Author Topic: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition  (Read 13165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #450: May 02, 2012, 08:14:52 PM »
Looked up my bike on the interwebs, turns out it is holding decent value due to really nice Shimano components and a durable steel frame.

Cost me $230 new circa 1984, probably worth about that today.

Here's the identical bike, though my handle tapes are original white:


 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #451: May 02, 2012, 08:26:45 PM »
Did a bit of reading today on my knee issue.  It would seem that there are a lot of adjustments that can / should be made to fit a bike properly to a body.  One thing I see a lot of is that pedals can have the ability to rotate or otherwise adjust for individual variances in foot angle or dimensions.

It would seem I am afflicted with Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome, as my pain is on the outside of each knee.  Most important thing to check would be the seat height, but also how my foot contacts the pedal, and also perhaps relevant would be to check if my form is clean, or am I flaring my knee out at some point and thus stressing the joint?

Here's an interesting blog on proper bike fit.  Has anyone here ever had a quality fit?

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/
 

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 12563
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #452: May 02, 2012, 08:46:31 PM »
ITB is discussed on another forum I follow. I can point you at it if you are interested. There are a couple of PTs and docs that get into the injury discussion. Not about biking, but you can see what's there.
Did a bit of reading today on my knee issue.  It would seem that there are a lot of adjustments that can / should be made to fit a bike properly to a body.  One thing I see a lot of is that pedals can have the ability to rotate or otherwise adjust for individual variances in foot angle or dimensions.

It would seem I am afflicted with Iliotibial Band Friction Syndrome, as my pain is on the outside of each knee.  Most important thing to check would be the seat height, but also how my foot contacts the pedal, and also perhaps relevant would be to check if my form is clean, or am I flaring my knee out at some point and thus stressing the joint?

Here's an interesting blog on proper bike fit.  Has anyone here ever had a quality fit?

http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/
 


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #453: May 02, 2012, 08:49:05 PM »
G-Burg, I'm glad you liked my post so much you quoted it twice, but do you have any comments?    :mg:

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 12563
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #454: May 02, 2012, 08:50:17 PM »
Damn, I didn't think you were that much taller than me. Then again, we all rode with bigger frames back then, I think.

Looked up my bike on the interwebs, turns out it is holding decent value due to really nice Shimano components and a durable steel frame.

Cost me $230 new circa 1984, probably worth about that today.

Here's the identical bike, though my handle tapes are original white:

(Image removed from quote.)
 




Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 12563
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #455: May 02, 2012, 08:51:11 PM »
Look again, smartass. ;)
G-Burg, I'm glad you liked my post so much you quoted it twice, but do you have any comments?    :mg:


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #456: May 02, 2012, 08:53:14 PM »
Damn, I didn't think you were that much taller than me. Then again, we all rode with bigger frames back then, I think.

Oh, that was a bike like mine, not the same size.  Though I don't know where to find the size of mine.    :?

Guess is 58.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 12563
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #457: May 02, 2012, 09:02:04 PM »
Not in inches? Back in the late 70s, we measured bikes in inches... :old:
Oh, that was a bike like mine, not the same size.  Though I don't know where to find the size of mine.    :?

Guess is 58.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #458: May 02, 2012, 09:07:15 PM »
Not in inches? Back in the late 70s, we measured bikes in inches... :old:

True.   I have no idea.  I don't remember, and can't find a marking though I haven't checked it in good light.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #459: May 02, 2012, 10:43:38 PM »
I ride a 56cm and I'm fairly tall. I did a quick fitting when I bought it but I'm going to do a true fitting and replace a couple of things since I ride a smaller bike but have a long torso. The biggest things I'll need to replace are the stem (need a longer one and a better angle), the seat (Brooks saddle), crank arm (longer), and, most importantly, the wheels.

Offline GburgNatsFan

  • Posts: 12563
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #460: May 02, 2012, 11:12:20 PM »
The right size for me was when the down tube and top tube lugs on the head tube were about a half inch apart. :)
True.   I have no idea.  I don't remember, and can't find a marking though I haven't checked it in good light.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #461: May 03, 2012, 10:54:04 AM »
I ride a 56cm and I'm fairly tall. I did a quick fitting when I bought it but I'm going to do a true fitting and replace a couple of things since I ride a smaller bike but have a long torso. The biggest things I'll need to replace are the stem (need a longer one and a better angle), the seat (Brooks saddle), crank arm (longer), and, most importantly, the wheels.

Odd that you ride a 56.  I used an inseam based forumula to compute that mine should be a 58.  Further, I found an online calculator that spit out a 59 for me. 

Of course seat height is critical, and I'm really thinking about floating pedals as a possible source of relief.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 10692
  • babble on
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #462: May 03, 2012, 11:28:22 AM »
The geometry is a major factor here...a criterium bike with tight angles ought to be a different frame size than a touring bike.  Stem length is really important as well.  Good bike stores will have a 'fit kit' or comparable system that will determine the ideal frame dimensions depending on the tipe of bike/rider/etc.   

Odd that you ride a 56.  I used an inseam based forumula to compute that mine should be a 58.  Further, I found an online calculator that spit out a 59 for me. 

Of course seat height is critical, and I'm really thinking about floating pedals as a possible source of relief.


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #463: May 03, 2012, 01:11:47 PM »
The geometry is a major factor here...a criterium bike with tight angles ought to be a different frame size than a touring bike.  Stem length is really important as well.  Good bike stores will have a 'fit kit' or comparable system that will determine the ideal frame dimensions depending on the tipe of bike/rider/etc.   

Visited Revolution Cycles in Rockville at lunch, they will custom fit you to a bike for about $150.  Buy a high end bike and they'll throw in the fitting.  I asked the guy, who was otherwise helpful, if there was a "break point" on pricing where you get great value, and he started at the $3,400 Trek carbon fibre model.    :?


Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #464: May 03, 2012, 01:21:55 PM »
Odd that you ride a 56.  I used an inseam based forumula to compute that mine should be a 58.

I have a 29" inseam and a 33" "true" inseam.  Plug that in to any of those and it'll spit out between a 56 and 58cm bike.  I tried out a 57cm Bianchi that I really liked but went with a 56cm Surly due to price and fit.  My next bike will probably be a Surly Long Haul Trucker that I will get in 58cm since the geometry on that frameset is quite different from the Cross Check.

I asked the guy, who was otherwise helpful, if there was a "break point" on pricing where you get great value, and he started at the $3,400 Trek carbon fibre model.    :?

Don't take this the wrong way but you were an easy mark for them.  They probably figured you to be the typical 50s-ish guy in need of a thrill while you ride on the MUP - i.e. a needledick looking to slap on the spandex and "shred some hills" on Saturday.  Obviously that's not you but that's probably what they pegged you as.  I get the opposite when I first go to a bike store "for riders your size we recommend this [total low-end "hybrid" that all the fatties ride]."  When I point out my bike outside they usually go "oh, well, have you considered a Cervelo?"  :hang:

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #465: May 03, 2012, 01:28:10 PM »
Don't take this the wrong way but you were an easy mark for them.  They probably figured you to be the typical 50s-ish guy in need of a thrill while you ride on the MUP - i.e. a needledick looking to slap on the spandex and "shred some hills" on Saturday. 

Not taking it the wrong way, it's dead on, that's exactly what he was thinking.  That ain't happenin'.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #466: May 03, 2012, 01:32:46 PM »
Not taking it the wrong way, it's dead on, that's exactly what he was thinking.  That ain't happenin'.

That's one thing I really hate about bike shops - the stereotyping. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #467: May 03, 2012, 02:25:43 PM »
Revolution's fit services: 

$250 for the high end road bike fit, $150 standard, $75 if you buy the bike from them.

http://revolutioncycles.com/about/fit-services-pg638.htm

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #468: May 03, 2012, 02:32:28 PM »
$250 for the high end road bike fit, $150 standard, $75 if you buy the bike from them.

Those aren't bad prices actually, though Revolution kind of sucks.  If you're actually doing triathlon training or competitions or serious road racing $250 is chump change considering what your bike and maintenance will cost not having a proper fit.  The thing to keep in mind is $250 is really just to figure out what you'll need to replace or alter to get the bike to fit you.  In my case I'm probably going to have to drop another $200 to get the right stem and cranks to fit my bizarre body. 

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #469: May 03, 2012, 09:22:36 PM »
Those aren't bad prices actually, though Revolution kind of sucks.  If you're actually doing triathlon training or competitions or serious road racing $250 is chump change considering what your bike and maintenance will cost not having a proper fit.  The thing to keep in mind is $250 is really just to figure out what you'll need to replace or alter to get the bike to fit you.  In my case I'm probably going to have to drop another $200 to get the right stem and cranks to fit my bizarre body.

Oh yeah, no delusions here - the 250 gets you the plan to fit your bike out just right, including pedals and the like as fit the script.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 10692
  • babble on
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #470: May 03, 2012, 10:04:08 PM »
Someone's buying those $12,000 machines they plug in the bike pictures mags.  If some loaded 60 year old guys are keeping the N. American quality bike industry afloat, I can't really see the harm in it...it certainly beats the bad old days when just about the only bikes manufactured outside of Europe were made of crap rolled steel and weighed about 80 pounds.     

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #471: May 04, 2012, 07:30:42 AM »
I think the guys buying those bikes live in your neighborhood and right in our age group - 30 - 45.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #472: May 04, 2012, 08:10:36 AM »
So the bike the guy was waxing poetic about was the Trek Madone 5.2.

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes/road/race_performance/madone_5_series/madone_5_2#

When I got home I dug through a couple of recent issues of Outside mag and sure enough the May issue had an article recommending bikes in various classes and price ranges.  Their road bike #2 cheapest bike was the Trek Madone 4.5, one tier below the one the guy was pushing and a mere $2,200 (before adding pedals and the like).

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/bikes-and-biking/road-bikes/Madone-45.html

I was kind of hoping the great value was a little more in the $600-$800 range frankly.    :old:

Maybe used bikes are a better value.

Offline MarquisDeSade

  • Posts: 13469
  • In the market for lavish mansions 'n NBA expansion
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #473: May 04, 2012, 09:12:40 AM »
Anything less than a grand is either going to be low end mountain bikes or "hybrids", at least that has a name associated with it.  What you should really check out are cyclocross bikes if youre not going to be doing time trials on the Mt Vernon Trail.   The Specialized Tricross is around $1000 and probably the best bike for the buck in that range.  Obviously Surly is there too, but the Surly framesets aren't as good of quality as Specialized.  The Trek 520 is a good bike too in that range.

Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 27744
  • Hell yes!
Re: The Cycling Thread - 2012 Edition
« Reply #474: May 04, 2012, 11:29:19 AM »
Anything less than a grand is either going to be low end mountain bikes or "hybrids", at least that has a name associated with it.  What you should really check out are cyclocross bikes if youre not going to be doing time trials on the Mt Vernon Trail.   The Specialized Tricross is around $1000 and probably the best bike for the buck in that range.  Obviously Surly is there too, but the Surly framesets aren't as good of quality as Specialized.  The Trek 520 is a good bike too in that range.

I'd like to be able to ride some centuries.