Hulver's site || Comments || ATTENTION VELOCIPEDE INFIDELS!

Brief answers by ni (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:51:17 PM EST

I might reply more later; I have a deadline in 3 hours I'm struggling to meet.

Re mountain bike option: Very tempting!

Touring bikes: Would I get myself killed if I tried going on a dirt road? There is at least one available locally. Slightly above my price range but not insanely so, and I could probably talk him down.

Cyclo-cross bikes: Will investigate.

I'm made to understand that it is, but I think it's mainly the Cabot Trail people go around. This is ludicrously well paved, but:
a) Completely hellish, as there are two mountains in the way.
b) Relatively far away from me. It would take several days to do, while there are lots of nice, one day trips much closer involve bad roads.

Think metahistorically, act locally. -- CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Unless you've got something against them, by spacejack (4.00 / 1) #5 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:53:51 PM EST

you'd probably be happiest with a mountain bike. Touring bikes are sturdy, but I wouldn't want to spend much time off-road (or on bad roads) with one. I've got no experience with cyclo-cross, so I can't say much about them.

[ Parent ]

: X-C bikes by ad hoc (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:05:50 PM EST

are pretty much the same as touring bikes with V-brakes and wider tires.
--
Science says, "YES!"
[ Parent ]

spacejack is right by ad hoc (4.00 / 2) #7 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:14:57 PM EST

but I wouldn't dismiss the cyclo-cross bike. I've never been able to get comfortable on a mountain bike for long distances. I'm not sure why. But YMMV. Touring bikes aren't very good over non-paved roads. Mountain bikes are not always that good on paved roads. Cyclo-cross bikes are made for both.

A cyclo-cross bike basically has touring geometry, with V-brakes, and wider tire clearances so it can handle wider tires (and, by extension, fenders). The Surly Cross-check is a popular model for that sort of thing (but certainly not the only one).

What the cyclo-cross bike (probably) does NOT have vis-a-vis touring bikes is extra eyelets and doodads to hook things like paniers and carriers.
--
Science says, "YES!"
[ Parent ]

Thanks! by ni (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:42:57 PM EST

You (and spacejack and 256) were among those I'd most wanted to hear from.

The cyclo-cross does seem tempting, although if your link is any indication the price seems less so. That said, the picture in said link is dreamy, and makes my heart go pitter-patter. So that's got to count for something.

This might be incredibly foolish, but it seems I could probably carry a few clothes, a very small tent and a small amount of food on my back, without involving carriers and eyelets and doodads. I suppose this would be a fair bit less comfortable, but it would be workable at least, right?

Think metahistorically, act locally. -- CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

: they are sexy by spacejack (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:12:49 PM EST

I was pretty tempted by a Kona Jake the Snake before getting my touring bike. One more difference is that I hear X-C bikes have a higher bottom bracket (more like a mountain bike).
The Jake looks like it's got the pannier lugs... I'm not sure. You can buy an inexpensive clamp if the frame doesn't have them. I used the clamp thing to hold the pannier rack on an old ten speed for my first trip out east and had few problems. Just one more thing to keep tightened.
But these days I'd only buy a frame with lugs (unless I was buying an additional, dedicated racing bike.) I find panniers very useful even around the city. I hate backpacks now. There's a sweet yuppie-pannier/carrying case thing that I've been meaning to get for downtown use.
I decided I wanted a steel (chromoly) frame, but I think my aversion to aluminum was probably a little unwarranted. Aluminum gives you a lot more to choose from and it's practically replaced steel, which can cost more than aluminum nowadays.

[ Parent ]
: Backpacks by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 12:22:04 AM EST

It may be just me, but I really hate carrying things on my back. I mean, a Camelbak is okay, but anything more than that really bothers me. I very much doubt you'll want to carry a tent on your back. While you can find very light ones, they also tend to be long, and it will interfere with your helmet and you'll find you can't move your head without hitting either the tent poles or the tent itself. Leaning on your hands for five or six hours can be troublesome enough, you don't want to add another 20 or more pounds on top of it. And food, unless it's that dehydrated stuff, can be very heavy.
But even if your bike doesn't have eyelets and things, there are always bolt-on clamps you can use instead. These often don't hold as much weight though. EG, most seatpost mounted racks max out at about 25#. The ones that bolt right to the bike don't really have a limit.
spacejack is also correct saying the X-C bikes have a higher BB, but unless you're racing, that won't have much effect. A high bottom bracket lets you ride over larger rocks without bottoming out, and it doesn't sound like that's the sort of stuff you'll be doing. X-C bikes will sometimes also have suspension forks if you like that sort of thing. It may also have a disk brake option. But that would be over your budget and not really necessary for touring. V-brakes are nice, though, especially when you're loaded down.
Really, there are a boatload of choices. A touring bike might also work for you if can get one that can handle 700x35 tires with fenders. Or at least 700x28. I'm not sure I'd want to go off road with anything narrower than that.
Cyclocrossworld is a good resource, as is Road Bike Review and the companion Mountain Bike Review. Lots of candid opinions there.
Provided they're a good one, your LBS might have the best advice.
--
Science says, "YES!"
[ Parent ]