horribly flawed logic here. <g>)
>>
>>If things go well beyond that, the next bike I plan to get would be
>>something under 18lbs - perhaps spend the 2K bucks and get a Ti, or a
>>Carbon. By then I hope to be able to ride A-class group rides, and thus
>>will be 'deserving' of a light bike. If I improve faster than that, I can
>>imagine going for the 'light bike' sooner and skipping over the mid-level
>>Trek with 105 components.
>>
>>Sound reasonable? Thanks for your comments.
>
>Why not ride a bike you just find aesthetically, ergonomicaly and
>technically delightful rather than worry that you be seen as
>"unworthy"?

Good point, but I guess I'm using an internal judgement. As I get to be a
better rider I'd naturally want to get better equipment. I'd have to say
that I find the Trek 1000 has all of those things, but then I've never even
test ridden a really light bike. There aren't any high-end bike shops
around here...

Another way to look at it would be if I'm able to ride at A group level, I
woudn't want to be holding myself back by having a 24lb bike. For example
if I got a Ti bike now, then maybe my climbing would improve, but perhaps
not up to a threshold level that would enable me to do a long climb up to
to the Blue Ridge Parkway, but in a couple years, going to an 18lb bike
might just do it. I don't mean to be a weight-weenie, I'm just talking the
combo of man and machine. Again, I'm asking, pondering - my logic could
still be horribly flawed, lol.

jj

>It's your money and if you want to spend it all on a bicycle that
>ain't nobody's business but your own.

[C]

In article >,
jj > wrote:
>Another way to look at it would be if I'm able to ride at A group level, I
>woudn't want to be holding myself back by having a 24lb bike. For example
>if I got a Ti bike now, then maybe my climbing would improve, but perhaps
>not up to a threshold level that would enable me to do a long climb up to
>to the Blue Ridge Parkway, but in a couple years, going to an 18lb bike
>might just do it.

Bike weight is rarely enough to stop you from climbing. On a long climb,
a heavy bike may make you a minute or so slower, but it shouldn't keep you
from climbing unless it fits really poorly.

[gds]

jj wrote:
>
> If things go well beyond that, the next bike I plan to get would be
> something under 18lbs - >
> Sound reasonable? Thanks for your comments.
>
> jj
Sure, it's reasonable, and I think it is great fun to have a new high
performance bike. But as others have posted on this ng before-- the
cheapest and probably best way to lighten your load for climbing is to
lose the weight on your body. Except for the very fittest of athletes
it is easily doable to drop 5-15 lbs of body weight.
Now if you can do that and then get a light bike you'll fly up those
hills.

[Dane Jackson]

abrown360 > wrote:
> So I have been riding a mountain bike for the past 6 years; I lived in
> a mountain town where most of the bike paths were road-bike killers.
>
> Now I have moved to Seattle, and I am shopping for a ROAD bike under
> $600. Before anyone tells me to spend a little more to get a better
> bike, understand that I have ONLY $600 to spend, and I want a NEW bike.

If you haven't checked out Recycled Cycles, you should give them a look.
They're a very knowledgable shop with good prices. Actually one of my
coworkers just bought a road bike there, and he was working with the same
restriction's you are (actually he was shooting for $500).

Also they carry used bikes, which might fit better into your budget.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been
dead for two years. -- Tom Lehrer