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

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

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.

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/pho...03-0922-08.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

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.

(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

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

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

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