Cost of decent new road bike?

Steven Scharf

"Reid Priedhorsky" <reid@reidster.net> wrote in message newsan.2004.04.04.20.04.17.931350@reidster.net...
> Hello all,
>
> I'm debating whether to upgrade my existing bike or buy a new one. How
> much can I expect to pay for a decent new road bike? Decent meaning, as
> cheap as possible given a few constraints:

<snip>

Click over to my "Bicycle Recommendation Short List" at
"http://nordicgroup.us/bikerec" for some good recommendations.

"Decent" can be widely interpreted.

Not a lot out there that meets your criteria. The touring part of it
really limits your choices, as do the desire for longevity and
comfort. You're moving in the exact opposite direction from most of
the bicycle industry.

IMVAIO, you're looking at $400-700 for my definition of "decent."
You'll get one of the lower end component groups, i.e. but this is not
a problem.

The Fuji Tour is probably your best choice, about $700 on sale. It's
got a chromolloy steel frame, so longevity won't be a problem. The
design leans more toward touring than road riding.
"http://tinylink.com/?8v4NNx7yjj"
Also sold on-line at
"http://bikesdirect.com/products/02fuji/fuji_touring.htm"

The Trek 520 is another touring bicycle, but they've gone to the
threadless headset which requires an extender for the more upright
riding position favored by touring cyclists. Also, it's about $300
more than the Fuji Tour (street prices). But it's also a good choice,
with the next group up in components versus the Fuji (105 versus
Tiagra).

For more of a road bike, the Bianchi Brava may be a better choice,
about $510 on sale. This has the lower end Sora component group, but
it's adequate.
"http://www.bianchiusa.com/brava.html"

Of course the ideal bicycle for you is probably the Rivendell Romulus,
but it's $1450, on sale, not including a saddle or pedals.
"http://rivbike.com/html/bikes_romulusframes.html"

I would not leave a shiny new bicycle on a college campus. No matter
how good you lock it up it's at risk (even the components are at
risk). Keep your old bike for this sort of thing.

Zippy the Pinhead

On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC),
<bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Apr.05.04@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

>>isn't rivendell in, like, the bay area? do they even have snow there?
>
>_ If you were ambitious, there are about 2-3 days a year you
>could ride at least a few miles on snow covered roads. You need
>to get above 3K feet ( An hour or so from Walnut Creek). No salt
>used as far as I know.

Yeah, but I'm an expatriated third generation native Californian who
fled from So Cal awhile back. One thing I haven't seen out here where
I live now (snows by the foot) is tire chains. Back in CA, every time
it snowed up in the mountains, they'd say you needed chains. Out here
nobody's heard of chains except maybe on tractor tires.

Wazzup with that?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <6gn3705o1gbklm282kt869efvd5f1dm8p8@4ax.com>,
Zippy the Pinhead <the_corporate_hose@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC),
><bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Apr.05.04@telemark.slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>>isn't rivendell in, like, the bay area? do they even have snow there?
>>
>>_ If you were ambitious, there are about 2-3 days a year you
>>could ride at least a few miles on snow covered roads. You need
>>to get above 3K feet ( An hour or so from Walnut Creek). No salt
>>used as far as I know.
>
>Yeah, but I'm an expatriated third generation native Californian who
>fled from So Cal awhile back. One thing I haven't seen out here where
>I live now (snows by the foot) is tire chains. Back in CA, every time
>it snowed up in the mountains, they'd say you needed chains. Out here
>nobody's heard of chains except maybe on tractor tires.
>
>Wazzup with that?

_ They don't have 7 or 8k passes to drive up and down? Actually,
it has more to do with the fact that nobody in California knows
how to drive in the snow or has real snow tires on their
car. Chains are a west coast only thing as far as I know. Plus if
you used them all the time, they'd destroy the roads.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQHHwyGTWTAjn5N/lAQH4OQP/d1U/Rgq0gltihdH4SJ9vQjHI8+AxJLie
dHC4XMuhepR2LW7UZrA4JVWxlvfJbhG7xsMd5rWSq8BN+Fi2k0crQQs+rTWBUG9w
QOQAJCmqtUU9JqAnd2ELnpgXBvzwxvgNVt0+stToseq2s+Tf4pHOI4iiSTom9OVD
XhqnX0KVDGw=
=Q/fE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David L. Johnson

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:04:18 -0500, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm debating whether to upgrade my existing bike or buy a new one. How
> much can I expect to pay for a decent new road bike? Decent meaning, as
> cheap as possible given a few constraints:
>
> 1. If I buy a new bike, I want it to be durable. Given appropriate
> babying, I'd like it to last 20 years or more.

I know how you feel. I*still have 2 30-yer-old bikes, though I confess I
only ride one of them, the track bike. The road bike is pretty heavy and
lacks the bells and whistles of a new model. That may (or may not) be the
case 20 years from now, but hey, if you are still out there in 20 years
you can damn well treat yourself to a new one.

>
> 2. Heavy is fine. I'm no racer. Steel chainrings? Sounds great to me.
> Heavier and more durable wins over lighter (generally).

But there are very few steel chainrings, and many of them are poor
quality. They wear out, too. In fact, on a bike that I only use for
commuting (it's a climb), I just replaced the middle ring, which I use for
the climb, after only a year of use. It had severe wear on it.

>
> 3. 7 speeds is fine. (It seems that nobody makes less than 8 anymore, so
> that's fine too.)

Get what is available now. You want replacement parts 20 years hence.

> Basically, I'm looking for a utilitarian, comfortable road bike that
> will last me a long time and maybe take me touring sometime. What does
> such a machine cost these days?

$1000 to several times that. But Trek and Specialized, among others, have
good touring packages in that price range.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
_`\(,_ | plausible, and wrong. --H.L. Mencken
(_)/ (_) |

David Kerber

In article <c4src8$nh6$2@news.Stanford.EDU>,
bbense+rec.bicycles.misc.Apr.05.04@telemark.slac.stanford.edu says...

....

> >Yeah, but I'm an expatriated third generation native Californian who
> >fled from So Cal awhile back. One thing I haven't seen out here where
> >I live now (snows by the foot) is tire chains. Back in CA, every time
> >it snowed up in the mountains, they'd say you needed chains. Out here
> >nobody's heard of chains except maybe on tractor tires.
> >
> >Wazzup with that?
>
> _ They don't have 7 or 8k passes to drive up and down? Actually,
> it has more to do with the fact that nobody in California knows
> how to drive in the snow or has real snow tires on their
> car. Chains are a west coast only thing as far as I know. Plus if

Nope, they're in the midwest as well, though the improvements in tire
technology have made them less necessary than they were 30 years ago.


> you used them all the time, they'd destroy the roads.

And your car. If you need that kind of traction all the time, you use
studded snow tires.

.....


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).