New Bike Advice

[Parera]

Not for me, for every future inquiry from here on out. This post will answer your questions.

A "good" bike is tangible, but only for the person riding it.

A "good" bike is not quantifiable by any set of metrics.

Weight/aerodynamics of a frame or component are almost irrelevant for the vast majority of amateur cyclists.

All groupsets are technically "good" (i.e. they work, moving your bike forward). However, not all groups are created equally, some requiring more wrench time than others.

Most frames from the prominent bike firms are competent, well executed machines.

"Comfort Geometry" is bull**** peddled by the industry to sell bikes.

Ride quality relies on many variables, particularly the wheel/tire setup.

Custom geometry is only as good as the fit the builder performs on their client; it is not a guarantee you will end up with an ideal setup.

It's OK to admit that you really can't differentiate between bikes.

Spend as much money as you feel comfortable; ignore the haters.

NEVER baby a bike. If a bike is "too nice" to ride, you chose a terrible bike.

Buying a bike from a local shop you enjoy is easily worth any premium they might charge compared to the internet.

Good wheelbuilders are just the best thing, ever.

Professional Racers have different needs; you can extract some useful knowledge about how they set up their bikes (and even dispel some stupid myths like comfort geometry) however you should probably take everything they do with a grain of salt.

And finally for the TL;DR crowd:

The only "good" bike is one that you actually ride.

Have a nice day.

 

[ElChingon]

You don't ride a recumbent by any chance do you?

 

[purpletezza]

$99 bikes from department stores are just the best. They weigh a tonne, have crap parts and if you are lucky actually have the forks installed the correct way around.

Why would you want to buy anyting else? For the price of an Ultegra equipped carbon bike you could buy a department store bike every day of the year and still come out in front, at least budget wise.

And that's exactly what you get when you don't listen to anyone else when you buy a new bike.

 

[JayKosta]

Regarding 'comfort geometry' -
It is important for the bike to have good dimensions for the rider's size and riding style.

BAD choice is a frame & stem size that forces either an uncomfortably LONG or SHORT reach to the handlebars. A major factor is the rider's flexibility and riding style.
A related 'setup' concern is positioning the brake hoods so they are in a comfortable location for the rider's style and physique.

Regarding 'department store bikes' - I don't know about what's currently available, but my 50 year old women's Rollfast with coaster brake works just fine. Not good for hills or high speed, but it gives a good workout on 30 mile flatish training ride.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[fatsprintking]

Not for me, for every future inquiry from here on out. This post will answer your questions.

A "good" bike is tangible, but only for the person riding it.

A "good" bike is not quantifiable by any set of metrics.

Weight/aerodynamics of a frame or component are almost irrelevant for the vast majority of amateur cyclists.

All groupsets are technically "good" (i.e. they work, moving your bike forward). However, not all groups are created equally, some requiring more wrench time than others.

Most frames from the prominent bike firms are competent, well executed machines.

"Comfort Geometry" is bull**** peddled by the industry to sell bikes.

Ride quality relies on many variables, particularly the wheel/tire setup.

Custom geometry is only as good as the fit the builder performs on their client; it is not a guarantee you will end up with an ideal setup.

It's OK to admit that you really can't differentiate between bikes.

Spend as much money as you feel comfortable; ignore the haters.

NEVER baby a bike. If a bike is "too nice" to ride, you chose a terrible bike.

Buying a bike from a local shop you enjoy is easily worth any premium they might charge compared to the internet.

Good wheelbuilders are just the best thing, ever.

Professional Racers have different needs; you can extract some useful knowledge about how they set up their bikes (and even dispel some stupid myths like comfort geometry) however you should probably take everything they do with a grain of salt.

And finally for the TL;DR crowd:

The only "good" bike is one that you actually ride.

Have a nice day.

Yeah - I agree with most of this.

I find it pretty full on how much money people are willing to pay for a bike these days and how they go about justifying their purchase. I dont mind it if someone just says they have plenty of money and they wanted this particular bike, but when they go on with a load of guff about how they "needed" bike x or y for some dodgey reason....

I guess that I am from the "bike is tool of the trade" type mentality and struggle with the level of fashion that now seems to drive things.

I was in a shop the other day and the price you could get a cannondale caad10 with shimano 105 was unbelievable. It really was a bike that would serve 90% of peoples needs 90% of the time with little or no fuss. The only thing against it is thats its just a cannondale with mid range group.

Oh and the other thing people should not do when buying a bike is to rock up at their LBS with a frame and box of bits that they got of ebay and expect that the shot will put it all together in an hour for 20 bucks.

 

[ElChingon]

Well not everyone has the same needs/taste/desire/pocketbook so hence the huge difference in bikes out there. No one can dictate what another rides/buys or makes themselves no matter how many theories a person can come up with on what people should ride according to some self generated constraints. Well, unless you live in a Commie country or are forced to by your team/club/boss/wife/husband/parents.

Variety is the spice of life, I for one can't imagine everyone riding the same bike based on someone's dreamed up constraints, thank goodness there is not world wide bike dictator dictating that.

 

[42x16ss]

Well not everyone has the same needs/taste/desire/pocketbook so hence the huge difference in bikes out there. No one can dictate what another rides/buys or makes themselves no matter how many theories a person can come up with on what people should ride according to some self generated constraints. Well, unless you live in a Commie country or are forced to by your team/club/boss/wife/husband/parents.

Variety is the spice of life, I for one can't imagine everyone riding the same bike based on someone's dreamed up constraints, thank goodness there is not world wide bike dictator dictating that.

Agreed, however Fatsprintking has a good point too. How many 45yo + exec types really "need" that top end "halo" bike? Just be upfront and say that you bought the nicest bike you could for the amount of $ you could justify!!!

Yes, a Cannondale CAAD 10 with 105/Ultegra is all that 95% of us NEED, but hey, freedom of choice is a good thing and there's nothing wrong with spoiling yourself from time to time

 

[fatsprintking]

The problem is that the "norm" has become bikes in the 3-5k range. People coming into the sport fel they "need" a bike that is a long way above their actual ability. I like variety, but it has all got a little out of hand.

I keep riding my 10 year old caad 4 because to be honest, it is a pretty good bike. I could afford something newer, but while this ones working for me it ill do.

9 speed is fine for me - actually I dont have too much trouble with 8 speed.

 

[Jeremiah]

I agree with just about everything except

Not for me, for every future inquiry from here on out. This post will answer your questions.

A "good" bike is tangible, but only for the person riding it.

A "good" bike is not quantifiable by any set of metrics.

Weight/aerodynamics of a frame or component are almost irrelevant for the vast majority of amateur cyclists.

All groupsets are technically "good" (i.e. they work, moving your bike forward). However, not all groups are created equally, some requiring more wrench time than others.

Most frames from the prominent bike firms are competent, well executed machines.

"Comfort Geometry" is bull**** peddled by the industry to sell bikes.

Ride quality relies on many variables, particularly the wheel/tire setup.

Custom geometry is only as good as the fit the builder performs on their client; it is not a guarantee you will end up with an ideal setup.

It's OK to admit that you really can't differentiate between bikes.

Spend as much money as you feel comfortable; ignore the haters.

NEVER baby a bike. If a bike is "too nice" to ride, you chose a terrible bike.

Buying a bike from a local shop you enjoy is easily worth any premium they might charge compared to the internet.

Good wheelbuilders are just the best thing, ever.

Professional Racers have different needs; you can extract some useful knowledge about how they set up their bikes (and even dispel some stupid myths like comfort geometry) however you should probably take everything they do with a grain of salt.

And finally for the TL;DR crowd:

The only "good" bike is one that you actually ride.

Have a nice day.

your take on comfort geometry.

What's wrong with longer headtubes, longer chainstays, lower bottom brackets, longer front center, longer wheelbase, relaxed HT angles?

IMO, it's like saying that clothing manufacturers shouldn't make a 34 waist for pants, or a long/short jacket size.

The Caad 10 has certain characteristics. A Synapse rides a little differently. Why not?

 

[DirtyWorks]

What's wrong with longer headtubes, longer chainstays, lower bottom brackets, longer front center, longer wheelbase, relaxed HT angles?

Nothing is wrong. It gets a few more people out on bikes that probably wouldn't otherwise. There are some things working against the relaxed specification, but it's hard to see for most people.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What's wrong with longer headtubes, longer chainstays, lower bottom brackets, longer front center, longer wheelbase, relaxed HT angles?

Nothing is wrong. It gets a few more people out on bikes that probably wouldn't otherwise. There are some things working against the relaxed specification, but it's hard to see for most people.

 

[Jeremiah]

Nothing is wrong. It gets a few more people out on bikes that probably wouldn't otherwise. There are some things working against the relaxed specification, but it's hard to see for most people.

Enlighten me?

 

[Notso Swift]

And me
After all most Comfort Geometry is actually close to the old/classic racing geometry, and until you can ride better the Merckx...

My bike is set up classic, although very long (595 TT and 140 stem) and a normal 8cm seat/handelbar drop, but when I am in the drops which includes deep bars I am lower than a lot of "race" positions" where they never get into the (shallow) drops and ride all of the time on the hoods

Not that any of it matters, at 195cm I always catch the wind because I never find a bigger bloke to sit on to.

Apart from the holier than though presentation, (which is ironic) the OP generally has a reasonable opinion ie Just Ride!

 

[Parera]

I will elaborate further:

Comfort geometry is no t a guarantee. Simply legnthening a headtube or chainstays isn't magic. In fact, Specialized Roubaix have overly stiff front ends in my experience which I think probably originates in the overly long headtube. Anyways, my point is that these geometries don't fix the problem of bike discomfort by themselves.

I will admit, it's a pet peeve of mine to hear people extolling the virtues of a comfort geometry. I had a dude *****ing to me that Cannondale EVO's are so "harsh" that there's no way a person could reasonably ride over 30 miles on one. Nonsense, of course, Cannondales are used at the pro level and no one is becoming crippled last time I checked. I think of it akin to how people approach nutrition: Instead of making the right dietary choices, they just ask their doc to prescribe them meds for some ailment that is treatable through diet and exercise. Likewise, some dude, instead of doing some work on his position thinks (like, *gasp* using spacers or different stem in conjunction with saddle height/setback), thinks his problems will be solved by the latest comfort whatsit from Specialitrekgiannodale.

 

[Parera]

A related 'setup' concern is positioning the brake hoods so they are in a comfortable location for the rider's style and physique.

This is a crack in the "looking for a new bike" process IMO. People go to a shop, hop on a bike for a spin and come back thinking the bike is uncomfortable because the hoods are set up poorly for them (and even outright bad).

 

[Jeremiah]

And me
After all most Comfort Geometry is actually close to the old/classic racing geometry, and until you can ride better the Merckx...

My bike is set up classic, although very long (595 TT and 140 stem) and a normal 8cm seat/handelbar drop, but when I am in the drops which includes deep bars I am lower than a lot of "race" positions" where they never get into the (shallow) drops and ride all of the time on the hoods

Not that any of it matters, at 195cm I always catch the wind because I never find a bigger bloke to sit on to.

Apart from the holier than though presentation, (which is ironic) the OP generally has a reasonable opinion ie Just Ride!

I generally agree.

I will elaborate further:

Comfort geometry is no t a guarantee. Simply legnthening a headtube or chainstays isn't magic. In fact, Specialized Roubaix have overly stiff front ends in my experience which I think probably originates in the overly long headtube. Anyways, my point is that these geometries don't fix the problem of bike discomfort by themselves.

I will admit, it's a pet peeve of mine to hear people extolling the virtues of a comfort geometry. I had a dude *****ing to me that Cannondale EVO's are so "harsh" that there's no way a person could reasonably ride over 30 miles on one. Nonsense, of course, Cannondales are used at the pro level and no one is becoming crippled last time I checked. I think of it akin to how people approach nutrition: Instead of making the right dietary choices, they just ask their doc to prescribe them meds for some ailment that is treatable through diet and exercise. Likewise, some dude, instead of doing some work on his position thinks (like, *gasp* using spacers or different stem in conjunction with saddle height/setback), thinks his problems will be solved by the latest comfort whatsit from Specialitrekgiannodale.

Regarding the Roubaix, and comparing their Tarmac, in size 56, the Roubaix's wheelbase is 24mm longer. The chainstay length is 10mm longer. BB drop is 11.5 mm more. Stack is 25mm greater in roubaix and front center is 15 mm.

The roubaix comfortably fits 28mm tires.

As for front end stiffness, the Tarmac decreased the lower front headset bearing 1/8 inch to the 1 and 3/8th's size of the Roubaix. I'm riding a Roubaix S Works SL 2 right now and the front end doesn't feel particularly stiff, even compared to the Look kg 381 I was riding. I'm not racing or diving into corners though.

Even with the very long head tube, I'm comfortably riding with a flat back in the drops, with about 5 cm of saddle to bar drop, restricted a little because of bad back, inflexibility. 47y.o.

I'm 175 cm tall. 76 kg. Inseam 85 cm. Saddle height 75cm. Tip of saddle to center of bars 56 cm. 21 mm setback Seatpost and Toupe saddle is in the center of the rails. 110 Stem -6 degrees.

Seems to be a very middle of the road setup.

I'm sure I could ride pretty much anything within reason but a couple of centimeters here and there definitely aids comfort and stability. it's not like I wouldn't be riding a Caad 10 if that's what I had though and I think many make a bigger deal out of different frames than actually exists.

The only thing I don't like is that no hands riding is less stable than the Look but the Look is incredibly solid with no hands...

 

[hfer07]

"Comfort Geometry" is concept inherent to the Carbon era & became an excuse used by the manufacturers to alter the traditional bike geometry in order to "save material & expenses". Once the bikes became a matter of massive production, some smart a$$ designers concluded that by shortening the top tube using it in an angle-instead of parallel to the ground & applying some funky angles throughout the entire design would become an "efficient design" aimed to comply with the "minimum comfort of the rider"....


Good were the old days when I got to ride a VITUS frame back in the 80's-just clean lines & geometry- no BS....

 

[Jeremiah]

"Comfort Geometry" is concept inherent to the Carbon era & became an excuse used by the manufacturers to alter the traditional bike geometry in order to "save material & expenses". Once the bikes became a matter of massive production, some smart a$$ designers concluded that by shortening the top tube using it in an angle-instead of parallel to the ground & applying some funky angles throughout the entire design would become an "efficient design" aimed to comply with the "minimum comfort of the rider"....


Good were the old days when I got to ride a VITUS frame back in the 80's-just clean lines & geometry- no BS....

But wasn't it Giant who started the compact frame/sloping top tube and that had absolutely nothing to do with comfort.

 

[hfer07]

But wasn't it Giant who started the compact frame/sloping top tube and that had absolutely nothing to do with comfort.

that's exactly the point-no matter how "funky" or curvy the bike design & their manufactures claim it is -at the end of the day is how the rider's anatomy blends with the appropriate "bike fitting"...

 

[Jeremiah]

that's exactly the point-no matter how "funky" or curvy the bike design & their manufactures claim it is -at the end of the day is how the rider's anatomy blends with the appropriate "bike fitting"...

There were NO manufactures claims that the TCR was comfortable. It was always an out and out race bike and the geometry reflected that.

The geometry of a Roubaix or other "comfort" bike is different and reflects the desire to build more comfort into the frame.

Obviously an ill fitting "comfort" geometry defeats the stated purpose.

Just the fact that you can fit wider tires makes a bike more comfortable.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But wasn't it Giant who started the compact frame/sloping top tube and that had absolutely nothing to do with comfort.

The benefits of a s/m/l bike hasn't changed. Giant builds three bikes versus, six or more sizes. They become the low-cost leader in bike supply as long as someone in the industry tries to stay in business managing t a much more complicated inventory and much smaller production runs.

Comfort specifications are another thing entirely. They get people out on bikes and that's great.

 

[Jeremiah]

The benefits of a s/m/l bike hasn't changed. Giant builds three bikes versus, six or more sizes. They become the low-cost leader in bike supply as long as someone in the industry tries to stay in business managing t a much more complicated inventory and much smaller production runs.

Comfort specifications are another thing entirely. They get people out on bikes and that's great.

Yes, I agree with you..

 

[richwagmn]

The benefits of a s/m/l bike hasn't changed. Giant builds three bikes versus, six or more sizes. They become the low-cost leader in bike supply as long as someone in the industry tries to stay in business managing t a much more complicated inventory and much smaller production runs.

Comfort specifications are another thing entirely. They get people out on bikes and that's great.

Lets not forget some pros are using "comfort" geometries too. 5 riders on radioshack are using trek's h2 geometry (3cm taller head tube than their pro fit geometry).

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/pro-bike-old-man-chris-horners-trek-madone-69-ssl-34003/

I have no idea why some people think that everyone needs to ride tiny headtube bikes with slammed stems just because they think it looks cool.