Biking: Catch-all

Just got back from my first real ride on the "new" Turner. I'm finally starting to get used to the change. At first I thought it was just different, but not better. After I finally started getting used to the feel and giving it a bit more rein I think I'm really digging the ride. I still need to dial in the suspension, adding some more rebound definitely made it feel softer. I think I have it a little stiff still though, I think it's supposed to have more sag than my XC-oriented Fuel.

Now to go upload my track data and compare it to a few rides from my old Fuel. I think I was substantially faster even though I've been off my training for the last two weeks and I'm still feeling exhausted from the camping trip.

Quick shot from today's ride.

IMAGE(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/Liquidmantis/chimneyGulch.jpg)

Pretty! I guess the mountains are okay too

Today's new addition, remote drop seatpost:

IMAGE(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a254/Liquidmantis/seatpost.jpg)

LiquidMantis wrote:

Today's new addition, remote drop seatpost:

As a roadie, I have no idea why anyone would want that. Care to enlighten me?

It allows you to set your saddle high for efficient climbing, but easily drop it to lower CG and open up your maneuverability cone. This means you can whip the bike around easier to pick good lines and lay it side to side for clearance considerations. It also gets your saddle out of the way for drop absorption, bunny hops, etc. That's why downhillers ride with a low saddle height and are standing the entire time. Cornering on loose dirt is a lot different from cornering on pavement and requires different weight positioning. Imagine trying to corner like this with a high saddle position:

IMAGE(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5210/5300790310_39ba9354da.jpg)

IMAGE(http://reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Joey_Schusler-314x3251.jpg)

So basically this allows me to quickly switch between high saddle for climbing efficiency then quickly drop it out of the way for playtime. It's a great add-on for "trail/all-mountain" type riding that mixes up content.

I finally figured out how to cram my bike into my car with a child seat. So hurray I can go on bike rides during lunch again.

This is relevant to my interests.

After getting a true metered fitting, I've had less problems with the Tingle in my Dingle, but it still shows up a bit on longer rides. I sent the link around to a few competitive cycling friends to see what kind of reactions it gets. 'twould be especially nice on the centuries, since my posture suffers after mile 50 or so and I start putting more pressure on the 'nads.

LiquidMantis wrote:

So basically this allows me to quickly switch between high saddle for climbing efficiency then quickly drop it out of the way for playtime. It's a great add-on for "trail/all-mountain" type riding that mixes up content.

I'm having nightmares about unexpectedly triggering it into the high saddle position and the concomitant deleterious effect on "the boys".

I came into this thread hoping to get some ideas as to what I should look for in a bike, since my current bike is an old Murray something or other (Grand Mesa?) that I picked up at Target three hundred and twelve years ago.

I've "read" all four pages so far, and I'm not entirely sure I understood more than five, maybe six words. Bikes sure have changed.

So a quick question just to get me started researching down the right track. If I'm just looking to ride for exercise, almost exclusively on asphalt and concrete roads, what type of bike should I be looking for? I'm assuming not Mountain or Racing. I've seen Road, Commuter, and Touring, in the thread in reference to bike types. Is one of these what I should start researching?

Real, honest-to-goodness exercise? Road bike, no question — with clipless pedals. Just kind of tooling around hoping to get the heartrate above 120bpm exercise? Touring bike.

Jonman wrote:

I'm having nightmares about unexpectedly triggering it into the high saddle position and the concomitant deleterious effect on "the boys".

Not really possible. The release action is very positive and you have modulation control like a brake lever. So you have to press fairly hard to allow the post to travel and it's speed is controlled by the amount you press the button in. That's one of the reasons for getting a hydraulic style like this. The old style Gravity Dropper posts are just a spring and a lock-pin mechanism. Those you're supposed to make sure you sit down on it, release, then raise up with it.

I've gotta say though, the easily adjustable post is a lot of fun. It really lets you get in a good flow.

Minarchist wrote:

Real, honest-to-goodness exercise? Road bike, no question — with clipless pedals. Just kind of tooling around hoping to get the heartrate above 120bpm exercise? Touring bike.

Big time on the clipless. Takes a teeny bit of adjustment to get used to them, but once that's done, you'll never look back. Think of it as the touch-typing of cycling.

Jonman wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

Real, honest-to-goodness exercise? Road bike, no question — with clipless pedals. Just kind of tooling around hoping to get the heartrate above 120bpm exercise? Touring bike.

Big time on the clipless. Takes a teeny bit of adjustment to get used to them, but once that's done, you'll never look back. Think of it as the touch-typing of cycling.

Definitely real honest to goodness exercise. The replaces-distance-running-because-my-knees-suck type of exercise. So road bike and clipless pedals, check. I'll start researching them and seeing what I come up with. Thanks guys.

Oh, and if you buy a bike with Shimano components — which is quite likely, buying in the states — make sure every component is at least one rank higher than Sora. Here are the ranks, high to low:

Dura-Ace [7900] (10 speed)
Dura-Ace Track [7700] (NJS-approved, which is a requirement of all bicycle components used in professional Keirin racing in Japan)
Ultegra [6700] (10 speed)
105 [5700] (10 speed)
Tiagra [4500] (9 speed)
Sora [3400] (9 speed)
2200 [2300] (8 speed)

You will most likely have to add the pedals yourself, but it's not an atrociously bad expense. I think my pedals, cleats, and shoes combined (these shoes have carbon-fiber soles) were $200.

You can also get triple chainrings like mountain bikes, for those nice steep hills :).

cheeba wrote:

You can also get triple chainrings like mountain bikes, for those nice steep hills :).

Not a bad option. Though if you don't see yourself going 45+ mph, it may be better to get a compact instead of a triple. You lose a little top-end, but shifting is generally smoother due to the front derailleur not having to cover a huge distance.

Minarchist wrote:

Oh, and if you buy a bike with Shimano components — which is quite likely, buying in the states — make sure every component is at least one rank higher than Sora. Here are the ranks, high to low:

Dura-Ace [7900] (10 speed)
Dura-Ace Track [7700] (NJS-approved, which is a requirement of all bicycle components used in professional Keirin racing in Japan)
Ultegra [6700] (10 speed)
105 [5700] (10 speed)
Tiagra [4500] (9 speed)
Sora [3400] (9 speed)
2200 [2300] (8 speed)

You will most likely have to add the pedals yourself, but it's not an atrociously bad expense. I think my pedals, cleats, and shoes combined (these shoes have carbon-fiber soles) were $200.

I recognized none of these component lines, but then realized it's due to the fact that they're for the filthy roadbikes!

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I recognized none of these component lines, but then realized it's due to the fact that they're for the filthy roadbikes!

You mean the clean roadbikes -- it's mountain bikes that get dirty.

(The sheer number of cycling subcultures, and their mutual hostility, never ceases to fascinate me.)

Jonman wrote:
Minarchist wrote:

Real, honest-to-goodness exercise? Road bike, no question — with clipless pedals. Just kind of tooling around hoping to get the heartrate above 120bpm exercise? Touring bike.

Big time on the clipless. Takes a teeny bit of adjustment to get used to them, but once that's done, you'll never look back. Think of it as the touch-typing of cycling.

What do you all think about the theory that, for exercise, a road bike is actually worse than a commuter? I have a Gary Fisher Big Sur I put commuter tires on that I have to pedal harder to keep up with my road bike friends, but I'm burning a lot more calories doing so, which is really the point to me.

misplacedbravado wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I recognized none of these component lines, but then realized it's due to the fact that they're for the filthy roadbikes!

You mean the clean roadbikes -- it's mountain bikes that get dirty.

(The sheer number of cycling subcultures, and their mutual hostility, never ceases to fascinate me.)

:)

You probably ride a recumbent.

Minarchist wrote:

Oh, and if you buy a bike with Shimano components — which is quite likely, buying in the states — make sure every component is at least one rank higher than Sora. Here are the ranks, high to low:

Dura-Ace [7900] (10 speed)
Dura-Ace Track [7700] (NJS-approved, which is a requirement of all bicycle components used in professional Keirin racing in Japan)
Ultegra [6700] (10 speed)
105 [5700] (10 speed)
Tiagra [4500] (9 speed)
Sora [3400] (9 speed)
2200 [2300] (8 speed)

You will most likely have to add the pedals yourself, but it's not an atrociously bad expense. I think my pedals, cleats, and shoes combined (these shoes have carbon-fiber soles) were $200.

Pedals and shoes for $200, my last bike cost significantly less than that! Looks like I'm in for a decent investment, if I go this route for exercise, aren't I?

Teneman wrote:

Pedals and shoes for $200, my last bike cost significantly less than that! Looks like I'm in for a decent investment, if I go this route for exercise, aren't I?

Honestly, you can't start up well for cheap. If you're serious at all, you'll get so much more by spending more to get quality equipment. The difference in feel from $500 startup (all the stuff you really need, not bike alone) to $1000 is closer to an order of magnitude than the doubled cost would suggest. I'd recommend spending more than $1000 even, but it's daunting for most people who say, "Hey, I want to ride a bike again!"

LiquidMantis wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Pedals and shoes for $200, my last bike cost significantly less than that! Looks like I'm in for a decent investment, if I go this route for exercise, aren't I?

Honestly, you can't start up well for cheap. If you're serious at all, you'll get so much more by spending more to get quality equipment. The difference in feel from $500 startup (all the stuff you really need, not bike alone) to $1000 is closer to an order of magnitude than the doubled cost would suggest. I'd recommend spending more than $1000 even, but it's daunting for most people who say, "Hey, I want to ride a bike again!"

I learned long ago not to buy cheap stuff, you get what you pay for and all that. At the same time, I don't want to go topline until I know for sure this is something I'm in for the long haul. Age old tradeoff I suppose.

Thanks for the tips and advice guys. Going to hit the LBS (see, I learned an abbreviation already!*) over the long weekend and poke around a bit.

*...assuming of course LBS stands for Local Bike Shop...

Alien13z wrote:

What do you all think about the theory that, for exercise, a road bike is actually worse than a commuter? I have a Gary Fisher Big Sur I put commuter tires on that I have to pedal harder to keep up with my road bike friends, but I'm burning a lot more calories doing so, which is really the point to me.

Personally I like to see as much scenery as possible. It may be worth something (like running with weights in your hands), if you have a good saddle. Most of the commuter saddles I've seen are too big, so over longer rides (which is what you'd need for actual exercise) they put pressure on your glutes, which is painful and will tire them out too fast.

Alien13z wrote:

You probably ride a recumbent.

LiquidMantis wrote:
Teneman wrote:

Pedals and shoes for $200, my last bike cost significantly less than that! Looks like I'm in for a decent investment, if I go this route for exercise, aren't I?

Honestly, you can't start up well for cheap. If you're serious at all, you'll get so much more by spending more to get quality equipment. The difference in feel from $500 startup (all the stuff you really need, not bike alone) to $1000 is closer to an order of magnitude than the doubled cost would suggest. I'd recommend spending more than $1000 even, but it's daunting for most people who say, "Hey, I want to ride a bike again!"

Yeah, pretty much this. You can pick up a pretty decent bike if you top a grand. They go way, way up from there, but you eventually start to bump against the law of diminishing returns. I like this Trek in that price range, which typically actually sells for closer to $1000-$1200. All 105 components and carbon fiber fork and seatpost, which is where you really want the carbon fiber (that is, where you make contact with the bike).

The nice thing is, maintenance is easy and super cheap. The only things you probably don't want to try to do yourself right away are derailleur cable adjustments and maybe brakes. (Though really, even that's easy.)

I think the important thing is to actually use the bike a bit before you commit. You may not be able to tell a lot of difference between a $300 hybrid and a $2000 road bike if you just spend five minutes on each tooling around the bike shop's parking lot; you need to put each one through its paces.

Teneman wrote:

I learned long ago not to buy cheap stuff, you get what you pay for and all that. At the same time, I don't want to go topline until I know for sure this is something I'm in for the long haul. Age old tradeoff I suppose.

That's why I recommend where I do. It's low enough where it's not out of reach for someone living comfortably and who is seriously interested, but it's not cheap enough that you'll get discouraged by shoddy gear. Trust me, if you get in for the long haul and really start liking it you'll be spending way more than this.

Teneman, consider used. I got a nice Trek mountain bike thru BadMojo who found it on Craigslist for like $75.

Alien13z wrote:

What do you all think about the theory that, for exercise, a road bike is actually worse than a commuter? I have a Gary Fisher Big Sur I put commuter tires on that I have to pedal harder to keep up with my road bike friends, but I'm burning a lot more calories doing so, which is really the point to me.

If what you're interested in is sweating as much as possible, then go for it.

I would turn your argument back on you and ask wouldn't it be better to have a bike that for the same level of "burning a lot of calories" exertion, you could go faster and be more comfortable?

I've just acquired a sweet-ass time trial bike, and that thing flies. I'm working just as hard as I used to work on my crappy heavy commuter bike, but it's way faster and way more enjoyable.

Boogle needs a bike. This is the pre LBS scouting report.
I am tall. I am 6'4". My inseam is 34 and I have long arms. Think adolescent Andre the giant.
This bike will be for commuting. This is Oklahoma so it is flat as all get out, therefore a singlespeed with a flip flop hub shall be considered if one were available and desirable. In fact it may even be preferable due to the lack of moving parts. I've always been one for simplicity when possible.
I would prefer not to spend any money, but I realize that to a large extent money buys quality. I mean ideally I would like to spend under $500. I can spend more, but I would like to also spend money on frivolous things like more discs for golf and a higonokami.

misplacedbravado wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

I recognized none of these component lines, but then realized it's due to the fact that they're for the filthy roadbikes!

You mean the clean roadbikes -- it's mountain bikes that get dirty.

(The sheer number of cycling subcultures, and their mutual hostility, never ceases to fascinate me.)

:)

I am not actually hostile to other cycling subcultures, just busting his chops.