beginner road bike???

[cy]

yep... double and triple denotes number of chain rings on front crank.

definitely go triple cranks. you will use middle chain ring most of the time. large ring only for high speed moments.
you won't use "granny" but a tiny amount of time. but the few times you use small chain ring, it REALLY will be needed.

a triple crank can duplicate what ever gear ratio, roadies are using with their ... say 39/53 combo. until you get road legs, you won't be able to grind up hills using tall gears.

roadies rarely need smallest front crank gear. that's why they go for a double crank. (it's extra weight) vs loaded tourist & mountain bikers always go for a triple crank (except single gear craze). this allows rider to spin up hills.

objective is to maintain a fairly high RPM. each person is slightly different, but 90 rpm range is where you want to be. a triple crank can drop down gearing and spin up a huge hill vs grinding up the same hill with higher gearing.

you can spot long time riders by their spin. it's called style... a good rider has an effortless spin and will pedal circles. this will not mean much until later.

beginners usually try to grind up hills with too tall a gear. that only works a few times.... then your muscles need recovery time.

cyclist use slow twitch muscles most of the time, only bringing out fast twitch muscles during sprints. once your muscles go into anaerobic debt, you blow up and basically shut down.

when you first try to keep up with a pack of roadies. you will probably blow up and drop. that's all a normal part of getting your road legs.

high mileage riders get super efficient at riding, so don't get discouraged at not being able to keep up at first. also expect to get a few lessons on pack riding etiquette. like riding a straight line and being predictable.

I suspect with your weight lifting background. you will be a super strong rider in short order!

Ok I am going out of town for a few days and when I return I am planning on purchasing a new bike. I pretty much have narrowed down my choices to two bikes and maybe three however am going to decide after test rides and a few questions at the shop.

One quick question.....Between the two bikes both have a model called a double and also a triple for just a little more. Is this triple in regards to the front crank having 3 sprockets rather than two? I assume this is why the double is called this due to 2 cranks up front.

Also the only difference I can see between both brands is that both double versions are similiar in cost however one says the front crank is Bontrager 50/34 where the other has a 53/39. I also assume this is teeth on the front cranks so as a beginner would I notice any difference between these two cranks? What are the pros and cons of both cranks?. Seems like a big difference between the two bikes as far as cranks go so again I have no idea as to what those numbers mean for a rider. For both triple models the settings are identical at 50/39/30

 

[Robocop]

Cy I really have no idea of my road legs or my endurance however I am healthy for my age. I have ran for years however only short distances to keep me in shape enough for work. On a side note I do know that I was timed at a local physical test within the last year and I can still run a 4.2 second 40 yard dash so my legs are powerful. I have sprinting power no doubt but feel my long term endurance will not come close to experienced riders.

I was heavily recruited at one time for my size and power and have maintained a degree of fitness for years. In my mind I am still an athlete however in reality I am a 39 year old police officer with 39 year old knees...LOL The short sprints do not hurt me however after maybe 3 miles of running at only a jogging pace my knees and joints kind of stay sore for some time.I believe the best thing I have done is that I have never drank nor smoked and I do not eat any fried foods at all. I still have my 6-pack abs as well as muscle tone but again I am not a rider at all. I really have no motive to ever race but for some reason I really want to start riding for fun.

I think what intrigues me most is knowing the distances one can really cover on todays better bikes. My g/f routinely goes 30 miles on a Sunday cruise and she loves it. In my mind I am imagining being outdoors with the world passing by and the wind in my face....you know just recreational riding through winding country roads type stuff. Not sure as to why it suddenly facinates me but it does. I also like the feeling of being self contained or somehow having a second option in travel. I like the idea of having a small pack of supplies and being able to just go w/out the worry of gym memberships or closing times......

After much reading I feel I know a little more. It seems that shifters and other parts come in stages. There are lower quality yet still good shifters by Shimano with one bike having Sora version parts while the other has Tiagra or even 105 versions....each going up in cost with each group.

On many bikes I see the same parts with a few crucial differences making one bike 300 dollars more in cost. I was reading a forum entry on the web and one rider made a good point. He said with even the lower end parts of today a new rider will be quickly able to tell the difference from an everyday WalMart bike vs an 800 dollar road bike. He said the difference was like night and day comparing those two.

He also said that if a beginner buys a 800 dollar bike they will most likely think the bike is awesome with something like Sora derailers and shifters. He kind of joked and said if a rider never has the chance to ride something higher end like a full carbon bike with the very top of line parts they will never know what they are missing. So for now in my limit of the 1200 dollar range Tiagra or 105 parts should be great for what I intend to do. The idea of having fun riding vs the activity of jogging appeals better to me and cycling seems like a win win situation to stay in shape.....

 

[cy]

robo, hey the hard part is almost over

you'll be making your choice soon and taking your equipment home. with all the high tech bike stuff, it's easy to get overwhelmed with all the choices.

been awhile since I've looked closely at all the new models. but it seems the same price range to benefit ratio is holding true. once you reach the $800 range bikes, improvements pass that price point are only incremental.

sounds like you are still in great shape and will have a great time riding!

your knees will thank you... one would think, the huge number of reps your knees goes through on cycling would be bad. but opposite seems to be true.

 

[orbital]

+

Robo, many people are chiming in on the crankset and chainring size.

It is easy to think bigger chainrings are better, and you will go reeeaaaallly fast. I would have to disagree!

I could go into my bike racing as a kid, or my Mtn. bike racing, or road training ect..
but one thing I learned in living in Colorado is when training your legs,...you 'Spin to Win'.
I don't mean bike classes here, I mean high cadence (RPM) on your pedal strokes (85 RPM or higher )

When you spin high cadence, you train you muscles to go longer distance and in turn your legs don't blow up.
~ In Europe, young apprentice cyclist are put on single speed bikes
and are asked to cycle as fast as they can to train their legs high cadence.
Important to understand,
you have to be very smooth with your pedaling, and keep a quiet upper body, NO bobbing and weaving.

Even Lance Armstrong was a huge advocate (and it was his secret weapon) to spin higher cadence.

I would absolutely recommend a 50/34 (compact) or getting a triple chainring setup.
**Its all about usability of your gearing.

Good luck!

~By the way, if you are in an area with long downhills, or you feel you need taller gearing, consider a spare 11/26 cassette.
A 50 chainring and 11 cog in rear is a taller gear.

_Brian

 

[mechBgon]

After writing down all the specs and comparing I only see a few differences I do not understand......

one bike has an alpha aluminum frame while the other has 6066 AC/DC aluminum and the 3rd one says alpha aluminum with caron stays. Between the two aluminum ones is there a huge advantage to one and also what does carbon stays imply?....is this a better set up with carbon stays? I dont even know what a stay is anyway...LOL

"Stays" are the paired frame tubes that make up the rear of the frame. "Seatstays" are the ones between the rear axle and the seatpost, and are often made of carbon to add a little shock absorbtion on aluminum bikes. "Chainstays" are the lower pair that run between the rear axle and the cranks.

Also not sure what a derailer is but these are also different between the three. One says the front derailer is Shimano Tiagra where the other says Shimano Sora? Also one says the rear derailer is Tiagra where the other says the rear derailer is Shimano 105?

The derailleurs are the hinged mechanisms that "derail" the chain from one gear to another when you make gear shifts. Just like there's various bins of LEDs, Shimano makes various bins of parts. 105, Tiagra and Sora are three of these, with 105 being the fanciest of the three and Sora being the most basic. 105 is 10-speed in the rear, Tiagra is 9-speed, and Sora is 8-speed. Also, 105 and Tiagra shift/brake levers use the higher-end design where the release paddle is right behind the brake-lever blade, whereas Sora has a thumb-actuated release button that's very difficult to hit when your hands are on the lower part of the handlebars (aka the "drops"). You'll notice that Tiagra's current shifters (4500 series) also have a gear indicator on top, to show where you are in the gear ranges.

There are material differences between the derailleurs themselves but they should all work satisfactorily if they're adjusted right. Looking through the specs, one thing I noticed about the Scott is that it has DT Swiss spokes, which may sound like "who cares about the spokes?" but there's a radical difference in quality between good spokes and cheap OEM spokes, and if the bike gets ridden regularly by a strong rider, you can plan on cheap spokes fatiguing and breaking with annoying frequency after ~2 years, whereas DT and Wheelsmith spokes will hold up 'til the cows come home (when I retired my Cannondale touring bike, the DT Swiss spokes were about 12 years old and still going strong).

When building my own road/sport bike, I also faced the question of double versus triple chainrings, gearing and so on. Personally, I don't like having a triple on a sport bike (touring bikes, sure) because heck, I can already lose track of which chainring I'm using when there's just two of them, let alone three! Before you decide triple is for you, do a real-world ride on a triple and make sure it's what you want. For many riders, a compact double is practically as good, and less complicated, and a "standard" double with 39/52 or 39/53 can still be plenty tractable if paired up with a wider-range rear gear cluster (aka "cassette") such as a 12-27.

Dunno about the other guys, but I use the big chainring a great deal in normal riding, and it would be difficult to envision using it just at choice moments where the conditions are favorable (downhill, tailwinds). Heck, I launch from stoplights in the 53-tooth ring... :shrug: Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but if you came on even a weekend-warrior 25-mile group road ride around here, you'd be on your big ring for most of it.

 

[orbital]

+

Robo,

Just so you don't get too turned around on the gearing thing.

** A 50/11 is a taller gear ratio than a 53/12

I truly wish you good luck and, remember,.... Have Fun!!

 

[Robocop]

After much study and reading I can see for the money that the Scott bike on sale is the best deal. It was clost to $1300 originally however on sale for 800 now. I wish it was at the better shop however it is at the shop that hurried me to purchase and also took the least time with me.

One thing I have read over and over is that without the correct fit even a 8k bike will ride horrible. I was fit to the Scott bike in about 5 minutes and they wanted me to purchase it right then. I am feeling as if it probably would not fit as well as the others simply due to the better shop taking many more measurements. The Scott bike has all 105 parts however I am going with the Trek or Lemond from the most helpful shop. I now believe from all the advice given here that initial cost is not always most important. I believe that service from this shop will make up for the cost difference in the long run.

After this week I will keep you all posted as to my purchase and try to get a few photos as soon as I get home.....leaving in the morning for North Carolina to attend the wedding of my g/f sister and be back Sunday Night.

 

[cy]

go give the scott bike a proper road test and if it wins the ride test. buy it. odds are due to the scott bike being the correct size (52-54cm range) to begin with. components size will not be off, if at all.

if the trek bike wins the ride test, then buy it. don't get me wrong, it's always best to have great bike shop support. but shops understand what suits you the best is the bike you should go with.

bike shops don't make much $$ on selling bikes. they make the most gross profit on selling accessories.

could be wrong, but I'm guessing the good bike shop will still support you. just to get your business on.... helmet, shoes, pedals, camelbak, floor pump, frame pump, patch kits, gloves, shorts, etc, etc. don't be surprised if you end up spending another $400+ on these items alone.

you really can't go wrong with either choice. they are both great bikes.
---------

mechBgon, really gotta disagree with your use of large chainring. if you are in large chainring most of the time, you won't be spinning correctly. you'll be grinding out large gears all the time. very bad for your knees..

the only folks that would do this on purpose are time trial specialist. way back when I was fit... I'd do a time 25 mile time trial right at one hour. that means I'd be averaging 25mph for one hour. by no means slow, but certainly far from the best times.

the point of that story is ... unless you are training for time trials. you really are better off gearing down and spinning in 90 rpm range.

now if one is riding in a pack... speeds goes up and large ring will be needed more. it's really back to spinning at the correct cadence.

Dunno about the other guys, but I use the big chainring a great deal in normal riding, and it would be difficult to envision using it just at choice moments where the conditions are favorable (downhill, tailwinds). Heck, I launch from stoplights in the 53-tooth ring... :shrug: Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but if you came on even a weekend-warrior 25-mile group road ride around here, you'd be on your big ring for most of it.

 

[jtr1962]

Dunno about the other guys, but I use the big chainring a great deal in normal riding, and it would be difficult to envision using it just at choice moments where the conditions are favorable (downhill, tailwinds). Heck, I launch from stoplights in the 53-tooth ring...

I don't know if the problem is with my particular bike or not, but I've noticed that I seem to put in markedly more effort for a given speed and cadence using the large chainring on my compact crankset. As an example, let's say I'm going 18½ mph. On the small chainring I'll probably using the 13 tooth sprocket. 34x13 will be a 90 RPM cadence at 18½ mph. Now if I'm on the 50 ring instead, I'll likely be using the 19 tooth sprocket. RPM will be exactly the same-50x19 is the same as 34x13. However, I'm putting out enough extra work to notice the difference. And this is actually something I've noticed on other bikes when using the large chainring.

Could it be because the linear chain speed for a given cadence is higher on a larger chainring? Or might it be something else? All I know is this is one reason I prefer smaller chainrings. I suspect this particular bike feels like a slug largely because I'm more or less stuck using the large chainring for the reasons I mentioned a few posts back, at least until I buy a rear cluster with an 11 tooth top gear.

I can launch from stoplights just like you if I want to on the big chainring, but I can feel the legs straining until I get up to at least 10 mph. If I do it enough times I'll start to feel it. I'd rather use something like 34x26 to start, and basically do my upshifts when the cadence hits 120 RPM. The take-off resembles a subway train doing it that way. Doing it the other way feels more like a bus stuck in high gear.

 

[Robocop]

Ok one last question for those who can help....As a beginner the only bikes I have ridden are the cheap wal-mart brands as a child. So with no experience I probably would not know the difference between a 800 dollar bike and a 1300 dollar bike.

So using these two links can anyone say if this cheaper Trek bike under 800 dollars http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/1_series/12/
will actually "feel" or ride better than this same brand bike costing much more
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/2_series/21/

 

[PhotonAddict]

mechBgon - I also use my 53 chainring a lot, but I rarely my highest gear ratio unless I've got a tailwind or trying to bridge up to a group. I guess the point I was trying to make was that one may not be giving up too much by going to a compact gearing setup. But yes, I agree that it's the ratio of the gears that matter so it also depends on the size of the cluster in the rear and everyone is different so cycling style and a person's physique also factor in as well.

Robocop - I'm not familiar with the to Trek bikes in your link, but from just skimming the specs - the frame geometries are identical so any difference you notice would probably be due to the better wheels, carbon stays and slightly better components on the Trek 2.1.
I'm not a huge fan of the low-spoke count, paired-spoke wheels on the 2.1 but that's a personal hangup of mine. I also think the Tiagra shifters on the 2.1 are more accessible from different positions as someone pointed out earlier.

Whether one feels better to you or at least good enough to satisfy your needs is something that only you can answer.... I know, that doesn't really help does it? Did you have a chance to take them for a test ride? If so what were you're initial impressions?

 

[orbital]

Ok one last question for those who can help....As a beginner the only bikes I have ridden are the cheap wal-mart brands as a child. So with no experience I probably would not know the difference between a 800 dollar bike and a 1300 dollar bike.

So using these two links can anyone say if this cheaper Trek bike under 800 dollars http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/1_series/12/
will actually "feel" or ride better than this same brand bike costing much more
http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/2008/road/2_series/21/

+

Robo,

I doubt you will notice a difference at all.
Bikes start to increase in price is when the components start to get only 'marginally better.
The other wheelset is not worth the difference at all.

Recently while talking to my local bike shop guy, we were talking about the industry trends ect..,
he was saying its all about mid range bikes and the incredible value/dollar today.

Get the Trek 1.2,
and with the money saved, buy a couple pair of cycling shorts, step-in pedals & shoes, couple water bottles and a couple tubes...
In time, you'll find you have to replace some components anyway.

Trust me, its more important to have the proper saddle height & angle than almost anything else.

P.S. Ask the shop to put on a 11/28 cassette for you.

 

[cy]

both bikes look great! don't think you'd go wrong with either choice.

$800 bike has stronger/slightly heavier wheels. which would be an advantage. parts group will be a touch heavier.

$1200 bike has lighter wheels and a better groupo (parts package). probably 1.5lbs range lighter, with main performance increase from lighter wheelset.

both look almost identical in setup. frames look to be the same. betcha can't tell the difference in shifting.

a beginner would be hard pressed to tell much difference in the two.
you may be better off getting the $800 version. sure as heck, if you end up liking to cycle. like your GF, you'll be wanting to upgrade at some point.

 

[turbodog]

Handy tip. Don't carry your gun with you during your first rides. You'll shoot most every car that comes by.

Most car drivers simply do not think cyclists have any rights to be on the road.

But enough of this. The thread hasn't derailed (pun intended) yet, and I am not trying to cause problems.

 

[PhotonAddict]

Good suggestion from Orbital with regards to swapping the cassette. As the others have said, if they both feel about the same get the 1.2 - you also have to budget for accessories.

 

[mechBgon]

mechBgon, really gotta disagree with your use of large chainring. if you are in large chainring most of the time, you won't be spinning correctly. you'll be grinding out large gears all the time. very bad for your knees..

the only folks that would do this on purpose are time trial specialist. way back when I was fit... I'd do a time 25 mile time trial right at one hour. that means I'd be averaging 25mph for one hour. by no means slow, but certainly far from the best times.

the point of that story is ... unless you are training for time trials. you really are better off gearing down and spinning in 90 rpm range.

now if one is riding in a pack... speeds goes up and large ring will be needed more. it's really back to spinning at the correct cadence.

My average cadence on road rides is typically 86-92rpm, according to my Polar CS200Cad, so don't jump to conclusions

I don't know if the problem is with my particular bike or not, but I've noticed that I seem to put in markedly more effort for a given speed and cadence using the large chainring on my compact crankset. As an example, let's say I'm going 18½ mph. On the small chainring I'll probably using the 13 tooth sprocket. 34x13 will be a 90 RPM cadence at 18½ mph. Now if I'm on the 50 ring instead, I'll likely be using the 19 tooth sprocket. RPM will be exactly the same-50x19 is the same as 34x13. However, I'm putting out enough extra work to notice the difference. And this is actually something I've noticed on other bikes when using the large chainring.

Could it be because the linear chain speed for a given cadence is higher on a larger chainring? Or might it be something else? All I know is this is one reason I prefer smaller chainrings. I suspect this particular bike feels like a slug largely because I'm more or less stuck using the large chainring for the reasons I mentioned a few posts back, at least until I buy a rear cluster with an 11 tooth top gear.

I can launch from stoplights just like you if I want to on the big chainring, but I can feel the legs straining until I get up to at least 10 mph. If I do it enough times I'll start to feel it. I'd rather use something like 34x26 to start, and basically do my upshifts when the cadence hits 120 RPM. The take-off resembles a subway train doing it that way. Doing it the other way feels more like a bus stuck in high gear.

You could lose a small amount of power due to imperfect chainline, but I suspect the difference is mostly psychological. It feels the opposite to me... in the small chainring, with a lighter chain lube, I can hear the chain experiencing the increased stress at the chainring (it's under more leverage on the small chainring). Review the Tour De California on DVD and see how many pros are using their little chainrings for anything but categorized ascents.

As for stoplight launches, I just want the best 0-25mph times practical, and the approach I use on the road-racer is to launch in the 53x19 or 53x17 and use torque to begin with, like a track sprinter, then wind up to about 110rpm and start punching in double or triple upshifts in the rear to get back down into my torque range. I use a similar approach on my commuting bike (a converted mountain bike). Works pretty good, as evidenced by the sheepish motorists who thought they were going to pass me and then cut in front of me. Anyone wondering about the cheetah avatar I use elsewhere... well now you know where that comes from :thumbsup:

That reminds me. Robocop, if you don't wear corrective lenses, you might find a helmet-mounted rearview mirror useful. I couldn't function without mine, it's endlessly useful

P.S. Ask the shop to put on a 11/26 cassette for you.

I'm not aware of any 8-speed 11-26 cassettes on the market at the moment but perhaps an 11-28 SRAM PG-830 would do the trick. The 1.2's drivetrain should be able to handle a 28.

 

[orbital]

..I'm not aware of any 8-speed 11-26 cassettes on the market at the moment but perhaps an 11-28 SRAM PG-830 would do the trick. The 1.2's drivetrain should be able to handle a 28.

+

True, in trying to help, I missed the 8-speed factor.

If you get an 11/28 cassette (the derailleur will accept it) you should have all the gearing you'll need.
'King of the Mountains' jersey will be yours!..:thumbsup:

{Remember not to cross chain; avoid going big chainring ~ big cog on cassette.}

 

[cy]

hey what ever works for ya..... we always snicker when ever we see someone grinding large chainring

besides being in double large combination or close to it. is very_hard on your drivetrain. always got double large set to where it chain barely clears. we've always avoided double large and double small combo's.

My average cadence on road rides is typically 86-92rpm, according to my Polar CS200Cad, so don't jump to conclusions

As for stoplight launches, I just want the best 0-25mph times practical, and the approach I use on the road-racer is to launch in the 53x19 or 53x17 and use torque to begin with, like a track sprinter, then wind up to about 110rpm and start punching in double or triple upshifts in the rear to get back down into my torque range. :thumbsup:

.

 

[mechBgon]

hey what ever works for ya..... we always snicker when ever we see someone grinding large chainring

besides being in double large combination or close to it. is very_hard on your drivetrain.

I know that's the Conventional Wisdom™, since I routinely dispense it myself as a bicycle mechanic of many years But while I wouldn't run my drivetrain in the big-to-big combo for extended periods of time, I do routinely use that gear combo when it suits me better than shifting to a different chainring. I'm not repentant about it. My commuting bike's not a shelf queen, it's a tool with a job to do, and despite what people may have been told, using the big-to-big combo does not automatically make stuff blow up, it's just not the gear combo you want to use ad infinitum :thumbsup: So anyway, to each his own. For me, the small chainring is for climbing hills, the big chainring is for everything else. Maybe I'll sing a different tune in another 30 years

I undoubtedly used the big-to-big combo on this ride. Probably doesn't matter much.


Robocop, here's another tip for road cycling in groups. When a rider stands up to pedal, the act of standing up tends to make his bicycle itself jump backwards about six inches. In the event that you have someone riding in your slipstream, if they're closer than six inches, you could take them down. When riding in that scenario, if you're going to stand up, try to ease into the standing position and/or conciously apply enough extra speed to counteract the effect. Tangentially, be aware that this could happen if the person in front of you changes from seated to standing (although as a newcomer, you probably don't intend to get that close). Also, if you're in a group which is riding in a "paceline," try to avoid sudden changes of speed, particularly braking.

 

[Robocop]

Ok new development in this decision......I really studied many bikes and plan to buy Saturday and wanted the Lemond Tourmalet made by Trek. While doing some last minute reading I found that only 3 days past Trek decided to drop the Lemond line. They have had some bad blood between Greg Lemond and decided to file suit to get out of their contract.

Of course Lemond is fighting this however this worries me as to the future of Lemond. I really can not see Trek putting much quality into these bikes considering their anger towards the Lemond line. Research showed bad feelings between the two for 2 years now so I am wondering how much quality Trek has used when making the models for sale now.

Also future warranty or service issues may be a concern as well and I just have a bad feeling about buying a Lemond bike now. It is a shame as the parts are good for the cost and I liked the look of the bike. On the good side most bike shops will most likely be dumping their current stock of Lemond at great prices.

My back up 2nd choice was the Trek 2.1 or 1.5 so this weekend I will be test driving both of these rather than the Lemond.