Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: PTK on June 02, 2008, 09:58:50 PM

Title: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 02, 2008, 09:58:50 PM
Well, I've decided to finally take the plunge and get a decent bicycle. I'm looking to spend no more than $500 on the bike itself.

What I'd like is a very durable bike with a classic looking frame (no suspension, etc.) that will be able to handle daily use on the roads - no need for a "mountain bike", but I do live in Colorado so it has to have some functionality on hills. Mudguards, carrying rack(s), and relatively large tires. If at all possible, I'd like to stay away from lightweight alloy bikes and get one made from steel tubing.

What brands should I look at? Are my desires for these features while still staying in my budget unobtainable?

Edited to add: So far, the closest I've found to what I want is the Rat Rod by Electra, but it's an alloy frame and has no carrying racks. It does seem to have a good looking frame, regardless, and also has good sized tires. Is there a way to add a carry rack to one of these and still stay within my budget?
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: gunsmith on June 03, 2008, 12:33:53 AM
I just bought a used Gary Fisher for 150!
It is an older mountain bike sans modern suspension.
Look for used, you'll get a great deal for 500.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 01:04:42 AM
I'm trying to avoid used - if I can get any sort of factory warantee, that's what I want to do!  grin
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: bedlamite on June 03, 2008, 02:40:09 AM
At that price range, brand doesn't matter, find one that fits your needs. They will all be Cr-Mo frames imported from CBC in China, the main difference will be frame geometry. Look at the components, companies will usually put a decent derailleur with cheap hubs, crank, and brakes because the derailleur is generally the part everyone looks at first. Shimano components will almost always last longer than the generic parts, and paying more will get you better components. SRAM shifters/derailleurs are ok too but I never cared for them. I had way too many problems with their Grip(e) Shift when I was a bike mechanic in the 90's, but I am told they have gotten better.

Or you could always just buy my bike
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 03, 2008, 03:46:11 AM
Regardless of what you buy, MAKE SURE IT FITS!!!!.

Fit is more than standing over the bike and not smashing your goolies.

Outside of that, your best bet to meet your needs is a hybrid, fitness, or city bike.  Electra has some decent bikes, but tend to be heavy.

Most of the major brands (Trek, Gary Fisher, Raleigh, etc) are pretty good.  Stay away from bikes at stores like Wal-Mart.  Not so much because of quality (though that tends to be low too), but because the bikes generally are assembled poorly and are unsafe.

At the $500 price point, there is little available in the "light steel" category.  Alloy is the most common in that price range.  Why do you want steel? 

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 08:13:21 AM
I want steel because it's strong and won't basically melt vs. the salts they use on the roads here.

How do I go about knowing if a bike fits or not? I've always just rode whatever.

From asking around on a couple other places as well, it looks like if I don't go with steel, the Electra Rat Rod 3 speed with a rear rack and front basket added would be a good choice for me.

Quote
Stay away from bikes at stores like Wal-Mart.

Way ahead of you on that one. I had considered that for a good long 0.00005 seconds before deciding I could spend a bit more and get a REAL bike that will last me more than a year.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Nick1911 on June 03, 2008, 08:21:29 AM
Quote from: PTK on June 03, 2008, 07:13:21 AM
I want steel because it's strong and won't basically melt vs. the salts they use on the roads here.

Don't know much about bikes, but I do know a fair bit about metallurgy.  If corrosion resistance is important, wouldn't you're interests be better served with an aluminum or titanium alloy?  An aluminum alloy, while having more potential flex, will be lighter and more corrosion resistant then chrome moly steel. (thinking 4130, 4140)
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 08:23:51 AM
Calcium and magnesium salts attack aluminum far worse than steel, in my experience. I could be wrong, though.  smiley
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Nick1911 on June 03, 2008, 08:30:01 AM
Quote from: PTK on June 03, 2008, 07:23:51 AM
Calcium and magnesium salts attack aluminum far worse than steel, in my experience. I could be wrong, though.  smiley

Interesting!  I'll have to look into that.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 09:23:09 AM
Quote from: PTK on June 03, 2008, 07:13:21 AM

How do I go about knowing if a bike fits or not? I've always just rode whatever.

Go to a real bike shop and talk to the experts there.  They'll be able to help.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 10:31:34 AM
Just did that. They had me try a couple bikes.

I think I've settled on a Manhattan "Flyer" single speed.  smiley
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Jamisjockey on June 03, 2008, 12:37:55 PM
some points:

Unless you're already in cycling shape, don't do a single speed.  You're going to find that on anything other than a flat road, its going to kick your ass.  You said you live in Colorado....don't buy a single speed.
Aluminum will do better on salt than steel.  For under 500, you're best served with alum....the steel bikes in that price range are cheap shyte.
Expect to spend $200 easy on accessories and clothing.

Look at a bike like this
http://jamisbikes.com/usa/bikes/08_bikes/08allegro1x.html
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 12:54:09 PM
I can get the same bike I was looking at today as a 6 speed for $40 more. It is aluminum, but has mud guards, a rear rack, a front basket, etc.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 12:56:41 PM
What do you plan to use the bike for?
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 12:58:14 PM
Apartment to grocery store, to downtown, to the mall, etc. Basically anything I need to do within a few miles, I'll bike instead of walk (as I do now)
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 01:43:41 PM
If you plan to carry any weight on the bike (groceries, say) then avoid the single speed.

The Manhattan Flyer looks like it's set up reasonably well for commuter and grocery-getter duty. 

Never heard of that brand, though.  And they don't list the parts they use in the bike.  That makes me wonder about the quality.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 03:00:25 PM
Then perhaps I should go with the Rat Rod afterall - from what I gather, it has good parts, comes in 3 speed, and has many features in common with the Manhattan Flyer, but it costs a bit more.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 03, 2008, 03:03:08 PM
Dunno what sort of hills you have, but most internally geared hub bikes don't have very low gears.  Frankly, I'd avoid that bike because it's more likely oriented towards folks who want to roll around the 'hood once in a while.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 03:14:52 PM
I'm trying to avoid a dedicated "mountain bike" because I don't like how they look or feel when I ride them. Also, finding a basket, rear rack, and more upright handlebars seems nigh impossible.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 03, 2008, 03:18:03 PM
There are other bikes that give you an upright ride and will take baskets and racks, but have more appropriate gearing for utility use.  None of the 3spds I've checked out have stock gearing appropriate for non-enthusiasts in hill country.  Check out the urban or hybrid bikes offered by the likes of Trek, Raleigh, Fisher, etc.  Also check out Breezer bikes.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 03, 2008, 03:19:54 PM
Check this out: http://www.breezerbikes.com/bike_details.cfm?bikeType=town&frame=d&bike=villager

Shimano Nexus gearing starts lower than traditional 3spd bikes.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 03, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Chris

You're being incredibly helpful. Thank you for helping me (a relative newbie to bikes) get what I need/can use best.  smiley
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on June 03, 2008, 04:40:49 PM
Breezer has a good reputation.  I wouldn't hesitate to buy something from them. 

So far it seems you're only interested in prebuilt commuter and cruiser type bikes.  That's fine, as far as it goes.  But you should also give a good hard look at conventional hybrid and non-suspension mountain bikes. 

The conventional types can be made to work just like the cruisers.  It's easy to add a rack, fenders, and bags to a mountain or hybrid bike, and it' easy to set them up for a comfortable and relaxed riding position.  I suspect that final product would be better, for the price.

Get what you want, and whatever you think would work best.  Just be careful not limit your options too much.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: gunsmith on June 03, 2008, 04:51:25 PM
fitting is important, the seat should be top of hip bone level.
When your riding you should not be able to put your flat feet on the ground, at most just tippy toes.
Really bad for your knees and back to have your seat to low, and it looks stupid to have your knees touching your neck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4_cMg960gk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK0PDGSQe5c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c_5Pkimb64&feature=related
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 03, 2008, 04:54:53 PM
Quote from: gunsmith on June 03, 2008, 03:51:25 PM
When your riding you should not be able to put your flat feet on the ground, at most just tippy toes.

Not necessarily.  Depending on the geometry of the bike, you might be able to stand flatfooted.  I'm close to it with my touring bike even though my seat is high enough.  Some new "comfort bikes" allow you to put your feet flat on the ground.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: Harold Tuttle on June 03, 2008, 07:32:24 PM
woot:
http://www.nirve.com/mens.asp?cat=cruiser&cid=565.04
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 05:28:19 AM
Have you considered a used "touring bike"?  They're made for racks, baskets, fenders, etc.  Plus, you get appropriately low gearing for hills and loads.  They're based on road bikes, so they aren't going to support very fat tires, but most can accomodate tires upwards of 1.2-1.5".  Because they're designed to carry everything a person would need while riding a bike cross-country (I personally know folks who have ridden theirs across the US or large portions of it), they ride better loaded than a regular bike, the handling is more predictable, etc.

If you can swing the extra $400 or so, Surly sells their "Long Haul Trucker" frame built up as a complete bike for just under $1000, but I've seen them on sale for less than $900.  That's a helluva bargain considering the frame is about $400 alone (that's what I have).

You should be able to find other brands of touring bikes used on Craigslist, eBay, bike shops, etc.  Just do your research because some folks will call a bike a "touring bike" and it really isn't one.
Look for bikes such as the Trek 520, Surly Long Haul Trucker (aka LHT), Cannondale Touring 1 (and 2), etc.

Here's one from Bikesdirect for $599: http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm
The LHT from BD for $929: http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/surly/longhaul.htm

Bikedirect's prices include shipping. 

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: BridgeRunner on June 04, 2008, 09:00:28 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 04:28:19 AM
Here's one from Bikesdirect for $599: http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/windsor/tourist.htm

Ok, very minor threadjack:  why the heck so many gears? 
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 09:07:49 AM
1.  Because we can
2.  Maintain close spacing between gears while allowing for a wide range.  Close spacing is nice to help you find that "just right" gear and to avoid large differences in gearing that can throw off your pace.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: MillCreek on June 04, 2008, 09:46:33 AM
Most touring bikes, such as the Windsor, have lots of low gears.  The better to climb up mountain passes with a full set of loaded panniers.  I think a touring bike would be very on point for the OP.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 09:49:10 AM
I don't think their gearing is biased towards the low end any more than a mtb, just that that the number of gears allows for smaller steps between the very low and very high.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: PTK on June 04, 2008, 10:03:09 AM
Is there anywhere I can order a Breezer bike online?
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 10:12:56 AM
no clue.  I've not seen them for sale online.

Chris
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: MillCreek on June 04, 2008, 10:44:11 AM
Quote from: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 08:49:10 AM
I don't think their gearing is biased towards the low end any more than a mtb, just that that the number of gears allows for smaller steps between the very low and very high.

Chris

Almost all of the touring bikes I have seen have a front triple, so they do have more lower gears than your typical road bikes, like you and I own.
Title: Re: Bicycles
Post by: mtnbkr on June 04, 2008, 11:57:54 AM
My perspective is mountain bikes, I forget that road bikes bias towards the high end.  My road bike has lower gearing via a mtb cluster. Smiley

Chris