Education, please! New Tech vs Old Campy owner

[RnR]

Back in the late '70's I built a full Campy Record bike on an Assenmacher frame. Lately I haven't ridden it much on the road due to escalating traffic and deteriorating road conditions - to say nothing of my aging biological frame, heh. But while I'm still in the ~145# range, I thought I would see what bike styles would be appropriate for short trips (say, to the local WallyWorld / grocery stores) on a reatively robust bike frame.

This is where I would like to ask for recommendations on a new self-build (or kit?) that may suit this requirement. I think I can still handle drop-style handle bars, but man - I don't think I can resist some sort of suspension technology on a new ride! I see springs on darn near everything these days and can definitely see myself succumbing to temptation in that department! Back in the old days - comfort was Verbotten!!!

So... some relatively robust tires (for gravel traction on road shoulders and winter snow emergencies) would be desired as well as potentially a foldable frame for periodic storage in my car's trunk; kinda makes potential escape from remote areas a tad

easier should the auto fail .

Any suggestions or comments?

 

[Bill Kapaun]

Suspension means weight, and GOOD suspension means $$$$$

Maybe just a suspension seat post would be adequate?
BTW, I'm 61 and don't want any suspension.
I use an 86 RockHopper with 1.5" tires and "street" gears.
I only use a back pack. Rear racks would allow me to carry a couple more 12 paks, but since I only live a mile from the store, I make extra trips if necessary.
Also plan your trips. I keep a grocery list in my wallet, so if I happen to be going by the store on other business, I'll stop in and get a couple items and just hang them on the bars.
I keep a couple plastic grocery bags folded up in my back pocket. You never know when you'll find some good road kill!

 

[MtnMike]

Times have changed since your last bike These days there are so many bike styles out there. For the purpose you describe, I'd look at what they call, "urban" bikes, or "commuter" bikes. They're designed for utility with things like fenders, racks, and puncture resistent tires. REI.com has a good selection of them. REI also caries Dahon folding bikes, which also pretty utilitarian in design. I wouldn't mess with any suspension unless you're planning to do any trails.

 

[RnR]

Hey... we're heading in the right direction! Perhaps with a shock absorbing seat (+/- shock absorbing post) and those bigger tires, I think I can sacrifice the more expensive shock management systems and keep that cost down. At a mere 53 yrs., I'll see if I can keep up with Bill - although he can keep the road-munchies all to himself! And fortunately, my closest support trips would be in the neighborhood on (2) miles or so, negating the need for on-bike load management systems - and can likely depend on the mentioned backpack solution too.

BTW - can you elaborate a bit on what defines "street gears"? I know that I really never used more than (4) out of the (10) I had available on the old Campy configuration and can't imagine what I would do with 24 of 'em...

Mike, I'll take a look at the Dahons - are they the only option when it comes to foldables?

 

[moribundman]

You can get a foldable mountain bike. There's also a foldable commuter version. Prices start at about $600.

http://www.hummerbikes.com/

 

[RnR]

I see that the Hummer is now SwissBike - and a little pricey. May have to stick to more standard editions and be willing to break it down for trips in the auto...

Pretty nifty - they are.

 

[RnR]

Uh-oh....
I just spotted the TerraTrike site

 

[Bill Kapaun]

"BTW - can you elaborate a bit on what defines "street gears"?"

That's basically my definition for what I use for my flat city riding.
I've got a 3x8, but use the middle (38T) ring 98% of the time.
I made a custom cassette using 13-14-15-16-17-19-21-24 tooth cogs.
With my age, bad knees, poor lung capacity etc., I've found that I can maintain my best average speed by keeping my cadence in a VERY narrow range. With my gears, I can shift one tooth up/down as the wind changes and keep the same cadence. I simply don't find myself "between gears" with them, where one is just a bit too high, but the next lower is just a bit too low.
I have to ride very upright because of a bad back, so the wind has a major effect on me.
I generally "cruise on the 14 or 15, so I do have a bit of leeway. IF I ever get a major tail wind, I've still got the big ring. Normally my longest stretch is about 6 blocks before I have to slow for a stop sign/light, so it hardly pays to "rush".
I do end up shifting a lot with my friction thumbies, but there's not much else to do when riding anyway. It kind of keeps me "interested".

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: RnR
I see that the Hummer is now SwissBike - and a little pricey. May have to stick to more standard editions and be willing to break it down for trips in the auto...

Pretty nifty - they are.


I'd stay away from foldables; too much added weight for the few times you'll actually break it down. besides, for the trunk, most bikes will fit just by pulling both wheels off.
I would suggest you visit a real bike shop (not an REI or sports store) and ride a few.
urban, commuter, hybrid, etc- these are all different versions of upright seating, wide gearing fast city bikes. you'll find that you can get comfortable with the right fit.
don't think of gears as numbers, like in a car, or on your old 10 speed (it gets confusing w/ up to 30 combinations!). instead, think of it as 3 (low, medium, and high)ranges. 3 chainrings up front; you'll use the middle most of the time, big ring for speed, small ring for steep hills. w/ the small ring, you might use one or two of the rear cogs. w/ the middle, you might use 5 or 6, and w/ the big ring, maybe a few rear cogs. gears are SO easy to use now, you'll wonder how you ever did w/o them.
personally, I'd recommend looking at http://www.cannondale.com , take a look at the bad boy line.
enjoy!

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: mpvue

I'd stay away from foldables; too much added weight for the few times you'll actually break it down.


27 lbs isn't much to begin with. What's YOUR weight? You could add some ARX to your breakfast cereal.

I don't get the non-competitive weight weenies' obsession with the lightest possible bike. Isn't the goal of riding to exercise? Shouldn't they be adding weight for a more thorough workout?

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: mpvue

I'd stay away from foldables; too much added weight for the few times you'll actually break it down.


27 lbs isn't much to begin with. What's YOUR weight? You could add some ARX to your breakfast cereal.

I don't get the non-competitive weight weenies' obsession with the lightest possible bike. Isn't the goal of riding to exercise? Shouldn't they be adding weight for a more thorough workout?

my weight? about 170, 5'9".
I don't see where in my post you got that I'm a obsessed weight weenie, I just don't see the point in having a bike heavier than it needs to be. a clunky heavy bike rides like chrap, where a light bike is a better climber and sprinter.
and no, not everyone views a bicycle as a piece of exercise equipment, some of us use them for transportation.
in the spirit of full disclousure, my current ride is a surly pacer road bike, steel frame/fork, brooks saddle, and some salsa hooped wheels I built myself. 39/52 up front w/ a 13-32 8 speed cassette out back. about 24lbs or so, I can't remember. so that just goes to show I'm not obsessed about weight.

 

[moribundman]

I didn't say you were a weight weenie. To make sure that was clear I referred to the weight weenies in plural. I do however find it weird that you consider the 27 lbs that the Hummer weighs heavy. It's pretty much average for an MTB in that price range. I just don't see the weight penalty for the folding feature there. I also don't know how you would know how infrequently someone would actually fold a folding bike.

As far as folding bikes are concerned, I'd certainly consider a Hummer folding bike over a Dahon with tiny wheels. If I were to travel with my bike by air or train I'd certainly prefer a folding bike.

A heavy bike doesn't necessarily make for a bad ride. There are some old 40 lbs monsters out there that offer a very smooth and cushy ride (and so do modern +40 lbs downhill bikes!). On the other hand, many of the lightweight aluminum alloy frames on modern bikes offer anything but a comfortable ride.

In any case, if your steel frame bike weighs only 24 lbs, I'd consider that a light bike. I'll call you "weight conscious" then.

 

[Steve S]

That is a trick bike though the newer shifters are way better the frame wheels and brakes are top notch IMO,,,There are some really fancy bikes being marketed, shop around and take a bunch of test rides light is good. You can get a pretty nice bike for not a whole lot of $$$ for your requirments.

 

[RnR]

Originally Posted By: Steve S
That is a trick bike though the newer shifters are way better the frame wheels and brakes are top notch IMO,,,There are some really fancy bikes being marketed, shop around and take a bunch of test rides light is good. You can get a pretty nice bike for not a whole lot of $$$ for your requirements.

Which one are you specifically referring to Steve, that "Bad Boy" edition?

But as I had mentioned TerraTrike earlier - and the fact that they're not all that far away - I think I'll work on a visit

and perhaps try out their "Tour" edition - which appears optimized for the kind of in-town work I would likely depend on it for. Definitely a step up in the $$strata - but I'll see what kind of an impact it makes on my selection process...