Bikes!

[breakingnews]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Yeah! Hard tail steel frame all the way! They last forever. My old Trek 820 has seen better days, but it continues rolling quite well. Getting it up the steps at the end of a ride is the hardest part.

Hey, I had one of those too! Great fuckin bikes ... Antelope series, I believe. Incredible uphill ride, excellent acceleration, but those came out in the early days of rock shox - which would have helped me tremendously. My fork really took a beating and I think is now busted, but I retired it rather than taking it to the shop. Bought a Giant afterward, but don't ride it much since I got into road cycling.


Anyone want to share their highest milage? I've ridden the Suncoast Parkway two times in recent years -- 55 miles, total. I'm never in shape for it, either. I collapse and hurt for a good three days afterwards and I'm never sure if it was really worth it. I have no idea how people can ride century rides.

I've gone about 90-95 miles, just shy of the full century. Griff's right - once you hit the 40/50-mile barrier, pretty much any distance after that can be handled very easily (with proper training of course).


So, here's my question to those of you that own $1000+ bikes: does it really help? I know actually getting in shape is the best option, but do the lighter bikes make a huge difference? If someone can crank out 10 miles on a normal bike, will they be able to do many more on a racing bike?

Of course it's mostly the kind of thing where if you understand the technical stuff, you'll mentally feel better about your riding. :P

The most notable difference though is frame material - higher priced bikes are just so incredibly well engineered. It's particularly important for carbon, and slightly so for titanium. For example, the Trek 5900 is made with OCLV 110 carbon, which is extremely light yet very sturdy. You could be riding on a 6 percent uphill grade, give one heavy pedal stroke and the bike will literally take off from underneath you (frame stiffness factors into how responsive the bike will be to your pedaling). Aluminum, on the other hand, won't have this kind of zip, but ppl say it handles cornering well and has a very soft overall ride.

Titanium is not as light as carbon, but stronger, which is important when you are exerting a lot of stress on the bike, such as fast downhill corners/turns/sweeping bends. And when climbing hills out of the saddle ("jogging" on the bike, as Mr. Armstrong calls it), stronger materials won't sag. That's something I didn't notice until i tried my other brother's aluminum Cannondale R1000, which felt kinda flimsy when I was out of the saddle and cranking hard on the hill in Central Park. I weigh more than he does though, which is why it probably works better for him.

Then there comes the components. If you can afford nicer stuff, great. Otherwise making sure all the parts fits YOU is the most important thing. If you find a bike doesn't fit well, ask about changing some of the parts - longer/shorter pedal cranks, obtuse or longer stem (part that holds the handlebars), different styles of handlebars, different saddles, different seatposts, taller/shorter headsets. Buying expensive components won't necessarily mean that they fit - unless you ride for U.S. Postal (soon to be Discovery Channel) and Shimano *custom* makes parts specifically for you.

This is all highly technical stuff that I hardly think about. Some of it didn't even become apparent until watching the technical spots on the Lance Chronicles. Bottom line is a more expensive ride will get you better handling, better feeling, stronger acceleration, but it takes a while before any of that makes a difference.

[Griff]

Tyler Hamilton won the Olympic time trial yesterday and Bobby Julich took third. The US is turning into an absolute force in cycling. Anybody watch Paolo Bettini using Sergio Paulinho to take the Gold in the mens road race? Pretty interesting strategy conflict between the two of them.

As far as saddles hurting, there really is a break-in period for both the saddle and your butt. Thats one of the things I've been worried about going into Saturdays ride, my butt isn't in the condition it should be because of lack of training. It's tough for shop owners because by the time you really know a saddle isn't going to work for you, it's used merchandise. Pete bought a Terry saddle that never really worked for her but then picked up an inexpensive Nashbar saddle that really is comfortable. Terry is a pretty cool company, it is run by women for women. They were still new in the business way back when I was a shop guy. They are all about lady cyclists getting the right equipment, bikes, saddles, and clothing.

My father-in-law switched to a recumbent after his back surgery as well. He claims that hills are not a problem but I haven't seen him on any. He really likes the bike though and it brought his leg around after it had atrophied pretty badly.

[Kitsune]

Damn you guys! After reading this thread, yesterday, I couldn't resist: I pulled the bike out, cleaned it up, and braved the roads and traffic. I only did seven miles, but it still felt great!

The bike had a little bit of "sand squeek" in the chain, which I managed to clean out with a bit of oil and a brush. While it still looks good, I think it might need replacing at some point in the near future. The brakes also feel a bit loose. Do you guys take your bikes into a shop to get them "tuned up" or do you do it all yourself? How often do you replace parts and what do you replace? Rather sadly, I always wait until something actually breaks before I replace it and since I started doing trips over twenty miles, I realize that isn't the best plan, anymore. Walking home that far with a broken bicycle really ruins a day.

Somethings, I guess, can't be fixed on the road. My friend lost a pedal while we were out on a long ride, once, and the crappy little toolkits we all carried didn't have what we needed to reattach it. Note: a leatherman tool is a really good thing to have on a ride.

[breakingnews]

Originally Posted by Griff

Tyler Hamilton won the Olympic time trial yesterday and Bobby Julich took third. The US is turning into an absolute force in cycling. Anybody watch Paolo Bettini using Sergio Paulinho to take the Gold in the mens road race? Pretty interesting strategy conflict between the two of them.

Yeah for Americans! Great rides, great performances in both men's and women's. I wish we had done a little better in the road race - the entire U.S. men's squad was written off right from the start, but I suppose when you line them up with Europe's elites, they're really not huge threats.

The time trial looked to be a solid course. I expected more from Ullrich, but I suppose you have your up and down days. Julich really turned it on, even with the broken wrist, which now is casted.

Something interesting was Julich's <A HREF="http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/6807.0.html">chain rings</A>. He's been using these ovular rings all season, similar to Shimano's biopace design (Kit, your Trek should have them). I always though they made a lot of sense, but they haven't made their way into the mainstream for some reason.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

Something interesting was Julich's <A HREF="http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/6807.0.html">chain rings</A>. He's been using these ovular rings all season, similar to Shimano's biopace design (Kit, your Trek should have them). I always though they made a lot of sense, but they haven't made their way into the mainstream for some reason.

Funny you should mention Biopace. My Univega (~1989) has Biopace and I get teased for it frequently. "Oh - I see you got suckered into Biopace eh?" I hear that it doesn't do any harm but doesn't really do any good either. I think they come and go out of style cyclically.

[Griff]

Well we're about to jump in the car to head up to Seneca Falls. Looks like a rough night for camping and maybe a wet start in the morning. It's cycling! There is no bad cycling! later g