Do I need a touring bike?

in message , spokes
') wrote:

Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent
which lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any
upright while still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open. That's
what /I'd/ do.

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are
near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask
me.

Everyone who rides one says the opposite - and it's my experience as a
driver that they stand out much more than a conventional bike.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

This is maybe an impossibly waffly and imprecise question; and maybe
indicative of someone who wants an excuse to buy a new toy.

Oooh, did someone say new toy?

You've got some good advice, though no one has really commented on the
handling differences between the bikes. The best (and the only sensible)
thing to do is take test rides on the type of bikes you're considering. If
you can get to the EBC they'll happily send you out for test rides on
however many bikes you want. If they don't have your size in they'll get
one sent down from another store/the warehouse too. Many other bike shops
will do similar things.

Take as long as the shop will let you to ride the bikes so you really get a
feel for the difference, both in your position on the bike and in the
handling.

My take is that a full-on tourer will be less responsive but more stable
than a racer, and provide a slightly more upright, less aggressive riding
position. I'd go for a full-on tourer if I were a trundly (putting
relatively little power through the pedals, smooth riding style) but would
consider a fast tourer/audax/mudguard+rear rack racer/whatever you want to
call it if I was putting lots of power through the pedals, riding fast,
sporty etc.

But don't listen to my witterings, take a test ride on both types of bike
then talk about it with us (we'll prolly be of bugger all use, but it'll
give you time to weigh the two options up

On Fri, 13 Jul, spokes wrote:

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things
are near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal
if you ask me.

And I bet you know that for certain because you've never tried it.

I used to commute on a significantly lower-than-average recumbent.
The 'damn thing' may have been invisible, but if it was, it
miraculously equipped every motorist in teh vicinity with x-ray vision
becasue they all give much more room and much more consideration than
on an upright.

Or to put it another way - what you say is utter crap.

The recumbent is about 24 times more noticeable and approximately
infinitely safer in traffic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

spokes wrote:

Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent which
lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any upright while
still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open. That's what /I'd/ do.

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles commuting'
involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are near-invisible
to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask me.

na as a oddity they will get spotted, they are low but then so are some
sports cars...

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
...
in message . com,
(' ') wrote:

snip

Or should I just stick with the road bike and use a small rucksack for
anything needing carried?

Don't use a rucksack. It's sweaty, and can be nasty on your shoulder
muscles. Get the weight on the bike.

Every reference I read to using a rucksack vs panniers etc always seems
to dismiss the rucksack option as being a bad choice.

I switched from using panniers to a rucksack for long one day rides
a few years ago. This was after using a rucksack for off road riding.

I have no problems with discomfort, in fact I don't notice the rucksack
at all unless it's really heavily loaded, and even then it's not
uncomfortable

The advantages of using a rucksack from my point of view a

a) It doesn't matter which bike I use, I just grab the rucksack and
I'm ready to go, no faffing about switching kit between bikes.

b) When I get off the bike I've got everything with me, no need to
collect stuff from the panniers to take in to the cafe etc.

c) I think the bike handles better over bumps because the luggage
is no longer unsuspended weight.

d) I have the choice of using the built in hydration system or
conventional bottles.

e) I don't need to have racks permanently fitted to my road bikes.

My 2c worth.

Dave.

spokes wrote:
Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent
which lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any
upright while still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open.
That's what /I'd/ do.

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things
are near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if
you ask me.

Having tried commuting on one, I disagree with you (in common with the other
replies).
Most motor vehicle drivers go "what the f***" and leave a huge space around
them.


However, I did find the bent slower than my upright bikes(*). Reasons we

a) slower up hill. I think primarily down to the weight of the machines,
perhaps also the efficiency (or lack) of the transmission. A little is due
to the riding position where uprights allow full weight transfer if needed.
b) harder to filter - can't see over the traffic, can't change direction as
quickly, filtering much more difficult/dangerous. This cost lots of time on
the route.
c) harder to jump away at junctions - takes longer to get feet up/down,
can't hold the bike in a semi track-stand. Cost some time.
d) slower acceleration. Probably related to weight and transmission. Costs
some time as smaller gaps cannot be exploited.


Overall, I found the bent a less than ideal commuting machine in urban
roads, total journey time was typically 1hr5 compared to 55mins on the
upright. Other bents or routes might be different.


In the end I sold the bent for three reasons;
- commute speeds being too slow,
- long distance speeds reduced and not compensated by improved comfort, so I
hadn't increased my maximum range.
- seat having annoyances which led to back discomfort (swap saddle sore for
back sore). Almost certainly down to the specific machine, not bents in
general. But swapping a seat on my bent was a lot more involved than saddle
swaps on an upright.

I've not ruled out another one, next time will need to be lighter and
probably with some suspension at the back.



(* Specific bikes to compa
Bent - Pashley PDQ, 2 wheel, SRAM 3x7 rear hub. Felt like ~40lbs with
lights, but didn't weigh it
Upright tourer - Nigel Dean World Tour, 531 frame, c.1990 Suntour 21 speed
transmission. About 30lbs with lights.

I also have a much lighter faster upright, but that isn't a valid comparison
as I don't commute on it.
)


- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On 13/07/2007 15:58, spokes wrote:
I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles commuting'
involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things are near-invisible
to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if you ask me.

Why is it that SMIDSYs are so much less common on a recumbent, then?

IMHO recumbents have much the same safety advantages and disadvantages
when compared to a DF bike as the DF has when compared to a penny
farthing. Should we all go back to ordinaries for optimum visibility?

--
Danny Colyer URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

said the following on 13/07/2007 15:08:
Was thinking along the line of Dawes Galaxy; and there was recent
discussion around a Giant SCR that was a good bit cheaper than the
Galaxy.

I don't know if it's still true, but my mother had a Dawes Galaxy years
ago (at least 15 years ago), and the name still strikes terror. It was
a singularly bad bike, and after about the second broken frame or forks
she bought an Argos which is still going strong.

A lot can happen in 15 years (Dawes may well have got better, Raleigh
have definitely got worse) but it might be worth checking reviews.
Dawes Galaxies certainly look the part!

Have you looked at Thorn bikes as well? St John Street Cycles (aka The
BoB) are the people here, and people that have them seem to like them.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In ,
spokes tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
Or go for something Completely Different and get a sporty recumbent
which lets you go at great speed in much greater comfort than any
upright while still leaving plenty of mudguard/rack options open.
That's what /I'd/ do.

I'd think very carefully before going recumbent if the '20 miles
commuting' involves anything in the city. Sorry but the damn things
are near-invisible to other road users in traffic - near-suicidal if
you ask me.


I used a variety of recumbents for commuting into central London for 18
years. Here is the number of times I was killed: 0.

Once upon a time, Patrick Field was pulled by the dibbles for the heinous
crime of cycling along the Watford bypass in the middle of the night.

Plod: That thing's invisble!
Patrick: You shouldn't talk to things you can't see, or the men in whte
coats will come and take you away.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing
Supply Of History!

Paul Boyd wrote:

I don't know if it's still true, but my mother had a Dawes Galaxy years
ago (at least 15 years ago), and the name still strikes terror. It was
a singularly bad bike, and after about the second broken frame or forks
she bought an Argos which is still going strong.

A lot can happen in 15 years (Dawes may well have got better, Raleigh
have definitely got worse) but it might be worth checking reviews. Dawes
Galaxies certainly look the part!

The Galaxy is, AFAICT, The Canonical Good British Touring Bike, and has
been for a /looooong/ time. /Everyone/ makes the odd lemon, I'd think
your mum's was probably just such a thing.

But for the job at hand I'd think the Dawes Audax would make more sense.

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