Hulver's site || The Home of Lonely White K5ian Geeks Who Browse Teh Intarweb A Lot

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

ATTENTION VELOCIPEDE INFIDELS!

By ni (Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:08:06 PM EST) (all tags)

I think I'm about half a year late on bicycle buying advice questions, but hopefully someone will entertain them anyway.

I would like to buy a bicycle. There is a reasonably well equipped bicycle store nearby, and they tell me that the prices on their '05 models are reduced at the moment. Because I live in the middle of nowhere, I expect to get moderately screwed on the price, but hopefully won't get utterly bent over the table.

Questions:

I wish to do some extended trips, and in a perfect fantasy world would even do spacejack length extended travelling. (Note: Because life blows, this is wildly unlikely to ever actually happen. Still, I'd rather not rule it out.) This makes me think I might want a road or touring bike. However, many of the places which are worth going to locally (and hence, more realistically) have terrible roads. At least some time spent on dirt roads is a near certainty, but I'm not sure I'd have much need of the ability to go through backwoods trails or anything. They're bad roads, but they're not so bad you couldn't take a car on them. You might not want it to be a car you especially liked, though.

This seems to encourage a hybrid design. Is this something I should consider? I fear a hybrid could be the worst of both worlds.

What sort of design should I be looking at?
What are reasonable prices for a new, low to medium end bicycle of this sort? I'll be happy as long as I get within 30%-40% or so. I'm willing to pay the living-in-the-middle-of-nowhere tax. I'd rather not pay significantly over, say, $900 CDN. (~$780 USian, 635 EUR, 437 GBP) Is this a realistic number?

Are there particular features, parts, brand names, etc I should look out for or avoid?

Thanks to anyone who can help. I'll probably go to le store in the next day or two, hopefully armed with the collected knowledge of husi.

< Podcast Time!! | Has anyone seen George Galloway's wikipedia entry? >

Login

Related Links

- husi
- ni's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

ATTENTION VELOCIPEDE INFIDELS! | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Velocipedinatoring by crux (4.00 / 2) #1 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:36:08 PM EST

I also am shopping for a bike.

(1) There's a breed of bike out there called "cyclocross" -- if hybrid bikes are mountain bikes made more roady, these are road bikes made more mountainy. I'm leaning strongly towards getting one myself, as it seems a good candidate to stand up to commute-abuse but also allow me to keep up, more or less, with people out on the road for longer rides.

(2) In general, anything with a road-riding type of geometry seems to cost more. The most affordable cyclocross bike I've seen so far is the Bianchi Volpe which was above your price range, but not badly so. (Local shop had it for 850ish USian.)

(3) I dunno!

: Cyclo-cross by ni (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:49:30 PM EST

Good to know I'm not the only husiite to have missed the rush.
A cyclo-cross bike does look like a really tempting option, if I can find one in my price range. Thanks.

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

You might just go with a mountain bike by spacejack (4.00 / 2) #2 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:39:08 PM EST

Put slicks on it for road biking. About half the cyclists I'd meet while touring had mountain bikes with slicks. Then you've got the added advantage of going offroad should you choose. The main reason I didn't get a mountain bike is because I like dropdown bars. And I'm old fashioned.

Otherwise, look at touring bikes. They're a pretty classic design that's been around through countless biking trends. The problem is you probably won't have many models to choose from these days.

You could also have a look at cyclo-cross bikes.

The parts on the bike will be a big factor in the cost - shifters, rims, tires, etc. Start with a good frame then you can gradually upgrade.

BTW, I thought Cape Breton Island was a common cycling destination(?) Do you ever see touring cyclists in the summer?

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 ]

Bike by ChiefHoser (4.00 / 1) #12 Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:24:21 AM EST

I agree with the mountain bike with slicks. It gives you the most options in the yearly weather of Nova Scotia (see storm coming in tonight vs. last week's weather). You can get a decent mountain bike with disc brakes for 700CDN or more. They can also still be quite comfortable for long distance riding also.

I do recommend that one goes this route, to get two sets of rims so that going from road slicks to offroad tires is super easy. Not that changing tires is too hard, but this also allows you to get nice narrow road tires on narrower rims than a good offroad tire will fit.

Just my two cents.
--------------

Chiefhoser
[ Parent ]

Thanks! by ni (2.00 / 0) #13 Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 06:17:35 PM EST

That does sound like a really tempting option, and definitely the most realistic one financially. Thanks.

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

Hmm by celeriac (2.00 / 0) #15 Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 03:22:05 AM EST

How hard is it to adjust the brakes when swapping between different rim sizes? I never could get the hang of cable brake adjustment.

I could see doing that for dual sportbikes, then again with disc brakes rim size isn't an issue, and changing motorbike tires is a real pain.

[ Parent ]

: Brakes by ChiefHoser (2.00 / 0) #16 Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 12:15:50 PM EST

That is definitely the hard part. It depends on which brake type you get as to how hard it is. Adding spacers is really easy on most brakes (at least hte ones I've come across). I don't know about disc brakes though, having never ridden a bike with them.
--------------

Chiefhoser
[ Parent ]

i got by LilFlightTest (4.00 / 1) #4 Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:37:25 PM EST

a mountain bike...partly because it's what i found in my price range, and partly because i dont want to die if i encounter some gravel or rough road.
Send me to Austria!

i recommend a mountain bike frame BUT by 256 (4.00 / 1) #14 Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 06:50:18 PM EST

NO SUSPENSION. you may have to look around for a while before you can find a decent pre-built MTB without front shocks, but it's worth it. cheap shocks simply add weight and reduce structural integrity and good shocks will not be a good return on investment for the sort of riding you will be doing.
try and get a frame that has enough rear clearance that you could theoretically switch for 700c wheels later on. If you do end up doing any long distance riding, the extra centimeters of wheel diameter will make a huge difference. although, if you do switch later you will have to either do without rear brakes (which isn't that big of a deal, really) or go disc, which means that you might want to look for a frame that, even if not equipped with discs, has disc mounts.
get them to switch the straight bars for drops or time trials. MTB handlebars are designed for twitch control and are death to the wrists on long rides.
put semi-slick tires on it. semi-slick are a godsend for primarily city bikes that need to rough it from time to time. though you may want to keep the knobbies as well, in case you ever decide to do some actual off-roading.

---

or, alternately, you may want to look into cyclocross bikes, but it seems that they are generally priced higher than equivalent quality MTBs. prolly just economy of scale.

---
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}

ATTENTION VELOCIPEDE INFIDELS! | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback