Bike buying tips?
Options
Replies
-
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.3 -
Great ideas and suggestions!!!!0
-
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!0 -
Great advice here! Yay that you are getting into Triathlon! I have a triple and a double and love them both
1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
There's a lot to cycling and racing that you can overthink. Like, all of it. But at the end of the day, ask around and figure out which are the good shops and which to avoid. Then go to a good shop and see what they recommend. Do that, and you're 90% of the way there.2 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
We live in a very hilly region. It can be intimidating, but after a while you just accept it as the way things are. It'll make you stronger. There will come a day when you'll have to answer questions from new cyclists in Florida who dread riding over bridges.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
We live in a very hilly region. It can be intimidating, but after a while you just accept it as the way things are. It'll make you stronger. There will come a day when you'll have to answer questions from new cyclists in Florida who dread riding over bridges.
Or in a less extreme example (though yours is very realistic), you ride a hilly century and think to yourself, "oh this is what people are talking about when they are referring to hills? huh, well that's interesting." while spinning up said hills far faster than you would be able to do near your house.2 -
I agree with all the advice you're been given, but also, consider an electric bike. I can hear the true believers groaning already, but they are very good, especially if you are not yet fit enough to tackle the local hills, no matter what the gearing. Look at 'electric assist' bikes, where the power only comes in to support you, and does not provide a constant amount of power. Mine has five levels of assist, from none to 'turbo'. When I started commuting, I was in maximum assist the whole time (level 5). I'm now in level 3 going to work, level 2 coming home. I use 3 for going as I don't want to be totally wiped when I get to work. Level 2 gives me a better workout and that's great so that when I get home I can collapse in the corner quietly. Seriously, using an electric bike has been a great experience for me.
See https://electricbikereview.com/ for great reviews. They do cost more than unpowered bikes, but I am a believer.
- Mark2 -
Great post, one thing I didn't realize when I bought a trek a few years back was that I need my feet to touch the ground from the seated position. When I got my bike I wanted to be seated more upright because of neck and back issues too, and for some reason they put me into a pretty high bike, which didn't feel right. since then, I've had the seat lowered and although I still can't reach the ground barely with my toes, it's much better. But if I had to do it again I'd get one where I could reach the ground while sitting on the seat. I definitely recommend a "cloud" seat if they still make them
good luck!! 1 -
markgnicholson wrote: »I agree with all the advice you're been given, but also, consider an electric bike. I can hear the true believers groaning already, but they are very good, especially if you are not yet fit enough to tackle the local hills, no matter what the gearing. Look at 'electric assist' bikes, where the power only comes in to support you, and does not provide a constant amount of power. Mine has five levels of assist, from none to 'turbo'. When I started commuting, I was in maximum assist the whole time (level 5). I'm now in level 3 going to work, level 2 coming home. I use 3 for going as I don't want to be totally wiped when I get to work. Level 2 gives me a better workout and that's great so that when I get home I can collapse in the corner quietly. Seriously, using an electric bike has been a great experience for me.
See https://electricbikereview.com/ for great reviews. They do cost more than unpowered bikes, but I am a believer.
- Mark
I don't think that will work, she wants to do triathlon.
There's so much great advice here in this thread. I would put my vote in for a decent road bike, not the lowest end, and not the top, but a good mid range mashine. You will enjoy riding it and would be exited to do it, if you can afford it.
I wouldn't worry about replacing stock seat, it probably will be fine. My Cannondale is a few years old and i love the original seat, although i have experimented with different saddles, just to compare. Often bike shops have loaners for you to try out for free. But since it's pretty new to you, allow plenty of time to get used to it and increase distance gradually. It will get better.
Definitely get a good pair of padded shorts, not too thick, not too thin. That will help a great deal. Too much padding is not better though, keep that in mind.
Go clipless, it's not difficult to get used to, gives you extra power and control. They should teach you at your bike shop and let you practice so you know what to do.
Don't forget a good pair of gloves too, they will help in reducing pressure on median nerve in your hands and protect from damaging it.1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
Great discussion in this thread, but now I"m starting to get nervous. After all the research and adjustments I made during the last year to optimize my bike for a bunch of hilly races, I just realized that next year's A race for me will probably be the one held in Panama City Florida. That course is flat as a pancake!
SO, it gets me thinking: Do I make more changes to my current bike, swapping out the compact crank and 11/ 30 for a flat course set up, or leave it alone and just buy another bike? 0 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
Great discussion in this thread, but now I"m starting to get nervous. After all the research and adjustments I made during the last year to optimize my bike for a bunch of hilly races, I just realized that next year's A race for me will probably be the one held in Panama City Florida. That course is flat as a pancake!
SO, it gets me thinking: Do I make more changes to my current bike, swapping out the compact crank and 11/ 30 for a flat course set up, or leave it alone and just buy another bike?
obviously another bike. Do you even n+1???3 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
Great discussion in this thread, but now I"m starting to get nervous. After all the research and adjustments I made during the last year to optimize my bike for a bunch of hilly races, I just realized that next year's A race for me will probably be the one held in Panama City Florida. That course is flat as a pancake!
SO, it gets me thinking: Do I make more changes to my current bike, swapping out the compact crank and 11/ 30 for a flat course set up, or leave it alone and just buy another bike?
obviously another bike. Do you even n+1???
Exactly. I'm a Florida rider and we all ride 54x11 fixed gears down here. Time for a track bike.
1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
Great discussion in this thread, but now I"m starting to get nervous. After all the research and adjustments I made during the last year to optimize my bike for a bunch of hilly races, I just realized that next year's A race for me will probably be the one held in Panama City Florida. That course is flat as a pancake!
SO, it gets me thinking: Do I make more changes to my current bike, swapping out the compact crank and 11/ 30 for a flat course set up, or leave it alone and just buy another bike?
obviously another bike. Do you even n+1???
Haha, its the logical choice. Now working on a strategy to sell it to my wife.
0 -
-
this is awesome.
I had a business counterpart once say... "Bikes can be expensive; I saw one selling for $300 !"
I had to tell him: "Dude, my wheelset alone was eight hundred dollars, never mind the bike."1 -
scorpio516 wrote: »
A single front ring is the simplest, and lightest. Less than half the parts as a double or triple. BUT depending on how it's setup, you can either run out of gear or have a really hard time climbing. A drivetrain setup for steep climbing might run out of gear on the down hill or flats. As in you could go faster, but your legs can't spin any faster. Still pretty rare outside TT, MTB, and gravel bikes.
Triple, 3x have 3 front rings. They have 3 rings and a derailleur. They are the most complex and they can get out of tune the easiest - makes it harder to shift. You also can run into problems cross-chaining - running from the outer most front ring to the innermost rear ring or vice versa.
Finally, quite often the middle ring is useless. Often all the gears there are covered between the outer and inner chain ring. There are some pros - less front shifting.
Double sometimes are the best of both. Less overlap, more unique gears. But a standard double can be pretty tough for climbing - the smallest front ring on a standard double is a lot bigger than the small ring on a triple. On the other hand, a compact double has a smaller big ring - on long downhills you can run out of gear too.
That's a pretty good explanation. To build on it...
I want to emphasis the idea that more gears is not necessarily better. What is better? The right gears. A half-way decent shop should be able to get you matched up to a gear setup that is appropriate for local terrain. I don't think most recreational cyclists or weekend racers need to worry about running out of gears at high speed, but not having easy enough gears for climbing hills can be a concern.
Thank you, I would definitely prefer help climbing!
Great discussion in this thread, but now I"m starting to get nervous. After all the research and adjustments I made during the last year to optimize my bike for a bunch of hilly races, I just realized that next year's A race for me will probably be the one held in Panama City Florida. That course is flat as a pancake!
SO, it gets me thinking: Do I make more changes to my current bike, swapping out the compact crank and 11/ 30 for a flat course set up, or leave it alone and just buy another bike?
obviously another bike. Do you even n+1???
Haha, its the logical choice. Now working on a strategy to sell it to my wife.
I showed my wife a printout of the estimated cost of cardiac by-pass surgery and then showed her what a great bike would cost.
The other benefit was that I would be out of the house, riding, for hours on end..... she liked that.2 -
I had a business counterpart once say... "Bikes can be expensive; I saw one selling for $300 !"
I had to tell him: "Dude, my wheelset alone was eight hundred dollars, never mind the bike."
My husband's friends joined us for his first Ironman and were amazed when I told him the upper end bikes were at least $10,000 - 15,000 bikes plus more for different components.
1 -
awinner_au wrote: »Great suggestions above. All good stuff.
I'll offer my 2 cents: Sounds like you would really benefit from working with a good bike fitter, since you said you have comfort issues with the standard road bike riding position. A fitter will help you find the most comfortable position and adjust your bike to put you in a comfortable (and efficient) position on the bike. A bike fitting is worth every penny spent if you intend to ride any real distance.
For example, I had a bike fit done first, prior to buying my bike, then we took my specs and shopped for a tri bike with the geometry that lined up well with my measurements. A fitter would do the same thing with a road bike.
Also, if you're thinking of dabbling in triathlons, buying a road bike makes a lot of sense. With a properly fitted road bike, you'd have a dual purpose bike for both racing and social rides.
Good luck with your bike search. Getting a new bike is exciting!
agree wholeheartedly. Saved me a lot of typing. Just to emphasise, a bike shop bike fit is quite different to a proper bike fit unless the shop does both.
What do you mean by this?
I've never really heard it differentiated like that, but what I assume they mean is...
Any bike shop can spend 20 minutes and get you reasonably fitted to a bike. This is sufficient for "most" people. Only some shops can/will fit your first, then take all those numbers/measurements and find the bike that is best suited to you. IME, it goes something like this...- Walk into a shop, tell them what you're looking for.
- Employee recommends a few bikes.
- You ask a couple of questions, employee answers, you make a decision.
- Employee says you'd probably fit best on a medium or 55 or whatever size bike.
- You say ok.
- Employee adjusts bars and saddle.
- You buy the bike. The end.
- Walk into a shop, tell them what you're looking for.
- Employee gets other employee who is trained/certified fitter.
- Fitter puts you on the fitting bike/machine.
- You spend some time (could be 20 minutes, could be an hour) spinning on the bike while the fitter makes small adjustments to things like seat height and position, bar height, stem length, stem angle, etc etc.
- After some time, you decide you're reasonably comfortable with the setup.
- Fitter takes the numbers/measurements and compares those to the bikes he sells. Figures out which bike(s) most closely match your numbers and makes a recommendation.
- You ask questions, fitter answers, you make a decision.
- You buy the bike.
- maybe the end, maybe not. Some shops/fitters will include a fit tweak after some initial time with the bike.
- You fall in love with cycling, take out a 3rd mortgage, buy all the bikes.
- The end.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions