Conference noted::bicycle

    As a relative newcomer to cycling IMHO:
    
    It seems like a 3 chainring would really suit you.  If you are on your
    knees after a century even the slightest rise seems like the Alpe, and
    so the psychological advantage of knowing that you have another 3 gears
    you can change down to is immense.  Furthermore with some careful
    thought you can arrange to have every gear you would ever want (for
    one, mad, summer I had 42-46-52 on the front which was interesting) 
    against this you pay a little bit of weight (no more than 200g  I'm
    sure, let's say 2 bananas) and slightly less slick changes - but you're
    not going to be racing so you don't need lighting fast gears).
    
    Alu-steel:  I cannot comment for what's currently in the market place.
    I have a 5 years old (not cannondale) Alu bike kitted out for touring 
    which is really soggy but by the time you've got panniers on you don't
    notice.
    
    Hill-climbing:  Given you are not the size and weight of Robert Millar hills
    are never going to be easy.  Here (the UK) I find the biggest gain is to be
    had from a nice stiff frame; I realise that you are avoiding stiff frames
    for comfort reasons but I find a stiff frame really feels like it is helping
    you. This is on small climbs (less than 1000 feet vertical).  I have only
    done one real climb with stiff frame and to be honest the general pain
    involved was such that I dont remember whether the frame helped or not :-). 
    Everyone tells me that good wheels are a big help - I'm looking forward
    to mine.   
    
    In general when I started cyclotouring I was a weight fanatic, nowdays
    I am much less perturbed by weight on the bike and much more by weight
    on me.  The 2.7 pounds you quote would probably cost $300, and make is
    12% difference in the bikes weight, 1.5% in your weight (and in my case
    about one third of the amount by which I am overweught :-(.
    
    Hope this helps
    	rod
    
    Thereagin you could be like me and dream of your merlin ....

    Like .1 (also by a Rod), that 2lb difference in bike weight doesn't
    matter at all. Do you really think shaving off 1% in the all-up weight
    will be noticeable? I'd also agree with .1 that what you need for
    climbing is a stiff frame with stiff wheels. I'm sure you would find a
    triple chainset an advantage: you can get a wide range of gears but
    still have a fairly close set of ratios on the back.
    
    But no matter what you get, a pimple will still feel like Alpe d'Huez
    after a long ride. That's cycling!
    
    
    Rod

>================================================================================
>Note 1958.0               in search of my perfect bike                No replies
>STARV5::LIVINGSTON                                   56 lines   4-JUN-1991 19:47
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   I was thinking a three chainwheel setup might help me in this regard as well
>   as just generally being a more flexible terrain bike.  But I was wondering
>   if I should really be trying to shave weight off the bike and so should look
>
>   at 24.7 lbs. (according to spec) whereas racing bikes generally are about
>   22 lbs. (in this price range)  It also seems that you have to pay more
>
Barry,

If you're considering doing hills and centuries, I persoanlly would think the
three chainwheel would be a necessity. Look at it this way; the rider is much
more likely to be contributing far more than one kilogram of excess weight! I
figure that until I am at my minimum wieght, worrying about a pound or two of
bike weight shouldn't make much difference. And more so if it also contributes
to my ability to last out a long, hilly ride.

One opinion from Tim

     I have a ridden a C-Dale for 3 yrs., still have my Fuji (beater)
    and own a MERLIN (I now have 1100+ miles on it). I can tell you
    that aluminum DOES NOT absorb road shock as well as the VaLite
    or (naturally) titanium. I'm talking over-sized al. tubes now.
    I can't speak for lugged Cilo and Vitus.
    
     You may want to consider composite as well if comforts a target. They
    ride very well and the money you're looking to invest can get you a
    Trek and maybe a Specialized (if you shop around)...
    
     Hills, ahh, hills. The key here reminds me of an old joke. You know,
    the guy who asks the cab driver how to get to Carnegie Hall... The
    cabbies response, "Practice kid, practice". I know quite a few larger
    riders (larger than you) who climb very well. Of course, Alcala's and
    Atle's they'll never be, but...
    
     The price range you're into will defintely get you a lot of bike. Just
    make sure you patronize the right place. 
    
     You're right about "hard to tell the difference when riding"... You'll
    find that once you get into the price range you're into, machines will
    probably be very close in ride and performance as well as componentry.
    
     Have fun and good luck with your decision...
    
       Chip

	re: Can't tell much on a test ride...

	Bike Fit is probably one of the most important aspects of comfort on a 
	bike, and I've come to the conclusion that I can never tell whether a 
	bike will be really comfortable (read fit well) on a test ride.  For me,
	it takes many, many miles (100's) to really tell what's right.  Of 
	course, I've got a bike that fits me pretty well, so I can use it's 
	geometry as a starting point for picking a new bike.  But even that's 
	not really enough info to go on, unless the bike I choose has EXACTLY 
	the same geometry, which is usually not likely.  I've recently purchased
 	an length adjustable stem which allows me to fine tune my position on
	the bike, even while out on a ride.  Once I'm really comfortable on my 
	usual courses, I can then buy the exact size stem required.  I will 
	never buy another bike without going through this process.  I find that
	static sizing (while on a trainer) is totally useless, since the 
	positions I really use while riding are nothing like what seems 
	comfortable while on a trainer.

    re: Robert Millar, climbing and body size: I was surprised to read in
    an old Bicycling mag recently that body type is not a factor in
    climbing ability.  They were comparing a small, medium and large person
    with equal conditioning to see who would finish first on a course with
    equal parts up, down and flat.  The conclusion was that on the uphill
    the person in the best aerobic shape would reach the top first.  In
    their example it was even across the board.  The big guy won out on the
    downhills and flats due to mass and wind resistance calculations.  It
    was pointed out that at the elite level the best climbers have the best
    max oxygen uptake readings.  Smaller people apparently usually can
    develop a higher level here.  But at the recreational level size is not
    a factor.  
    
    I think you should splurge and go for the Merlin :-)
    
    Don

    	I hesitate to answer these sorts of things, but here goes anyway.
    Not sure where you live, but a triple crank isn't usually needed unless
    you're going to do loaded touring or REALLY leisurely climbing.  The 
    current double-cranks will accept a 39 tooth inner ring, which with a 24 
    or 26 rear, can comfortably get you over most anything.  Being 6'2" and 36
    years old shouldn't require you to get a triple crank (or a cane, or a 
    seeing eye dog.)  :^)  If you can use a double, you will widen your range 
    of road bike choices to include some with more sporting handling.  
    Just a thought.
    
    						JP 
                   

    Don't quite agree with .7. 39x26 will get a fit rider on a light bike
    over most things, but if he hits a patch of 20%, "comfortably" won't be
    the word he's thinking of. Besides, if one is not so fit, and hits a
    steep hill at the end of a long ride, the inner ring of a triple could
    be a godsend. Secondly, why should a triple limit one's choice of
    frame? I see some pretty sporty bikes here in France with a triple.
    Note also that some pretty sporty component groups allow for a triple:
    Campag Athena for one.
    
    Wasn't there a note on this (by the author of .7 ?) a year or so ago,
    called "Racing Triple" or something like that?
    
    
    Rod

re .8 - YES YES YES Rod - couldn't agree more

re .7 - Cobblers

	I used 39x24 on the old Alan before I found I could get a 7-speed Aris
starting with a 15 top, it was b____y hard a lot of the time.  I now have 22,26
as the bottom two, but would go to 23,28 for anything serious down here.  As I
said before, the triple seems OK but it offends me somehow - usually when I
flick the chain off when going to the outside ring, but that should be curable
by going to a decent front changer instead of the Chorus.

	On a different note, the Al frame discussion is getting interesting - I
rode L'Epervier on a steel Pete Matthews and for 170 out of 200 km I was shook
to bits on the appalling road surfaces.  My nearest test ride seems to indicate
that the Alan aluminium DOES feel more comfortable - trouble is I can't face
L'Epervier Mk II just to test out the theory..........

    Barry
    
    Here are a few suggestions:
    
    1. Buy the best frame you can afford, in steel.
    
    It seems that aluminium is too flexible for anyone over 5'10",
    especially for climbing. I cannot prove this, but things I have read
    here and elsewhere (as well as the fact that manufacturers often do not
    make big aluminium frames) have convinced me (6' tall) not to buy
    aluminium. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Fat tubes may be
    different, I have never tried them.
    
    2. Get a good triple with something like up 32-42-50. My Shimano 600
    changer could handle that easily enough when I tried it. You can
    experiment with the rear cluster, but 32x26 should get an unladen bike
    up most hills, even if you are only moderately fit.
    
    3. Use Look or similar pedals if you don't intend to combine cycling
    with walking - they are very comfortable and don't restrict the
    circulation in your feet.
    
    John

    Robin,
    
    	So you liked the part about the cane?  When he was here, Rob
    Rowlands hinted that you folks used triples in the Alps.  I found some 
    15-20% road for him, but it was only about a mile long at that pitch.  
    A Winning article once described Hampsten's gearing in the TdF as 39x26, 
    so I imagine that mere mortals would want more in your neighborhood. 
    
    	Rod accuses me of using the oxymoron "racing triple."  Hmmmmm. 
    I'll admit that I did wish for a triple once last year, but I don't think
    that I used "race" to describe the experience.  I went for a overnight ride
    through the Santa Cruz mountains with panniers, an old Campy double
    crank, and my regular cluster.  Never mind that, though...
    
    	If the victim of our collective advice is a non-alpine sport rider,
    do you REALLY think that he should put an ugly carbuncle like a triple
    on his new road bike?  ;^)
    
                              

    I'll side with the triple.
    
    I'm 6'2, but more importantly 190 lbs. I did most of my cycling in the
    Alps. I lived 4 years in Grenoble. My idea of an outing was a couple
    miles to warm up, then uphill 3000fts. VAlbonne had the same setting.
    Until I came here, flat was just a way to get to the bottom of a hill
    (now I'm in Nashua, and I had to get into racing against time, ie
    against to wind, to be able to get some sweat worked up on flat/hilly
    terrain. I miss my high passes).
    
    Well, when your idea of cycling is passes, you can really use the
    triple. I've always had a 32-42-52, with the rear 13-24 or even 26.
    When I start up a hill, I just go directly to 32, no use in fussing
    around. This is no reserve factor, extra gears if you run out of steam.
    I start out with it.
    
    At one time, I was a decent climber, by my standards (close to
    1000m/hour). At that rate, you need that kind of short gear if you want
    to maintain a decent cadence - and if you don't keep keep at least 60,
    preferably 70 rpms, forget about going up anything higher than you
    father's (uphill) driveway. If you want to go far, you need to keep
    those rpms, same as flat. You can take a small climg with higher gears
    (and lower rpms), and just power your way up, but if you're settling
    for a full hour of climb, you are just killing your body uselessly, you
    won't make the distance.
    
    Also, because I'm big and heavy, I'm in fact better on flat than uphill
    (a matter of taste differing from talent). Which means I really want to
    52, and use it a lot. I is probably possible to have a 2-ring with
    small inner ring, but my experience is that if you try a 36-52, you
    don't need a shifter: it wouldn't do the work anyway, to shift back up
    from 36 to 52, you'll need to stop the bike and use your hands. Seems
    like 10-12 is about all those front derailleurs can gracefully handle.
    
    So don't feel shy, and don't believe those snobs you think three rings
    are for sissies. So the professionals don't use them? so what! They
    also go *up* the Alpe d'Huez at the speed I go *down*.... In fact, they
    probably go up on 42x22, with the same rpms I do with my 32x24. If
    you're no champion, you would rather keep the cadence and have the
    gears adjust to the difference between LeMond and you, than use *his*
    gears and turn those levers agonizingly slowly.
    
    I bought a bike here in New England. I was careful to take a triple. I
    never use the 32 around here, because I haven't yet brought myself to
    driving an hour in my *car* in order to find some decent hill to climb.
    But one day, I will go back home, to the country of good wine, pretty
    girls, and real hills. My 32 is my nostalgia good luck charm. When I
    get homesick on my bike, at stare at it and sigh... Some day, I'll have
    use for you again...
    
    Well, it's late at night, and this is getting out of hand. In short,
    what the hell if we're big, heavy, fat and old. But we can still enjoy
    biking, and we need not pretend we're Alcala.... And if you want to
    clone your favorite champion's equipement, use his water bottle, not
    his gears...
    
    Enjoy your rides.
    
    JP

    Re .12:  Excellent note. One tiny quibble is that you are being a bit
    hard on the shifting capabilities of modern front derailleurs. Although
    I'm speaking in favour of triples, I have a 52-38 double on the
    Raleigh, with a Shimano 105SC front derailleur. It works fine (but it
    is at its stated maximum capacity).
    
    
    Rod

Great replies lads, keep it up.........

re .12 John said he covetted my Carnac semi-walking shoes with sunken shoe-
plates - I find them ideal, look out for them if you intend walking at all.  I
nearly died laughing the other day when a Look wearer could hardly make it from
the kerb to the caf�.

I guess cluttering up the bike is the very aesthetic thing I don't like, but
then I rode with a single fixed for 20 years and it certainly makes life easier
(and cheaper!!).

I can't see how any "normal" person can consider using the same gears as the
racers in the TdF - these guys cover 50,000 km a year and it's their way of
earning a living.  I still think we do it for pleasure.

    Rod's note (.12) reminds me that I once had a touring bike with 32 and
    48 on the front and 14-28 on the back. It went up most hills, even with
    a front bag and a big saddlebag. The front changed fine (I think it was
    a Suntour ARX). Maybe you could consider such a setup, perhaps with
    13-24 or 13-22 on the back as you are not planning to carry baggage.
    
    I think I might have talked myself into this as well.  I can see the 
    32-48 (16-tooth) change will be slow, but it would be relatively
    infrequent and we are not talking about racing: climbing is the
    priority, as it is for us here in the Alpes-Maritimes. It is not a
    triple, and does not have the associated alignment and changing
    problems. It is aesthetically and ideologically sound. Is there a big
    catch that I don't see?
    
    John

    	Re .11   "Ugly carbuncle?"
    
    	Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
    
    	I have an old Campagnolo triple, nuovo record, 38-46-54.
    	It was sort of a gift from an aged mechanic I wrenched with
    	back in N.Y., around 1978. at that time the crank was almost
    	ten years old?  Circa 1968?
    
    	From what I've been told, these pieces are out of manufacture,
    	and after the passing of many moons, will be a collectors item.
    	If only to those who collect this sort of stuff?
    
    	Sheesh, campy nuovo record: collectors pieces?

    
    RE: .10
    
         Concerning Al frames:
    
             You might get some argument from Scott Critz about
           size and strength of Al frames. Scott is about 6'5",
           over 250 lbs, and rides an aluminum frame Trek (I believe).
           I'll let him comment; Scott is more than capable of 
           speaking for himself.  8^)
    
                                                      Steve

re .15
The infrequent changes may be more frequent than you think - afterall if you are
using a 6-speed then 48x22 is probably the lowest on the outside ring (biggest
+ biggest may be too much with such a wide range), I find myself using a gear
of 53" (39x20) very often.

How about the following?
	13	15	17	19	21	24
---------------------------------------------------
48	99	86	76	68	62	xx
34	xx	xx	54	48	44	38 (all in pouces)
This looks inoffensive and ideologically sound, but I haven't checked with the
Partie Fusberti......

or my current, if you can "squeeze a 7 ??
	15	16	17	18	20	22	26
----------------------------------------------------------
52	94	87	82	78	70	xx	xx
39	xx	66	62	58	53	48	40

the last is good although a bit scrabby on 39x16, I'm hoping that some grease
and grot will run it in and improve it, although it may need a better rear mech
than my old Sun Tour.  The main trouble is the tendency for the chain to rub on
the outside ring when using this gear, everything has to be very true and solid.

PS It's raining again on the C�te, so using the bike is academic at present.

re: .12

JP,

Have you tried riding out to Peterborough on rt 101?  It's got a pretty long 
climb in it, up to Temple Mtn Ski area.  If you want to add a short, steep 
climb, turn right at the top of the pass, (just past the ski area) into Miller
State Park and climb South Pack Monadnock.  It's 1.5 miles of really steep stuff
with a 22% grade at the top.

Round trip from Nashua is somewhere around 50-60m.  I plan to start doing this 
once a week... care to join me?

Kevin

     I hope this doesn't sound too pretentious, but unless you're going
    to do serious long range touring, triples aren't necessary. Especially
    around here. You can get anything you need in the way of gearing for
    any terrain around here. I live in a fairly hilly area. I run a 42x53
    with a 12-20 in the rear. I climb Mt. Wachusett at least once a week
    with those gears with no problem. I've been biking for about 4yrs now,
    but I'll admit I consider myself serious, but upper mediocre in the
    level.
    
     I did the Mt. Washington Hill Climb with a 39x53 (didn't use the 53)
    with a 14-28 in the back... 
    
     My $.02
    
            Chip

    I think terrain is the key. -1's lowest of 42x20 would be ludicrous
    round here. Mind you, I did speak to a racing colleague who claimed
    recently to have gone over one of the Jura's highest Cols (Marchairuz,
    >1400m) with 42x19. But he did say that he was struggling (he's a Cat
    2).
    
    I'm pretty happy with the 52-38 front, especially since the Shimano
    rear copes happily with the 12-28 cassette I sometimes put on. I have
    noticed that front changes are rather frequent, since the speed at
    which the change is necessary is around 19mph/30kph. With a narrower
    block at the back, the wide front change often means a compensatory
    shift of two gears at the back.
    
    Thank God for Hyperglide.
    
    
    Rod

re .10:
        
>    1. Buy the best frame you can afford, in steel.
>    
>    It seems that aluminium is too flexible for anyone over 5'10",
>    especially for climbing. I cannot prove this, but things I have read
>    here and elsewhere (as well as the fact that manufacturers often do not
>    make big aluminium frames) have convinced me (6' tall) not to buy
>    aluminium. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Fat tubes may be
>    different, I have never tried them.
    
    Perhaps, but I sure hope not...
    
    I'm 6' 3", 240 lbs, and own a Cannondale.  Its a 25" frame.  They,
    Cannondale, buile standard frames in both touring and race/sport models
    up to 27" frames.  I find it very comfortable and even at my weight it
    doesn't seem to flex abnormally...  As memory serves, TREK also makes 
    Al frames in 60+ cm sizes.  I seem to recall riding a TREK 1000 or 1100
    in a 62 cm.

    Re .22 (re .10): I think there's a difference between the US and
    European approach to aluminium frames, in that the European al frames
    seem to be built in standard tube widths (eg Vitus) while the Americans
    have gone for fat tubes (eg Cannondale and Klein). Fat tubes are
    definitely stiffer, so maybe this approach lends itself to large
    frames. What I'd like to know is, are fat-tubed al frames prone to
    being dented? Seems to me that a large, thin-walled pipe could be
    dented easily.
    
    
    Rod

    .22
    
    I would like to buy a 60cm Al frame, but in Europe fat tubes are
    unusual and I would anticipate problems when replacing components.
    
    When you say "standard frames" do you mean standard diameter tubing, or
    do you mean with fat tubing? If it's standard diameter, I will gladly
    recant and might even buy one.
    
    John

>    What I'd like to know is, are fat-tubed al frames prone to
>    being dented? Seems to me that a large, thin-walled pipe could be
>    dented easily.
>    
>    Rod

    It's not just a matter of denting.  If the wall is thin enough,
    you run the risk of having it crumple up like a
    pop (or soda or tonic) can.

    Large thin walled tubes can buckle.  In fact that's the
    reason that steel tubes aren't any bigger.


    My Mechanical Engineering friends say that to avoid buckling,
    you should keep the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio below
    a certain number.  I think the number is 30.

    The advantage of Aluminum is that you can make the tubing wider,
    and still stay below that ratio.  The walls of the aluminum tubing
    are much thicker than the steel tubing.


    Since stiffness is proportional to the tubing diameter to
    the 4th power given a constant cross section area, you get
    a much stiffer frame.

    -Jeff Bell

>          <<< Note 1958.25 by DANGER::JBELL "Zeno was almost here" >>>
>                                -< Thin tubing >-
>    My Mechanical Engineering friends say that to avoid buckling,
>    you should keep the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio below
>    a certain number.  I think the number is 30.
>
>    The advantage of Aluminum is that you can make the tubing wider,
>    and still stay below that ratio.  The walls of the aluminum tubing
>    are much thicker than the steel tubing.

    But but but but but... I've read about this 1:30 ratio that one
    inch steel pipe respects. But I've also read that Cannondale, for
    example, have gone up to ratios as high as 1:50 for some tubes. So yes,
    they must get terrific stiffness (and the 3.0 frames *are* stiff, isn't
    that right?) but they must also be making tubes that could be prone to
    denting. I admit I have never ever heard of anyone who has dented their
    Cannondale, but there's always a first time...
    
    
    Rod

     This is the third year with my  3.0 frame and have had no
    problems. I have approx. 11k - 12k miles on it with one
    pretty good crash. Paint is always a problem, but denting
    was not. Everything is fine. In my opinion, denting is an
    unreasonable fear. Crumpling is certainly out of the question.
    
      Chip

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    
    STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT 
    
    All this talk about denting and crumpling frame tubes is causing
    the little hairs on the back of my neck to stand up and my stomach
    to turn flip-flops...
    
    I have an ST600 with those fat, thin-walled tubes, and I put my fat,
    thin-skinned person on it!  I don't wanna hear NO MORE about no
    crumpling or denting.   SHEESH - and on a Monday to boot!!!!!!! :^)

          <<< Note 1958.25 by DANGER::JBELL "Zeno was almost here" >>>
                                -< Thin tubing >-
    
>    Large thin walled tubes can buckle.  In fact that's the
>    reason that steel tubes aren't any bigger.
    
    Oh but they are bigger.  There's been a trend lately to larger
    diameter, thinner walled steel tubes.  I'm riding a Tesch made with
    oversized AND flared tubes (I'll tell you the bottom of the seat tube
    is BIG).  Schwinn has come out with their Paramount OS, Davidson has
    one, Diamondback has a whole line of them.

    All right, no more crumpling or denting. But what about flexing? Does
    anyone out there own a 59 cm+ big Al frame such as a Vitus
    (not fat tubes)? If so, are you pleased with it? Does it flex on the
    hills?
    
    John

    I have a C-Dale ST600 in the 23" size.  When I was shopping for it I
    also rode a Miata ,60cm.  The Miata was small tube aluminum.  I felt it
    flexed too much,  It felt very squirly in corners.  The C-Dale is very
    stiff.  I have not noticed flexing under any conditions and  yet the
    ride is quite comfortable.  For a touring bike it is quite repsonsive. 
    For heavy riders, I am 200lbs,  I think it is ideal.  I do not race
    except ocassionaly for fun and it is the right bike for me.  I have not
    even thought about denting, crushing or any of those things nor have I
    ever seen it happen.  If you had that big of a crash I don't think it
    would matter what your bike was made of.

     Just for the record, the MERLIN titanium seat tube is oversized...
    
     (1.25")...
    
        Chip

    re .30
    
    I have a 57 cm Vitus. At 6' 1" and 165 to 180 lbs. riding weight,
    I don't notice any flex except when riding in unusual configurations;
    ie, honking out of the saddle on the big ring, and on one of the
    three outside rear cogs. In that(rare) mode I can get the front
    derailleur to rub on the chain.
    
    I like the Vitus for its long distance comfort on rough, pebbly
    type pavement. The high frequency vibrations are damped out better
    than my steel frames (Bianchi, Fuji).
    
    Terry

	I'm interested, which Vitus are we talking about??  ie: Futura, 979 or
992??  The 992 looks good mechanically but I really can't say the same for it
aesthetically.

	On the same tack, I've got a glossy on ALTEC frames which seem to be
something to do with Stronglight - they claim stiffness and superior lug design,
and certainly look more attractive than the 992.  They go up to 60 cm and are
advertised as 2120 (54cm), 2170 (56), 2220 (58) and 2260 (60) - grams of course.
The tubes look pretty "normal" and they also offer French, Italian and DIN
threading which is good news for those of us wanting to use existing components.

Just need the cost to see if they are worth pursueing..........

    Thanks to Terry and Mr Guyer for the replies about the narrow-tube Al
    frames. Looks like 60 is too big, and 57 is OK for rigidity.
    
    Any advance on 57 cm for a non-flexing frame?
    
    John

    Re .35:
    
    What's the problem with fat tubes and components? I haven't heard that
    they require special components. 
    
    I suppose we're talking here about seatpins, headsets and front
    derailleurs. Cannondale owners, how do Cannondale bikes deal with
    attaching these?
    
    
    Rod

    When I put a long reach front derailer onto my Alu bike the bike shop
    had to make up one for me beging a mixture of the old attachment and
    the new mech.  I would hope that these day a MTB mech would do.
    
    Other exciting parts about my bike in particular is the fact that the
    drop outs and the bottom bracket shell are in alu so you need to be
    *very* careful when putting a back derailleur or a bottom bracket in. 
    Even then you get significant amounts of shards generated...
    
    rod

     Large tubes are not a problem for components... C-Dales have braze-
    ons for front derailleurs, headsets, seat tubes, BB's, etc... all
    standard... no problems...
    
       Chip

    	For the cannondale, mostly standard.
    
    	Others are not as standardized.
    
    	I've procured a Redline AL60 mountain frameset, recently reviewed
    	in Mountain Bike Action magazine.
    
    	The frameset included:  headset, handlebar stem, seatpost,
    				seatpost clamp/skewer, and Redline's own
    				pressed-in cartridge bearing bottom bracket.
    
    	Everything BUT the bottom bracket is oversized.
    
    	I haven't slapped the Deore LX group on that puppy yet...

    I had a Alan/Guerciotti AL frame, I assume they are easier to find in
    Europe then Cdales, Treks, etc.  It was made with slightly oversized
    tubing.  Note that they also make normal size tube frames.   It was
    basically their very popular cyclo-cross frame shortened up and made
    into a road frame.  I'm a bit over 6', weigh in the 175-180
    neighborhood and ride a 58 (c-c) frame.
    
    The main frame was very stiff, no problem at all.  The ride was much
    nicer than steel.  Two things I didn't like were:
    	1) the fork was all aluminum, including the steering tube it
    	   produced too much flex.  Quite frightening on fast downhills.
    	2) Very steep angles and short wheelbase.
    
    The frame is out in my toolshed with a broken seat tube.  I'm told that
    a new tube could be put in.  I'm wait to see if Cdale has another one
    of their offers to trade in a frame on one of theirs.  Last year it was
    $350.

    .40
    
    Bat,
    
    Cdale did have that offer last year,..."trade in an old frame and get a
    CDale for 350".  However, none of the stores that I talked to even
    wanted the old frame. 
    
    -John

	I have a secondhand Alan, prob 5 - 10 yrs old.  Tubes are standard,
threads otherwise.  I think they are all "French" which seems surprising for an
Italian frame.  It flexes but is more comfortable than my steel frame.  BTW, I
met a guy yesterday with a 992 Vitus and had a chat - he said it was
"rigid and supple" and he thought it was great.  I didn't really expect
anyone who had paid 4500 FF for a frame to say it was a load of rubbish !! The
fact he had just bought a pair of tri-bar extensions had no bearing on my
opinion, honest!!   In the shop they said that Vitus will continue with the 979
which is a far more attractive frame.(IMHO)

	I have mixed feelings about brazed-on front changers, do they give
enough leeway to handle (say) outer rings between 53 and 46 ???  Rod W's sounds
like a butchers job.

    Bat
    
    How did you break the seat tube? Violently or by attrition?
    
    Would you buy the same frame again? Sounds like you wouldn't.
    
    The balance of evidence so far seems to eliminate normal aluminium
    frames over about 57cm.
    
    Regards
    
    John

     I have my C-Dale tricked out for TT's only... I am currently running
    a 42-54 up front with a C-Record front derailleur and a Dura Ace in
    the back... Have you ever seen a dream shifting?  It does exactly that!
    Unbelievably smooth. Much crisper than my full C Record set-up on my
    Merlin...
    
       Chip

>   <<< Note 1958.43 by ULYSSE::WILSON "John,Valbonne,France 828-5631,VBE" >>>

>    How did you break the seat tube? Violently or by attrition?
    
    It was in a few crashes so it was slowly, then gave way with a final
    jerk.  The crack was hidden under the clamp-on front derailluer.  The
    derailluer itself may have help cause the problem because the tubes are
    slightly oversized but the clamp was not, so I had to use a long bolt
    to hold it.  I broke the hanger off when the chain got caught up in bad
    shift and could not be reattached.
    
>    Would you buy the same frame again? Sounds like you wouldn't.
    
    Wouldn't and didn't.  Back to steel, the only tricks are oversized
    tubing and fillet brazing.
    
>    The balance of evidence so far seems to eliminate normal aluminium
>    frames over about 57cm.
 
    As I said the main frame was very stiff and if they would have used a
    steel steerer on the fork (as all others that I know of do) then I'm
    sure that it would have been better.   
   
    BTW the new bike was new in November and has about 3700 miles on it and
    it is already rusting where the brake cable goes inside the top tube. 
    You never have to worry about rust and chipped paint with an anodized
    AL frame.

re .44 - I didn't mean the range, I meant the size of the outer ring.  I am
a real wimp and need to fit an outside 46 occasionally - this is not what race
frames with or without braze-ons expect.

re .45 - what you say is just the attraction of the Al frame, I don't want one
for lightness particularly, I think the reinforced and oversized ones are ugly -
but they don't go rusty.  My steel one has been resprayed this year and is on
the way again, whereas the old Alan just gets a wipe down with a damp cloth and
looks the same always.  As a matter of interest, the fork is steel, I think this
means it dates from the time when they couldn't make Al ones (good or bad).

	The more I think about it, the better bet the Vitus 979 looks, I just
need to convince the other half that it is better value than a cover for the
pool, and quickly blow this � years ESPP savings..........

    
    How would you compare AL frames with composite, as for durability,
    stiffness, weight and price?
    My main interest has been generated by the  TREK 2500.
    
    Shaw

    
     Price is more, weight depends on model/make and, probably more
    important that durability might be repairability...
    
     Both Al and composites come in lugged and (in the case of Al)
    welded and (in the case of composites) molded...
    
     A dent in Al may not disable the bike. A crack or hole in 
    composites will severely weaken the strength and probably
    render it un-rideable (immediately). 
    
     No damage to any frame (regardless of material) is good. Metal
    is probably the most durable/repairable. I would count repairability
    as an important element of durability.
    
     Titanium? Absolutely the top of the line... Only choice to
    go with when making comparative analysis... Right Eric?  :-)
    
      Chip

    OK Chip,  I'll agree with you ;-)
    
    The only problem with a titanium frame is that you still have to choose
    an alternative material for your fork.  Merlin will provide you with a
    nice AL fork or you can go find your on as Chip and I did (EMS CF).
    
    I believe that the true bottom line is one person's budget.  If you can
    afford to shell out ~$1600 for a frame, then titanium is a good choice
    (assuming you like the feel and flex style).  Because of
    metal/composite fatigue, a hard rider can go through a few frames a
    year while a titanium frame may outlive you.  I wonder if anybody has
    made a study of cost per mile of the life of various type frames.
    
    Eric
    
    P.S.  Mind you all the studies can be negated by a bike thief...

     There maybe an alternative material when it comes to extremes in
    durability. No one has ever explored it...
    
     Eric, what's the half life of plutonium anyway??? :-) Immediate
    advatages come to mind:
    
                             - Night time riding will require no additional
                               equipment or weight (you'll be glowing in
                               the dark)
    
                             - Radiation suits can double for foul and cold
                               weather riding
    
                             - Solos should be easy, pack riding
                               non-existent since anyone around you will
                               fry
    
                             - The material will last a few hundred
                               thousand years
    
                             - it won't rust
    
                       CON:  You'll proabably want to trade it in once it
                             turns to lead.
    
      Chip 

    >>>                   CON:  You'll proabably want to trade it in once it
                             turns to lead.
    
    
    Why? Won't that be lighter than plutonium?
    
    Another PRO:  All those wanna-be racers in their Camaros will give you
    a wide berth because one touch between their prideandjoys and your vike
    will render their machines as hazardous waste doomed to the junkpile.
    
    ed

    Re; 51... Great Ed! I didn't even think of the possibility of
              cyclist being able to reclaim our right road property!
    
                    Chip

>     Eric, what's the half life of plutonium anyway??
>...
>                       CON:  You'll proabably want to trade it in once it
>                             turns to lead.

    Actually... Iron-56 is the lowest on the nuclear packing curve.

    Add the right amount of chromium, Molybdenum, and Carbon, and it
    might turn into a steel bike in the (very) long run.

    -Jeff Bell

    re: -.1
    
    Hey, maybe there's a market for this.  Corner the bicycle tubing
    market...
    
    Eric

     I understand you can "pick your own" at Chernobyl... :-)
    
      (I know, I know... bad taste)
    
          Chip

    Just curious if the learnings from this note could be sumarised into a
    recommentdation. What bike did you finally decide on, Barry?
    
    Regards,
    Heinrich
    (who considers buying a bike along similar lines)

    Out of curiosity, and since it was one of the bikes mentioned in .0,
    about how much does a Trek 1400 go for?  I'm wondering if I should tack
    up the ad and start dreaming or if it's way out of my price range.  :^)
    
    Jamie

    	I bought my TREK 1400 in Massachusetts in the spring of
    	1990. It cost $700. I had some 36-spoke, Shimano 600 hubs
    	put on Campy Omega rims. Total cost for everything (including)
    	tax) was about $780.
    
    	Scott

    
    Well, friends, I think I might have found my perfect bike too. I 
    went out at luch time today, to pick up a new bar, and met the 
    Bridgstone RB-1.  I loved the feel, the weight and the classic look
    and the Ultegra 600 components. In that price range $800.00 there 
    was no other bike with the 600 components. My other choices where
    the Myata composite with 105. and some mid range C-dales. 
    I am not sure if I like the oversize frame look on a racing bike, I 
    prefer the calssic frames. The only thing with the RB-1 is that it 
    doesn't come with the clipless pedals. Does anyone have any idea 
    how much more I would have to spend for the pedals/shoes? Would it
    realy make that much of a difference for me. I only ride recreational
    but ride 30-50 miles on weekends and 20-30 miles weekdays. 
    
    Shaw
        

re.59	Bike Nashbar in Needham has a bike on sale called the Alpine Competition
which is a racing bike with Shimano 600 components.  It's a 1990 and the sale
price is $540.  I bought the same bike except with the 105 Group components
for $470.  I thought this was a pretty good deal.  I didn't find any other
bikes in that price range with those kinds of components.  The frame was
doubled butted Tange Chromoly.

Also, they have on a sale a combination of Look clipless pedals and Look
shoes for $138.  

tim

    
    Well I am confused again!. Just when I thought I found a bike that I
    like, yesterday I had to rush my mountain bike to Cycle City in 
    Plaistow (sp?) NH. to have some work done and get ready for the
    holiday. I have been shopping around for a road bike. Earlier yesterday
    I got turned on to the Bridgstone RB-1, a European style steel frame 
    a real classic, with Utlegra components very light weight and the kind
    of bike that will never go out of style. I thought this it. Actually I 
    am still inclined to the RB-1. But Cycle City, had some of the most
    advanced bikes that I have ever seen (outside of magazines.)
    The Ultegra bike was a Trek 2300 (a little over my budget at around
    $1200.00). But the Trek 2100 is in the same price range as the RB-1.
    I guess the TREK is what I would think as an American racer. I know
    there is extensive notes here on different frame types and material.
    Those anyone have first hand experience with the Composite frames. 
    Although I am not a racer, and as road bikes go just a begginer, but
    I appreciate quality and speed. I am not sure about the over size neon
    flash of the 2100 and the longevity of it as opposed to a classic steel
    (low profile) frame.  I have not so much experience to pick up all the
    quality differences of either bike. The 2100 comes with Tubulars.
    All I know is although the two bikes road differently, I enjoyed them
    both very much. It seemed like I could pick up more speed on the Trek
    but felt a lot more confident cornering on the RB-1. As for the
    components I definately prefferd the quite, smooth feel of the Ultegra
    (on the RB). 
    My use for either bike would be, basically ride every day until my legs
    give out. (I love this new found sport). I plan on doing all day rides
    on weekends. Untill there is snow on the ground. Are there any
    maintenance, quality or other consideration I should have between the 
    two bikes?
    
    Shaw

    Shaw,
    
    My bias may be showing, but your reasoning on the RB-1 seems sound.
    You could get a composite as a second road bike, on down the road,
    so to speak.  I have a Kestrel now, next to my two De Rosa's (basically
    the same choice/constrast as yours, only a bit more upscale).  Last
    night a friend asked me if I would by a De Rosa today, or knowing 
    what I know now, etc. - I said, yes, I've never regretted it, and
    only been pleased.  The feel and handling you can live with for a
    lifetime, and the whole day long.  (And I like the Kestrel, don't get
    me wrong - it's very quick and feels resilient.)
    
    -john
    
    PS: If you go for the Trek, and decide you prefer clinchers, consider
    having the dealer change out the wheels as part of the purchase.
    
    PPS: With your mileage (or even with mine), non-clipless pedals will
    do fine.  The Look shoe/pedal combination mentioned in .-2 sound like
    a nice deal, though ... *if* the shoes fit your foot.

    
    RE:-1 
    
    
    John thanks for your expert advice, I think I might go with the Steel 
    frame RB-1. I am on my way this afternoon to test ride, a much longer 
    ride with the shop boys, the 2100 again. Just one last time. 
    
    Have a great holiday!
    
    Shaw

    Let me add two more selling points for the Bridgestone.  1) They have
    the best advertisements in the business, their April Fools ad was a
    classic.  Ibis also has some good ones.  2) If I'm not mistaken the
    RB-1 is green and white, which is without a doubt the best color
    combination for a bike.  Did I happen to mention that the BatBike is
    green and white?

	I'm also in search of my perfect bike.  I've just started going
	to the Wells Training center crit on Sundays and think I'd like
	to get more into racing.  Probably crits, maybe some road racing
	at some point.  And who knows, maybe time trials too!  In other
	words, I guess I need a pretty adaptable bike.

	My parameters are:  price <= $800 , Shimano 105 components (600
	Ultegra would be nice, but I don't think I'll get that for my
	price range).

	I spent most of last Sunday trying out bikes.  I started out on a
	Terry.  Felt pretty nice.  (you mean my arms are *supposed* to be
	bent?)  Went to another shop and tried the Trek 1400.  Really liked 
	it!  Made me realize what a dog my Fuji Del Ray with rear racks is!  
	Then I moved on to a Univega Gran Record.  Didn't care for that.  It
	felt more like my Fuji.  Yuck!

	Headed off to a third shop and got on a Bianchi Alfana.  Wow!  I loved
	it!  I was pretty sure I liked it better than the Trek, but tried the
	Trek again just for comparison.  I *definitely* liked it better. The
	steel frame felt "livelier" to me than the aluminum Trek.

	So, I'm really leaning toward the Bianchi, but should probably try
	some more bikes before I make up my mind.

	Here are my questions:
	
	1) Given the fact that it appears I prefer a steel frame over an
	aluminum, what bikes would you suggest I try out?  (also given the
	parameters above.)

	2) What shops in NH carry Bianchi (or can order me one)?  I live in
	Nashua.  I'd really like to avoid the MA sales tax (I tried the 
	Alfana at International in Allston). 

	3) What kind of a deal should I try for?  The Alfana was $800 at
	the shop I was at.  Is it reasonable to ask for a lower price? 
	If so, how much lower?  Or is it better to ask for, let's say,
	cages, bottles, woman's leather seat, and a pump?

	Any other advice is *greatly* appreciated!  I hope to have this
	bike for a long time, so want to get one I can grow with.

	Thanks,
	Sue
	

	Oh, this info might be useful when suggesting bikes:

	I'm 5'8" and weigh (I can't believe I'm writing this %^) 142.

	

    re:-2
    
    Sue, you are not realy that far from Plaistow or are you?
    I happened across them just by luck, Cycle City in Plaistow. All the
    Guys that work there are racers. I dealt with Jim,  I think he is 
    either the owner or the manager. They have a great selection there.
    I was going to go for a steel frame too. The RB-1. Then I went back
    there and tried (for a longer ride) the Trek 2100. Composite frame 
    105SC components. What a bike. I am in love. The bike is listed 
    everywhere else around $1000.00 . He has marked down to 860.00. 
    But they have a good selection there. Some bikes are not what they
    seem. ie when I checked the RB-1 closer the second time around
    The derailures are UlTEGRA but the freewheel are RX100. No one 
    volunteered this information to me at shop in Salem. I also found out
    I have to spend and additional $150.00 to get the  clipless pedal/shoe
    system. So the $800.00 bike would cost me about $1000.00 by the time
    I walked out of there. 
    One other nice thing about the Cycle City was, They have races there
    evert Thursday night in Lee NH. They also have a mountain bike race 
    track. Jim at the shop was real freindly and told me that even if I 
    decide to go with another shop, I would be welcome to go to the races
    which I am planning to for experience. (I have never raced, cycling
    that is) but would like to get the experience. If you bring your own
    bike, the fee is $5.00 to enter. 
    The key is to try as many bikes as you can, you will be surprised 
    what you'll end up with . My favourite turned out to be a used bike 
    there, which I am planning on persuing the guy to sell me the bike.
    although cosmetically it did not match the Trek 2100. and it was
    already a little scratched up, but I just cannot get over the feel
    of that bike. It was a Trek 660. with Dura Ace components, and a 
    real leather racing saddle. What a difference. 
    
    Happy shopping!
    
    Shaw

    
    Sue,
    
    If you're 5'8" then you probably can do with a standard bike,
    rather than a Terry ... unless your bodily proportions (torso::leg)
    are really unsuited to the standard geometry.  Terry's have the
    drawback of two wheel-sizes, and a tubing material you may or may
    not prefer.
    
    I don't know anything about the Bianchi; if you like it, that's important.
    If you like steel, why don't you also look at a Bridgestone RB-1?
    (Remember Shaw's note of a few days back?)  That's a classic road
    geometry.
    
    If you would like to get into a variety of competition and riding
    (criteriums, TT's, road races), then a general-purpose road racing
    bike is your best bet.  A crit or TT frame is going to be mighty
    uncomfortable for day-to-day riding or in a road race.  But it looks
    like you're going in that direction anyway.
    
    To give equal time, I should mention that some people have fallen
    in love with bikes like the Specialized Allez, which is carbon fibre.
    They are supposed to be quick, nimble, and yet not harsh riding.
    They may just squeak into your price range, as I recall.
    
    Good luck - let us know how it goes!
    -john

    About the RB-1's components: Bridgestone has a habit of mixing and
    matching components the way they see fit, rather than installing a
    single model/manufacturer's component group all around.  I kind of like
    this approach -- it reminds me of the old days when I'd mailorder parts
    from Bike Warehouse (now Bike Nashbar) to put together a cheap but good
    training bike.  So it's an RX-100 freewheel -- is that a problem?  
    Freewheels rarely fail, so they're a good place to save money so 
    Ultegra shifting can be used instead of 105.  The only complaint I've
    ever had is the design-by-committee look of the end product when
    the crank's by Suntour, the brakes are Weinmann, and the derailleur's 
    Shimano.  It's nice that SOMEBODY does this, especially considering
    the pressure that component manufacturers put on for builders to
    use the whole component group.

    You probably  don't  want a smaller front wheel, but the Terrys do
    have  a  shorter  top tube which most women need. I think that the
    larger size Terrys use two equal sized wheels.

    I would  start  by  getting  a fit kit. Many shops will deduct the
    cost of the fit kit from the price of a bike, and it will give you
    a better idea about which frames are likely to fit.

--David

	Well, I *think* I had the "fit kit" done on Sunday.  I guy at
	the crit heard I was looking for a bike, he worked in a shop
	in Newton and brought me in to look at the Terrys.  While I was
	there he had me stand on this platform and he took several
	measurements with these horizontal handles which stuck out from
	the vertical part.  He measured height to some-bone-at-the-base-
	of-my-neck, floor to crotch, shoulder width, knee to floor, reach,
	etc.  Then he got a printout with my ideal frame dimensions.  The
	numbers I remember are 55cm frame, and 73.9 degree angles.  The
	rest I've got at home.  Oh yeah, he didn't charge me anything.

	He also did a graph of my reach vs. height (I think).  I came out
	a couple "points" below the average for women, meaning my legs are
	proportionally longer than the rest of my body, even when compared
	to women.  I think that I could use a standard frame (standard :==
	built_for_men) if I put a short stem on it.

	David: You're right, the larger Terrys have same-sized wheels.
	I believe it's only the 19" and below that have smaller front
	wheels.  I was on a larger frame.

	

    A fit  kit  (which  must  be described in a note somewhere in this
    conference)  consists  of a bunch of measurements followed by what
    used to be a table look up, but might be now be a calculation. 

    It tells  you  the  frame  size  and  top tube length/ stem length
    combinations  which it thinks fit you. It's a pretty good place to
    start  for  fit,  but  you may want to make small adjustments from
    its  suggestions. There's a second half called RAD which helps set
    the  angle  of  you cleats, but you have to have a bike to do that
    part on.

    If you  really  have  shorter  arms  than  the  average woman it's
    unlikely  that  you  can  make  a men's frame fit even with a very
    short stem. But check the fit kit numbers, as they give the length
    of  your  stem  and  top  tube combined. See if you can get a stem
    short  enough  to  fit, remembering that extremely short stems may
    change the handling a bit.

--David