Which is a better commuter bike?

IdahoCyclist

I am considering the Bianchi Milano also. Does anyone own this bike and if so how do you like it?

Thanks!

Dan

milanoman

If you can afford to pay a $200 premium for pure style, the Milano is hard to beat. I put 1000 commute miles on a Milano in the past 4 months.

POSITIVES:
- Fast. Wearing office clothes and dress shoes, I have blown by countless road bikers in their Lycra finery.
- Comfortable and stable in any weather.
- 8 speeds are spaced well -- makes you realize 24 is usually overkill.
- Shift while standing still -- very useful if you hit many traffic lights.
- Many compliments on the style of the bike.

NEGATIVES:
- Had to add a front mudflap to stay dry in the rain.
- Aluminum frame too rigid. Front end jitters over bumps.
- Heavier than my steel-frame 1987 Trek 520 (fenders on both)!
- Constant teasing about minty fresh "celeste" color. If you're sensitive, buy the black one.
- The big 26" 65psi street tires are wonderful for 95% of riders, but if you ride a lot, you will probably wish for 27" 95psi 1.25" tires. You start to feel it after 20 or 30 miles.

These flaws are minor. This is the best bike I've ever owned -- most useful, best looking, and cheapest, all at the same time.

njwilken

Having commuted in Portland for over 25 years, here's my advice: any lugged steel frame (and some good aluminum frames such as Cannondale) with a touring or sport touring geometry (stretched out) from the 80's of reasonable quality will be incredibly fast and easy to ride and to maintain. Make sure they have eyelets and brazeons for fenders, racks and bottle cages. Make sure you get alloy wheels which are lighter and safer in the rain. These bikes are bullet proof, and anyone with basic mechanical knowledge can do most of the maintenance. Consider: Centurion, Miyata, Peugeot (also with internally brazed steel frames), Trek, Motobecane, Bridgestone, Novara, Nishiki, Specialized,etc. You will spend virtually no money on these bikes and can add moustache bars, or any other accessories for that classic look and still put $500 into your savings account. While the older classic touring bikes are gorgeous (Raleighs, etc.), they weigh in at 40-50 lbs, have steel wheels and only 3 speeds. This is fine for flat roads with cobblestones, but not for the fast, hilly, wet commute you do in Portland. The newer bikes that you listed are really not of the same quality and will be more expensive to maintain than the bikes listed above, plus they are more expensive because you are buying a new bike. And, you'll lose tons on resale value. So, consider a used bike!!!

milanoman

I've come to agree with njwilken. My 1987 Trek is superior in many ways to my 2006 Milano, yet would cost under $100 today. The main sacrifices are shifting (the Milano's Shimano Nexus 8 hub is nice) and greasy pant legs (the Milano has a single chainwheel and chainguard.

My most recent solution is a 1987 Moulton AM7: handmade Reynolds 531 cromoly steel frame, full suspension, light weight, fenders, full front fairing. Not exactly cheap because it's so rare (about 50 per year), but fast and smooth.

But njwilken is right: you probably cannot find better value than a $100 lugged steel 18-speed from the mid-1980s.

bampa

Some advice from a 51 year old geezer. Get Bent!
I changed to a recumbent in Feb and will never go back to uprights. I live in Milwaukie, Oregon and it's up hill from my house no matter which way I go. I love my Sun EZ Sport. I commute to work durring the week, 5 miles each way. On the weekends I go out for 30-40 mile fun rides. I'm gonna do Reach the Beach http://www.reachthebeach.org/ next year, that's 100 miles.
So I say again. Get Bent.
http://greg.wyglewideweb.com/