What do you think it the best bike for the city

Doki

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
>>> type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>
>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
>> in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
>> rather different case.
>
> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html

Almost 20 kilos!

Don Whybrow

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Doki wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than the
>>>> racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say one
>>>> type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>>
>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw
>>> in a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and it's a
>>> rather different case.
>>
>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>
>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> Almost 20 kilos!

You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are up
the thread a bit.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"There is a wicked pretense that one has been informed. But no
such thing has truly occurred! A mere slogan, an empty litany.
No arguments are heard, no evidence is weighed. It isn't news at
all, only a source of amusement for idlers." (Gibson-Sterling,
The Difference Engine)

Doki

Don Whybrow wrote:
> Doki wrote:
>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> Doki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
>>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
>>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
>>>>
>>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
>>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
>>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
>>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
>>>> it's a rather different case.
>>>
>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>
>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>
>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> up the thread a bit.

Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

W.Warburton@ed.ac.uk

On 23 Apr, 19:23, "Doki" <mrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
> > Doki wrote:
> >> Don Whybrow wrote:
> >>> Peter Clinch wrote:
> >>>> Doki wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yep, but my mountain bike had a less comfy position for me than
> >>>>> the racer, until I got a high rise stem for the MTB. I'd not say
> >>>>> one type of bike is always comfier than another.
>
> >>>> Poor comparison pieces though, because your examples are both
> >>>> basically sports machines designed with comfort as a distant
> >>>> priority behind going over their respective terrains quickly. Throw in
> >>>> a bike where comfort is one of the design priorities and
> >>>> it's a rather different case.
>
> >>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>
> >>>http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> >> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> > You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
> > up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike

Comfortable commuting? Strip down a tourer- designed for long stints
in the saddle, tough, plenty of gears etc.
I wouldn't want to be riding a 20Kg + roadster away from traffic
lights every two minutes, let alone into a headwind!

If you want fast- get fixed and get fit!

Cheers,
W.

Don Whybrow

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:
>> Doki wrote:
>>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>>
>>> Almost 20 kilos!
>>
>> You want it light! Go fixed and join the light side. Suggestions are
>> up the thread a bit.
>
> Even a steel MTB with disk brakes would be 5 kilos lighter... I reckon
> Ridgeback or Gary Fisher would be the route to take for a comfort bike.

There are lots of alternatives for comfort. Some would say to go
recumbent, or even semi-recumbent like the RANS Fusion.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"The POP3 server service depends on the SMTP server service,
which failed to start because of the following error: The
operation completed successfully." (Windows NT Server v3.51)

bornfree

On 23 Apr, 11:02, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In article <e442ca95-99e9-4273-be3d-4ca8ab9b2049
> @d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bornfree
> justyouan...@xemaps.com says...
>
> > Hmm. I like your points very much! I must say what you describe sounds
> > an awful lot like my current bike. It's a Raleigh Boardwalk lite.
> > (Folding bike with Dahon technology, apparently)
>
> > Here's a picture of it.http://i25.tinypic.com/2uf4zk4.jpg
>
> > I really fell in love with this bike when I got it. Comfy, light,
> > fast, fairly priced, lots of features. The only thing is I don't much
> > like being overtaken by Roadies whizzing by at twice my speed.
>
> That's probably more about the rider than the bike. Having said that, I
> wonder if your bike setup is right - it looks to me that either your
> seat is much too low or your bars are much too high. Also make sure you
> keep the tyres properly inflated, as that can make quite a difference to
> efficiency - get a track pump with pressure gauge if you don't already
> have one.

Yes I know how important tire pressure is.

Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
position. A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
Mark pointed out.

Rob Morley

In article <ac11f436-0a31-417d-bdfb-
d3b0ba47bd6b@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, bornfree
justyouandme@xemaps.com says...

> Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> position.

Obviously it's more upright, but it's not "how it's meant to be" - a
folder is a bike like any other upright (although perhaps more honest
about its utilitarian nature than some with sporting pretensions).

> A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> Mark pointed out.
>
And a fair bit less aerodynamic. Are you sure the saddle is high enough
for optimal pedalling efficiency?

Peter Clinch

Doki wrote:
> Don Whybrow wrote:

>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>
>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>
> Almost 20 kilos!

One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
weight weenie...

My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
don't want super acceleration.

My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.

Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
and acceleration.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

bornfree wrote:

> Nope - that's how folders are meant to be. It's a more upright
> position.

Hmmmm, see http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~p...addleheight.jpg

That's a folder and I'm in an upright position (my head is a bit forward
as it was just the state of balance leaning on the wall while the shot
was taken, look at the body rather than head and neck)

> A LOT more comfy - and easier to look over your shoulders as
> Mark pointed out.

But the shot of your bike, unless you have /very/ short legs, suggests
the saddle is a bit low. The rule of thumb of heel on pedal when it's
at 6 o'clock and a /little/ bent at the knee is still a good place to
start irrespective of whether it's a folder or not. A folder doesn't
make it more desirable to have a low saddle, and the most upright bikes
there are (Dutch style roadsters and Pedersens) have saddle more or less
the same height as the bars.

Too low a saddle will make for very inefficient pedalling, which will be
part of the reason you keep getting left behind!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Doki

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:67arc9F2obtirU1@mid.individual.net...
> Doki wrote:
>> Don Whybrow wrote:
>
>>> For a comfort bike I would look at something like this.
>>>
>>> http://www.theoldbicycle.co.uk/velorbis.html
>>
>> Almost 20 kilos!
>
> One of the problems of "sportive" concentration is one tends to become a
> weight weenie...
>
> My recumbent tourer is /much/ more comfortable than most other bikes,
> and weighs in at... about 20 kg. And that's really not a problem if you
> don't want super acceleration.
>
> My freight bike (more comfy than any racer I've ever sat on) also weighs
> 20 Kg unladen, and nips around the place without any great problems.
>
> Both of these are getting use in Dundee, which isn't short on hills.
> Neither has persuaded me that I must get a lighter bike, because the pay
> back from the weight is worth more to me than the loss in outright speed
> and acceleration.

An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could easily
produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds anything to the
experience.

Peter Clinch

Doki wrote:

> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
> anything to the experience.

It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Doki

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:67avclF2mvsi8U1@mid.individual.net...
> Doki wrote:
>
>> An orbis is a fairly normal bike though. For that money they could
>> easily produce a bike under 30lbs. I can't see how the weight adds
>> anything to the experience.
>
> It depends what you're spending the weight on though. If it's a
> bomb-proof rack that you can give your pal a backie on and over-building
> so it lasts decades with minimal maintenance then "the experience" is a
> better goods carrier that you won't ever have to faff with. Seems to be
> how the Danes and Dutch go about specifying bikes, and I think they know
> a thing or two about what makes a good one for urban use.

I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at all.
Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong steel MTB
frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs without a great
deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a mountain bike's not got
hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no reason why a town bike should
be that sort of weight, particularly at that price.

Peter Clinch

Doki wrote:

> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
> that price.

You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
"but".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Jim Ley

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:29:30 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

>Doki wrote:
>
>> I'd bet a quid that the frames a good 7 or 8lbs for no good reason at
>> all. Nothing wrong with strength where it's needed, but a good strong
>> steel MTB frame weighs in at 5lbs, and builds up to a bike under 30lbs
>> without a great deal of attention to light weight parts. I know a
>> mountain bike's not got hub gears, hub brakes and so on but I see no
>> reason why a town bike should be that sort of weight, particularly at
>> that price.
>
>You've still got your sporting hat on: take a look at what the commuters
>use in "the land of bikes" and realise they've more experience than we
>have of commuting and still choose heavy bikes built like tanks. Now,
>if you're in a bigger hurry than most you've a fair point, but that is a
>"but".

When I've watched commuting cyclists in holland of any distance - and
the ones I know who do it have pretty much all been on lightweight
racing machines - the Dutch bikes are used almost universally around
town, for short journeys at low speeds often carrying a lot of weight.
They maybe commuters, but they're only going 2 or 3 miles, not the 10
or more that is common in London.

Jim.