Advise on buying a new road bike, Specialized Roubaix

#31

Rating: 0

9/11/09 at 4:25pm

Greg_R
offline

Joined: April 2000
Post Count: 1,997

I carry a pump, some basic tools, cash, ID, a spare tube & patches. Consider carefully if the expense for a lighter (carbon, etc.) bike is worth it. A heavier bike will only hurt you during acceleration and climbing. Look at the overall weight... a few lbs is not going to make a huge difference for the casual cyclist.

Greg
My DVD Collection

#32

Rating: 0

9/11/09 at 4:38pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

Yeah, I'm not dead set on carbon for weight only. It is cool though!

My friend let me know one of his buddies is selling his BMC Roadbike. I don't know much about this company and their bikes, but they're pretty cool from my visit to their website.

#33

Rating: 0

9/12/09 at 8:54am

Michael Harris
offline

Joined: June 2001
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post Count: 1,255

While there is a "cool" factor to carbon I like it because it absorbs shock. I used to live in Spain on a cobblestone road and I wouldn't want to ride on it on a steel or aluminum bike. If you do go for a metal frame, consider at least a carbon fork. Also, carbon is not as "stiff" as an aluminum bike. When someone asks me "what kind of bike should I buy?", I tell them one that fits you best. As you may have seen from my previous posts I'm a Trek fan but that is because I like their geometry and fit. My mountain bike is a Cannondale though.

#34

Rating: 0

9/14/09 at 4:11pm

Jay H
Jay
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: NJ
Post Count: 5,237

I am not that familiar with BMC but I do know that there are some pro teams who do ride on BMC bikes as I have seen them on the (UCI) pro tour. Tyler Hamilton rode a BMC before he was banned for blood doping, so if that is an indication of quality. Certainly would be very unique to own but probably isn't cheap.

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

Yeah, I'm not dead set on carbon for weight only. It is cool though!

My friend let me know one of his buddies is selling his BMC Roadbike. I don't know much about this company and their bikes, but they're pretty cool from my visit to their website.

You are the crispy noodle in the vegetarian salad of life

#35

Rating: 0

10/24/09 at 2:56pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

I'm still shopping for a road bike, though not in any hurry.

I finally spoke to the guy with the BMC. I learned a few new things. His has a compact crank. I never fully understood what they are.

He tells me essentially, its a newer way to gear the bike to eliminate the need for a triple. So you can spin at a higher cadence as well. It does reduce top end speed, but I doubt I have any interest in high speed anymore. Saves the weight of a triple too.

The other interesting fact is the Shimano has redesigned the cranks and bottom bracket now. You can removed the cranks by unscrewing the non-drive side, then the crank side slides out with the shaft. The bearing cups remain inside and allow for access to service them. Sounds like quite an innovation from what they used to do.

And I am reconsidering frame geometries too. I am not a young whipper snapper anymore. I was looking at the plush style that Roubaix offers, a slightly more upright position. But now I am reconsidering the traditional frame again. The BMC owner is the same height and weight and age as I am. He found a well fitted frame will serve very well.

Any insights to the above is appreciated. SInce I will ride mostly flats and against the wind in many cases, the need for a triple seems unlikely. So a compact sounds like a nice option in case I go on a group ride and I need to climb a little. Though I hate climbing! hIs set-up is 12-25 in the rear and 50-34 up front. Seems most ready made bikes have this configuration on the 9 speed. I'd get a 10 speed.

Thanks!

#36

Rating: 0

10/30/09 at 10:56am

Jay H
Jay
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: NJ
Post Count: 5,237

Study and look up "gear inches"

# of teeth in the lowest chainring in the front (the small cog, aka granny gear) = 34 teeth
divided by the # of teeth in the largest cog in the back (the largest cog) = 25

multiplied by the diameter of the drive wheel which on a road bike which is dependent on the size tire you have on it, but for our sake, lets just pick 28"..

35/25 * 28 = 38.08 gear inches

Most Mountain bikes which almost always has lower gearing than a road bike, typically have the lowest gear inches to be in the 22-26 range.

If you mostly ride the flats, a triple would not only be overkill, it would also be a bit more expensive as to convert your probably indexed Double to a triple is pricey as you may need new Shifters or integrated brake./shiftters (aka shimano STI or as we call them "brifters)...

changing a cassette in the back is relatively inexpensive and easy to do if you have the right tools (Shimano cassette tool and a chain whip... maybe $30 total for both. Park tools are nice..)..

You could go with a 12x28 rear cassette to get 3 more teeth and an even lower gearing assuming your der. is a long cage variety.. Might need more chainline, might not. a bike shop should be able to tell you or if you know you have a long cage rear der, you're more likely fine.

Jay

You are the crispy noodle in the vegetarian salad of life

#37

Rating: 0

10/30/09 at 12:46pm

Jack Briggs
offline

Joined: June 1999
Post Count: 16,605

I see a thread with the words "road bike" in the title and I come here to recommend enthusiastically a Ducati 1198 or a Honda CBR1000RR or even to advise checking out the more sedate yet elegantly styled Triumph Bonneville only to discover this discussion isn't what I was prepared for. So I'll depart. :)

#38

Rating: 0

10/30/09 at 5:05pm

Steve Berger
offline

Joined: September 2001
Post Count: 786

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay H

Study and look up "gear inches"

Jay

If you don't want to do the math or want to check out lots of combinations there are calculators available. I like Sheldon Brown's.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gears/

#39

Rating: 0

10/30/09 at 5:41pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

Thanks guys!

I did some research on gear inches as suggested. I didn't know about that term!

It's not so much about understanding the gearing combinations, it was more about understanding what compact was really all about. I thought it was literally some kind of more compacted physically sized crank assembly. Not about the gearing. From what I have been able to understand from reading up is it's just another way to set up the gearing as an alternative to using triples for climbing. And the impact is higher cadence and lower top speed, in general terms. And this eliminates some of the duplication of gearing a triple offers. But gives the rider some of the benefits of a triple for climbing.

I did come across that Sheldon Brown site earlier. I have a closer look as I research this. Thanks!

#40

Rating: 0

11/1/09 at 9:14am

Michael Harris
offline

Joined: June 2001
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post Count: 1,255

Quote:
If you mostly ride the flats, a triple would not only be overkill, it would also be a bit more expensive as to convert your probably indexed Double to a triple is pricey as you may need new Shifters or integrated brake./shiftters (aka shimano STI or as we call them "brifters)...

100% true. When I upgraded the components on my old Trek 5500 to go triple, I had to replace the shifters in order to accommodate the triple chain ring up front and the 10 speed cassette in the rear but I think it was money well spent.

Quote:
he other interesting fact is the Shimano has redesigned the cranks and bottom bracket now. You can removed the cranks by unscrewing the non-drive side, then the crank side slides out with the shaft. The bearing cups remain inside and allow for access to service them. Sounds like quite an innovation from what they used to do.

This new bottom bracket makes for a much stiffer and solid feel. I noticed the difference right away when after my 5500 rebuild.

#41

Rating: 0

11/1/09 at 12:52pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

Regarding triples, I had not not meant to imply I would convert a bike to triples. I actually did do that to my old bike, when from a double to a triple and replaced the entire drive and shifters anyway.

I am looking for a whole new bike now. So I have to decide if a compact makes sense for me since the guy who was selling the BMC was telling me I should consider a compact over a triple.

Michael, I've been off a bike and away from all the latest tech updates for so long, I didn't know you could feel the difference in the bottom bracket!

#42

Rating: 0

11/1/09 at 3:08pm

Michael Harris
offline

Joined: June 2001
Location: Fairfax, VA
Post Count: 1,255

Quote:
I didn't know you could feel the difference in the bottom bracket!

I was very surprised too but I really noticed a difference. As for compact vs. triple, I understand the arguments for both. The compact gives you a simpler drive train with faster shifting between the big and small chain rings and, if paired properly with the rear, makes climbing easy. Actually, I wish my Madone had come with a compact but it was used and the price was a steal so I can "suffer".

#43

Rating: 0

11/1/09 at 3:26pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

Thanks Michael, your interest in compacts has furthered my interest to test drive one.

#44

Rating: 0

11/7/09 at 12:02am

ChrisHeflen
offline

Joined: September 2002
Post Count: 912

I would definitely go with compact. It is getting more and more common as well. As Jay H said, you can change out the rear cassette to a 12x28 and be very close having a triple. If you were doing a lot of hills, then I would say a triple for that last bit of relief, but you will be fine with compact.

Look for bike with a taller head tube. This is the tube that the forks go up into and the handlebars are on top of. A taller head tube should make you more upright and most likely be more comfortable.
That is why I suggested the Look 566. Also Scott has re-designed their CR-1 Pro to be this way and more comfortable. If you are on a smaller budget then give a look to Fuji's CCR series. They are pretty comfortable and are a great value.

BMC makes a great bike, but they have more of a race geometry it might not be the best choice for you.
Check out this website for info on BMC bikes.
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/road-bikes/frame-brand/bmc-110.html

Also, everybody's 2010's are starting to trickle in and you should start to see close-outs on the '09's.

#45

Rating: 0

11/8/09 at 3:40pm

Nelson Au
offline

Joined: March 1999
Location: Silicon Valley
Post Count: 4,085

Hey Chris-

Thanks for the insights and thoughts. I am seeing some 09 close-outs at a local shop's website, so I'll be checking those out!

The owner of the BMC is an ex-racer. Not a pro, an amateur, so I am not surprised he likes that bike!

Thanks for the frame geometry suggestions and the mention of Look and Scott. I had not considered Scott, I am more familiar with Look.

There is a loop I used to do near where I used to work that I rode with my co-workers about 10 years ago. It's above Stanford University and there was quite a climb to get to the top. And I did it without a triple. Now that I'm so far out of shape, it should be interesting to see how the compact will feel if I try that loop again after I rebuild my 40-something year old body.

Tags

Other Threads

Recent Reviews

What Users Want

Got Facebook?

Already a User?

Create a New Account

Recent Discussions

Recent Reviews

Recent Wikis