Final decision - new bike purchase

Badger_South

OK, we're down to the wire.

I went by Performance Bikes and looked at the Giant Cypress SX, and it had
a comparison sticker showing its components vs the Trek 7500FX, claiming to
meet or beat them on every point.

One thing that seemed odd, is that they tout the Cro-Moly front fork as
being superior to the all Alum fork on the Trek, b/c "aluminum is stiff,
but won't absorb shock as well as Cro-Moly".

In addition he's agreed to swap out the standard tires for Continental
Gatorskins 700 x 25 (I wanted 28s, but he said these were just as good).

So if any of you good people have any caveats or any suggestions I should
consider, please reply.

As far as I know the only thing that really is of lesser quality might be
the paint job. It's all black, vs the cool Metallic Black of the 7500FX.

Best,

-B

Alex Rodriguez

In article <1m4ia05dib0kqarbmglv42ubcm53eg96un@4ax.com>, Badger@South.net
says...
>OK, we're down to the wire.
>I went by Performance Bikes and looked at the Giant Cypress SX, and it had
>a comparison sticker showing its components vs the Trek 7500FX, claiming to
>meet or beat them on every point.
>
One thing that seemed odd, is that they tout the Cro-Moly front fork as
>being superior to the all Alum fork on the Trek, b/c "aluminum is stiff,
>but won't absorb shock as well as Cro-Moly".

I sure hope the other points they supposedly beat the Trek on are based
on fact and not the fiction of aluminum being stiff compared to steel.

>So if any of you good people have any caveats or any suggestions I should
>consider, please reply.

Get the best fit possible. Make sure the bars and stem are the right length.
If not ask them to swap them out for you.
---------------
Alex

Badger_South

On Mon, 17 May 2004 16:48:27 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <adr5@columbia.edu>
wrote:

>In article <1m4ia05dib0kqarbmglv42ubcm53eg96un@4ax.com>, Badger@South.net
>says...
>>OK, we're down to the wire.
>>I went by Performance Bikes and looked at the Giant Cypress SX, and it had
>>a comparison sticker showing its components vs the Trek 7500FX, claiming to
>>meet or beat them on every point.
>>
>One thing that seemed odd, is that they tout the Cro-Moly front fork as
>>being superior to the all Alum fork on the Trek, b/c "aluminum is stiff,
>>but won't absorb shock as well as Cro-Moly".
>
>I sure hope the other points they supposedly beat the Trek on are based
>on fact and not the fiction of aluminum being stiff compared to steel.

See, this is when I started doubting the hype. There may be other reasons
to have a Cro-Moly fork, but I'm not aware of it, except it's less
expensive.

>>So if any of you good people have any caveats or any suggestions I should
>>consider, please reply.
>
>Get the best fit possible. Make sure the bars and stem are the right length.
>If not ask them to swap them out for you.

He said he'd swap out the front riser for me after I've ridden it a while,
no charge, if it doesn't seem high enough. Is there a way to test that in
the shop? A measurement?

Thanks!

-B

>---------------
>Alex

sittingduck

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

> I sure hope the other points they supposedly beat the Trek on are based
> on fact and not the fiction of aluminum being stiff compared to steel.

While it may be debatable whether you will notice a difference on the bike,
aluminum *IS* stiffer than steel.

David Kerber

In article <Xns94ECB009D7D26duckrulestheuniverse@140.99.99.130>,
email.to.sitting-duck@spamgourmet.com says...
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > I sure hope the other points they supposedly beat the Trek on are based
> > on fact and not the fiction of aluminum being stiff compared to steel.
>
> While it may be debatable whether you will notice a difference on the bike,
> aluminum *IS* stiffer than steel.

But in a bike fork, the fork will only be stiffer than a steel one if
it's designed to be.


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

cheg

"sittingduck" <email.to.sitting-duck@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94ECB009D7D26duckrulestheuniverse@140.99.99.130...
> Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> > I sure hope the other points they supposedly beat the Trek on are based
> > on fact and not the fiction of aluminum being stiff compared to steel.
>
> While it may be debatable whether you will notice a difference on the bike,
> aluminum *IS* stiffer than steel.

As a material, aluminum is less stiff than steel:
Al 6061-T6 Reynolds 653
Modulus of elasticity 10 29 ksi
Density 0.1 0.27
lb/in^3
Yield stress 40 100
ksi

In straight tension, Strain=Force/(area*modulus)
so for a given force/area, Aluminum will stretch about 3x more.

HOWEVER, in broad terms bending deflection in tubes is inversely proportional to
the 3rd power of diameter. Since Al is lighter it can be made into larger
diameter tubes without a weight penalty, and you need a larger cross section to
get equal tensile strength anyway. It's really the geometry of the tubes that
makes Al bikes stiff, not a property of the metal. If the tubes were the same
size, the Al bike would be too flexible and not strong enough.

Rick Onanian

On Mon, 17 May 2004 15:34:56 -0400, Badger_South <Badger@South.net>
wrote:
>One thing that seemed odd, is that they tout the Cro-Moly front fork as
>being superior to the all Alum fork on the Trek, b/c "aluminum is stiff,
>but won't absorb shock as well as Cro-Moly".

One fork may well be stiffer or more shock-absorbent than the other,
but it won't be because of material; it would be design. Examine the
design yourself, or better, ride it and let your hands tell you.
--
Rick Onanian

Mike Jacoubowsky

> OK, we're down to the wire.
>
> I went by Performance Bikes and looked at the Giant Cypress SX, and it had
> a comparison sticker showing its components vs the Trek 7500FX, claiming
to
> meet or beat them on every point.

First, not true, and second, it's kinda sad when a store tries to sell a
particular product by berating another. The Trek 7500FX is a very
"complete" bike, meaning that there's very little people ever want to change
on it. If you want to get into the comparison game, you might question why
Giant chose to lop off the lower gear range by having a 26t cassette on the
back, in addition to a derailleur that isn't designed to handle much larger
than that.

Technically, both bikes have a high gear of 117 inches, but the Trek offers
a low gear of 23.6 inches, vs 31.2 for the Giant, which is a pretty
significant difference. If you don't live in a hilly area, or have dreams
of riding in one, it may not be that big a deal.

> One thing that seemed odd, is that they tout the Cro-Moly front fork as
> being superior to the all Alum fork on the Trek, b/c "aluminum is stiff,
> but won't absorb shock as well as Cro-Moly".

If that's the case, why do they make the frame out of aluminum? Vibration &
shock come to your body according to how your weight is distributed, so 65%
(maybe more on a hybrid) is coming through the seat, only 35% through the
handlebars... making the frame material more important than the fork (*if*
you believe the line that aluminum won't absorb shock as well as steel).

It's not the material, but what you do with it that makes the difference.
An aluminum fork weighs less than it would in steel, and any differences in
ability to absorb road shock are on a scale dramatically smaller than the
choice of tire. On the other hand, the weight savings can be significant.

> In addition he's agreed to swap out the standard tires for Continental
> Gatorskins 700 x 25 (I wanted 28s, but he said these were just as good).

Just as good for what? A 25c Gatorskin is a very nice high-performance
tire, but it is not nearly as comfortable as a 28c would be. The cool thing
about the 28c Conti is that it's still rated up to 120psi, making it a very
versatile tire... very fast if you run to full rated pressure.

> So if any of you good people have any caveats or any suggestions I should
> consider, please reply.

Trek is known for being one of, if not the best, for warranty issues. This
is not a minor consideration for a product that you're going to have around
for a while. This isn't entirely a subjective thing either, as Trek
warrants their frames for life. And yes, we do see 20+ year-old Trek frames
coming in from time to time with an issue, and there has never been any
hesitation on Treks part to take care of things. Yes, the usual exclusions
apply, as in it applies only to the original owner, you can't run it into
parked cars & fences, and cosmetics (paint) is only warranted for one year.

> As far as I know the only thing that really is of lesser quality might be
> the paint job. It's all black, vs the cool Metallic Black of the 7500FX.

I used to think it was silly to choose one bike over another based on paint,
especially when there might have been other, more important points in favor
of the less-attractive bike. But I've seen the error of my ways... whatever
it might be about a bike that makes you want to go out and ride, well,
that's ultimately what it's all about. Riding. And if somebody's going to
ride a bright red bike with gaudy decals more than something conservative,
just because they think it looks cool... that's fine with me.

But we've also avoided perhaps the most important issue, which is the
quality of the dealer. If one dealer is going to do a better job setting
the bike up for your particular needs than another, that's a very important
thing. You also want to put a high priority on how you think the shop will
handle anything that's not quite right. Are they going to cringe when they
see you come in the door, and make up all sorts of reasons why everything's
your fault, or are they going to see it as an opportunity to help you get
more out of your bike by making things right? That might be the Giant
dealer, or it might be the Trek shop. I suggest those differences will have
far more to do with your enjoyment of the bike than small differences in
specification.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Badger_South

On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:38:22 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>> OK, we're down to the wire.
>>
>> I went by Performance Bikes and looked at the Giant Cypress SX, and it had
>> a comparison sticker showing its components vs the Trek 7500FX, claiming
>to
>> meet or beat them on every point.
>
>First, not true, and second, it's kinda sad when a store tries to sell a
>particular product by berating another. The Trek 7500FX is a very
>"complete" bike, meaning that there's very little people ever want to change
>on it. If you want to get into the comparison game, you might question why
>Giant chose to lop off the lower gear range by having a 26t cassette on the
>back, in addition to a derailleur that isn't designed to handle much larger
>than that.
>
>Technically, both bikes have a high gear of 117 inches, but the Trek offers
>a low gear of 23.6 inches, vs 31.2 for the Giant, which is a pretty
>significant difference. If you don't live in a hilly area, or have dreams
>of riding in one, it may not be that big a deal.

Well, now I'm wishing I had gotten this post before I went in and bought
the bike.

After riding it for a few minutes in my regular route, I noticed that the
gears seem to rub, or something is squeeking in nearly every gear. The
pedals feel too far forward. They didn't adjust the seat high enough, and
the bars seem too far forward. I can't imagine riding this bike for 10
miles let alone 25.

I'm planning on taking it back tomorrow.

-B

Steven M. Scharf

"Badger_South" <Badger@South.net <mailto:Badger@South.net>> wrote in message
<news:re9ia011afp0he9c5phor7e2djc3bds1l6@4ax.com>...

> He said he'd swap out the front riser for me after I've ridden it a while,
> no charge, if it doesn't seem high enough. Is there a way to test that in
> the shop? A measurement?

The bars look very low for a so-called "Comfort" bike, but this is a
by-product of the threadless headset and can be corrected with an extender.

It's rather ironic that the Cypress SX has the threadless headset, while the
less expensive DX has the threaded, adjustable headset, and adjustable stem.

My sister-in-law has the DX. I use it occasionally when I visit them, and I
am glad of the adjustable headset on these occasions.

For $600, the Cypress SX is a pretty good deal. The 7500FX is $660 and as
you pointed out, it has an aluminum fork versus the chromolloy fork on the
Giant. Not many hybrid/comfort bikes come with the 105 group, and a
chromolloy fork, so the Cypress SX is slightly better in terms of
components.

Steve
http://bicycleshortlist.com

"Jesus Would Have Used His Turn Signals"

Badger_South

On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:38:22 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>
>First, not true, and second, it's kinda sad when a store tries to sell a
>particular product by berating another. The Trek 7500FX is a very
>"complete" bike, meaning that there's very little people ever want to change
>on it. If you want to get into the comparison game, you might question why
>Giant chose to lop off the lower gear range by having a 26t cassette on the
>back, in addition to a derailleur that isn't designed to handle much larger
>than that.
>
>Technically, both bikes have a high gear of 117 inches, but the Trek offers
>a low gear of 23.6 inches, vs 31.2 for the Giant, which is a pretty
>significant difference. If you don't live in a hilly area, or have dreams
>of riding in one, it may not be that big a deal.

Well, I'm pleased to report that the nice folks at my Performance Bike shop
took the bike back no questions asked, except for a sincere 'Sorry the bike
didn't work out for you'.

I, of course, feel like a dick for doing that, but 5-10 on the bike at my
normal route told me that this was not going to work. Having learned
through the experience I will be more careful in the final purchase.

In my defense, it's hard to get a decent feel riding around in the mall
parking lot.

Surprising that when I bought the beater MTN bike, it came off the shelf,
and into the car, no adjustments, and it fit well enough to cause no
problems until I had ridden it in excess of 20 miles. After 5 min on the
new bike, my left knee was already hurting, felt like the bike was too
small, and as I said every gear shift brought new rattling and squeaking. I
happened to look down when the large gear in front was engaged, and I swear
the pedal arm was only missing the deraileur by about 2mm.

Man, I don't know how people ever get a good fit and a decent evaluation on
a short ride.

Fortunately the bike shop folks were great and I spent a sleepless night
for no reason. ;-<

-B

Roger Zoul

Badger_South wrote:
:: On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:38:22 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
:: <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
::
:::
::: First, not true, and second, it's kinda sad when a store tries to
::: sell a particular product by berating another. The Trek 7500FX is
::: a very "complete" bike, meaning that there's very little people
::: ever want to change on it. If you want to get into the comparison
::: game, you might question why Giant chose to lop off the lower gear
::: range by having a 26t cassette on the back, in addition to a
::: derailleur that isn't designed to handle much larger than that.
:::
::: Technically, both bikes have a high gear of 117 inches, but the
::: Trek offers a low gear of 23.6 inches, vs 31.2 for the Giant, which
::: is a pretty significant difference. If you don't live in a hilly
::: area, or have dreams of riding in one, it may not be that big a
::: deal.
::
:: Well, I'm pleased to report that the nice folks at my Performance
:: Bike shop took the bike back no questions asked, except for a
:: sincere 'Sorry the bike didn't work out for you'.
::
:: I, of course, feel like a dick for doing that, but 5-10 on the bike
:: at my normal route told me that this was not going to work. Having
:: learned
:: through the experience I will be more careful in the final purchase.
::

don't feel like a dick....I spent almost 3 hours riding various bikes at the
LBS before I made my selection. I would have felt like a dick had I not
bought anything, but I walked out with $2000 fewer dollars in my pocket
(rack, computer, shoes, helmet, gloves, pumps, etc.) so they didn't feel
cheated.


:: In my defense, it's hard to get a decent feel riding around in the
:: mall parking lot.

spend more time....get on different bikes. let them know that you're going
to buy something...

::
:: Surprising that when I bought the beater MTN bike, it came off the
:: shelf, and into the car, no adjustments, and it fit well enough to
:: cause no problems until I had ridden it in excess of 20 miles. After
:: 5 min on the
:: new bike, my left knee was already hurting, felt like the bike was
:: too small, and as I said every gear shift brought new rattling and
:: squeaking. I happened to look down when the large gear in front was
:: engaged, and I swear the pedal arm was only missing the deraileur by
:: about 2mm.

My guess is things would have settled out a bit after riding for a while.

::
:: Man, I don't know how people ever get a good fit and a decent
:: evaluation on a short ride.
::
:: Fortunately the bike shop folks were great and I spent a sleepless
:: night
:: for no reason. ;-<

Good...that's a good sign. Now get back in there and find your new bike!

David Kerber

In article <qd5ka0pd7ns1krs4gt94a355demqmhhbui@4ax.com>,
Badger@South.net says...

....

> Man, I don't know how people ever get a good fit and a decent evaluation on
> a short ride.

Mainly because they've ridden enough to know what to look for right
away.

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

Badger_South

On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:23:03 -0400, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net>
wrote:

>In article <qd5ka0pd7ns1krs4gt94a355demqmhhbui@4ax.com>,
>Badger@South.net says...
>
>...
>
>> Man, I don't know how people ever get a good fit and a decent evaluation on
>> a short ride.
>
>Mainly because they've ridden enough to know what to look for right
>away.

Hmm. I'm trying. It's not easy being a noob. At this point considerations
of price are really secondary, b/c when you consider how much time you
spend in the saddle, you want everything right, including comfort, fit and
longevity; you want the components to not hold you back (as Mike pointed
out with the sub-optimal componentry of the Giant). Neither of the local
bike shops seem real big on the customization part of the equation.

I have one more place to check, but it appears I'm going to be waiting
until the June '05 bikes get in as most places are sold out of the '04s.

When I last bought a bike they had only two choices; a Schwinn or a Sears
no-name, and being a resiliant teenager/ 20 y.o. you just get on and ride.
But as an ancient mariner, I have to coddle to my bad left hip and my knee
with the bump on the patella from too much jogging, etc. This doesn't
translate into a comfort bike, though - it means the bike has to fit, and
function nearly flawlessly - then one can adapt.

-B