Switching to a new bike for long rides

[ This is a repost of the following article: ]
[ From: ]
[ Subject: Switching to a new bike for long rides ]
[ Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.rides ]
[ Message-ID: ]

Dane Bramage writes:

Hey there - this is probably a bit off topic, but wanted some advice
about bikes that are built for long rides and any recommendations.
Since this group is experienced with longer rides, I figure you all
would have a good viewpoint.

I currently ride a Cannondale T2000 touring bike. I like it a lot,
but it's heavy and built to carry a load. Looking for something I
can upgrade to that's lighter and built more for speed.

Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out for on
day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a more
comfortable ride than I'm used to.

You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see in
stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment made,
be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic rims,
bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low, at
least in this area where every town once had at least one criterium
and the region had many great road races.

Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All road
racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance is
there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff at
nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were better.
I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is still my
best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail good
bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with spoilers
on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing" bicycles
to a suitable location.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

Jobst Brandt



Jobst Brandt

wrote in message
...
[ This is a repost of the following
]
[ From:
]
[ Subject: Switching to a new bike for long
]
[ Newsgroups:
]
[ Message-ID:
]

Dane Bramage writes:

Hey there - this is probably a bit off topic, but wanted some
advice
about bikes that are built for long rides and any
recommendations.
Since this group is experienced with longer rides, I figure
you all
would have a good viewpoint.

I currently ride a Cannondale T2000 touring bike. I like it a
lot,
but it's heavy and built to carry a load. Looking for
something I
can upgrade to that's lighter and built more for speed.

Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out
for on
day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a
more
comfortable ride than I'm used to.

You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see
in
stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment
made,
be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic
rims,
bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low,
at
least in this area where every town once had at least one
criterium
and the region had many great road races.

Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All
road
racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance
is
there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff
at
nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were
better.
I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is
still my
best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail
good
bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with
spoilers
on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing"
bicycles
to a suitable location.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/

Soma, Surley, Rivendell, Trek and a number of others make a sport
tourer-type bike. Frankly, my old T1000 is pretty spry when I
use lighter wheels, but the top tube is (wait for it) . . . . too
short. Unbelievably, some of the older bicycles with longer
wheelbases have short top tubes. My current Cannondale racing
bike has a longer top tube than my 18 year old T1000. I find
that my current racing bike is much more comfortable than my
touring bike, although it has a short wheel base and can skip
when climbing hard out of the saddle. I would (and do) use my
racing bike for 100 mile day rides, assuming I do not need
fenders and do not need 28mm tires for riding over rough roads.
I understand Jobst complaints about too short chain stays,
botique wheels, close clearances, etc., but a properly fitting
racing bike can be -- and should be -- pretty darn comfortable
over 100 miles of smooth roads. -- Jay Beattie.

In article ,
wrote:

[ This is a repost of the following article: ]
[ From: ]
[ Subject: Switching to a new bike for long rides ]
[ Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.rides ]
[ Message-ID: ]

Dane Bramage writes:

Not looking for a racing bike - rather something to take out for on
day rides of 100+ miles at a quicker pace, and preferably a more
comfortable ride than I'm used to.

You bring up an interesting subject. Most road bicycles I see in
stores have features claimed to be the fastest racing equipment made,
be that light weight, materials, numbers of spokes, aerodynamic rims,
bars, seat posts, etc yet bicycle racing is at an all time low, at
least in this area where every town once had at least one criterium
and the region had many great road races.

I can't speak for your region, but in Vancouver bike racing is waxing.
The last three years have seen events in this area added until the
schedule is near saturation levels (there are three different weekly
training crit series, plus all manner of varied weekend events).

That, however, doesn't count the huge phenomenon that is mountain bike
racing. To some extent, cross-training and synergy mean that the sports
complement each other, but the biggest local road races will attract 250
riders; the biggest mountain bike races are three times that large, if
not larger. I can think of a few reasons why that might be, but there
you go.

Now you ask whether there is a good long distance bicycle. All road
racing bicycles should be good for that. What longer distance is
there than 100+ mile road races? You often hear people scoff at
nostalgia buffs, as they call them, saying the old times were better.
I can assure you that the racing bicycle I rode in races is still my
best tourer and all around mountain and trail bicycle. I don't
understand what the equipment buffs are into when they derail good
bicycles into something a writer here must avoid to get a good
reliable ride. It seems to be a world of pseudo racers with spoilers
on the back of their cars with which they transport "racing" bicycles
to a suitable location.

For all the guff you give modern racing bikes, they are completely
rideable for long distances, as the pros routinely demonstrate. The
worst knocks that might be laid on modern racing gear are that the
wheels are compromised towards aerodynamics rather than reliability (and
yet they still work pretty good, since low spoke counts have been
compensated by deeper (and thus stronger) rims), the geometry is mildly
biased towards raciness (though not in any fatal way) and that the
lightest components are too light for durability (a fair argument, but
one at least partly addressed by UCI weight limits). You can build a
pretty boringly durable but still very racy bicycle in the 16-17 pound
range, and even the better 15-pound bikes seem fairly durable. I have
less confidence in the 12-pound bikes:

http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegalle...ing.asp?id=285

But nobody is allowed to race on anything like a 12-pound bicycle. Oh,
the lightest bike on that site is closing on 9 pounds.

http://www.light-bikes.com/BikeGallery/

Lots of very racy bikes get ridden to and from coffee shops or charity
rides or in other non-racy situations. But the race bikes I see get
ridden hard and often and don't seem the worse for the wear. The parts I
see breaking in races (for reasons other than crashes) are drivetrains,
and those are the same on race bikes and touring bikes.

The thing that really separates touring bikes from racing bikes these
days is accomodation for fenders and racks. I have both on my
winter/commute machine, and that's pretty much that. As I have said
before, I think the best place to get such a bike is at a garage sale,
but opinions vary.
--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

Ryan Cousineau writes:

Lots of very racy bikes get ridden to and from coffee shops or
charity rides or in other non-racy situations. But the race bikes I
see get ridden hard and often and don't seem the worse for the
wear. The parts I see breaking in races (for reasons other than
crashes) are drivetrains, and those are the same on race bikes and
touring bikes.

The thing that really separates touring bikes from racing bikes
these days is accommodation for fenders and racks. I have both on my
winter/commute machine, and that's pretty much that. As I have said
before, I think the best place to get such a bike is at a garage
sale, but opinions vary.

As I reported from my last ride in the Alps, I was passed by a young
rider going briskly on a brand new 14" seat post hyena shaped bicycle
with "tight coupled geometry". I saw him again half way up the
Klausen Pass (CH) standing with dejected look on the side of the road,
unable to turn the rear wheel because one of the few spokes on that
wheel broke. With not more than 3mm design clearance to the seat
stays it was dead and with no suitable spokes, tools or ability to do
anything about it he had no bicycle. He had a spare tubular but that
didn't get its test n this run. I suggested he carry the bicycle to
the next bus stop for the postal bus that stops at two places on this
hill.

I wouldn't want to ride such a bicycle on a tour. It had no margin
for error. It had to be perfect in all aspects to work. These are
bicycles on which tires scrape their brake bridges when riding over
wet highway sanding on winter roads.

Who needs any of that?

Jobst Brandt

Jobst Brandt wrote:

As I reported from my last ride in the Alps, I was passed by a young
rider going briskly on a brand new 14" seat post hyena shaped bicycle
with "tight coupled geometry". I saw him again half way up the
Klausen Pass (CH) standing with dejected look on the side of the road,
unable to turn the rear wheel because one of the few spokes on that
wheel broke. With not more than 3mm design clearance to the seat
stays it was dead and with no suitable spokes, tools or ability to do
anything about it he had no bicycle. He had a spare tubular but that
didn't get its test n this run. I suggested he carry the bicycle to
the next bus stop for the postal bus that stops at two places on this
hill.

I wouldn't want to ride such a bicycle on a tour. It had no margin
for error. It had to be perfect in all aspects to work. These are
bicycles on which tires scrape their brake bridges when riding over
wet highway sanding on winter roads.

Who needs any of that?

But wouldn't the team car be dropping of a spare bike for him as soon as
they realized he had had a "mechanical?"

Sheldon "But It Looked SO Kewl!" Brown
+--------------------------------------------+
| Most people would sooner die than think; |
| in fact, they do so." - Bertrand Russell |
+--------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

wrote:

As I reported from my last ride in the Alps,

Do people actually read that stuff?

I was passed by a young
rider going briskly

Ah yes, to be young and brisk. Do you remember?

Soma, Surley, Rivendell, Trek and a number of others make a sport
tourer-type bike. Frankly, my old T1000 is pretty spry when I
use lighter wheels,

I would (and do) use my
racing bike for 100 mile day rides, assuming I do not need
fenders and do not need 28mm tires for riding over rough roads.
I understand Jobst complaints about too short chain stays,
botique wheels, close clearances, etc., but a properly fitting
racing bike can be -- and should be -- pretty darn comfortable
over 100 miles of smooth roads. -- Jay Beattie.

I find the whole idea of wanting a bike to be "fast, light and
comfortable" for rides over 100 mi to be a little silly. If you do the
math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a skinny
rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of 0.5% over
a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort. In racing, that weight might
make a 5% difference in climbing and sprinting, something that
separates winning and losing, but for distance riding, it's just
posing. Of course touring bikes don't have frames that are 6 lb
heavier. The weight difference is spread amongst all the components.

When it comes to comfort, racing bikes are a poor model -- racers are
paid to suffer. I wouldn't find riding all day in rain without fenders
comfortable. I wouldn't enjoy riding 100+ miles on 20mm/150 psi tires.

Racing bikes are also a poor safety example -- racers are paid to take
risks. When flying down unfamiliar roads in the dark, I wouldn't want
to be on featherweight wheels. I can't affort to discard my fatigued
ultra-light components after a season's use. 100+ mile rides usually
take you well off the beaten path. Without a team car support, finicky
racing components start looking a little sketchy.

Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one answer
is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so well
in those events.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:04:42 -0800, Peter Cole wrote:

I find the whole idea of wanting a bike to be "fast, light and
comfortable" for rides over 100 mi to be a little silly.

Well, within reason. Certainly, if there is a choice of comparable bikes,
which have the features you want and have durable components, then a
difference in weight would seem to be a valid way to choose between them.
I'm not talking about stupid-light stuff, but I might choose a carbon fork
over a steel one, since it saves a nontrivial amount of weight while still
being reliable, and the $/g ratio is pretty good.

If you do the
math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a skinny
rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of 0.5% over
a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort.

Interesting estimate. 6lbs of a 200lb total is 3%. So, you are presuming
that only something like 16% of the effort in a hilly ride is involved
in lifting the weight over the top of the hill. That depends on the hills.

When it comes to comfort, racing bikes are a poor model -- racers are
paid to suffer.

But not unnecessarily. A racer who is more comfortable will be faster.

I wouldn't find riding all day in rain without fenders
comfortable. I wouldn't enjoy riding 100+ miles on 20mm/150 psi tires.

But "racing bikes" don't necessarily have to have 20mm tires. Granted,
current styles don't allow for decent fenders, but there are ways to do
that without adding a lot of weight, which seems reasonable.

Racing bikes are also a poor safety example -- racers are paid to take
risks.

Again, not unnecessary ones. A better-handling bike is a faster bike.

When flying down unfamiliar roads in the dark, I wouldn't want to
be on featherweight wheels.

I'd be more worried about adequate lighting....

Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one answer
is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so well
in those events.

You don't see a lot of touring bikes on those events. While most brevet
riders avoid stupid-light stuff for obvious reasons, they do want as light
a bike as can be comfortable and reliable.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Some people used to claim that, if enough monkeys sat in front
_`\(,_ | of enough typewriters and typed long enough, eventually one of
(_)/ (_) | them would reproduce the collected works of Shakespeare. The
internet has proven this not to be the case.

Peter Cole wrote:

Jobst asks what rides go longer than 100+ mile stage races, one
answer
is brevets, which go up to 1200km/750mi. Racing gear doesn't do so
well
in those events.

I ride with a man who rode PBP in 1995 on a Trek OCLV with 8 speed Dura
Ace. 56 hours 48 minutes. I doubt there was a touring bicycle within
24 hours of his time on PBP. He still rides the same bike and
components today. So much for your concept of durability.

I know several other people who have ridden PBP and other brevets on
OCLV bikes. One man rode the same 5500 OCLV on the 1995 and 1999 PBP
and a new 5900 OCLV on the 2003 PBP. Another man rode PBP in 1991 or
1995 on a Specialized Sequoia touring bike. In 2003 he rode PBP on a
Dura Ace titanium Serotta Legend. He can hardly believe he rode PBP on
the heavy weight Sequoia. He still owns the Sequoia but when it came
time to put the tire to the road he chose the correct bicycle. The
heavy Sequoia is for night time riding around town.

I have a touring bike and road racing bicycles. The road racing
bicycles are more comfortable over long miles. The overall lightness
of the bike, the nimble responsive handling, light wheels, skinny
efficient 130 psi tires all make the bike take less effort to ride.
When its 160 miles into a 300 km brevet, I want the bike to pedal and
react as easily as possible. All of the extra heavy parts and racks
and wheels on the touring bike make it less nimble and more tiring to
stand and ride up hills.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:04:42 -0800, Peter Cole wrote:

If you do the
math, and compare a 24 lb bike to an 18 lb bike, even with a skinny
rider and no cargo, you'll get perhaps a speed improvement of 0.5%
over
a hilly course. Hardly worth the effort.

Interesting estimate. 6lbs of a 200lb total is 3%. So, you are
presuming
that only something like 16% of the effort in a hilly ride is
involved
in lifting the weight over the top of the hill. That depends on the
hills.

It's just an application of the analyticcyling.com model, for a light
(150 lb bike & rider) over a typical hilly brevet course (1% average
grade).

You don't see a lot of touring bikes on those events. While most
brevet
riders avoid stupid-light stuff for obvious reasons, they do want as
light
a bike as can be comfortable and reliable.

You pretty much see the bikes these riders own, most don't buy special
bikes to ride brevets.