Cycling thread

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Riding for quite a while, but properly (as in keeping a training diary and knocking out 10,000km+ a year) for around a decade now. No knee or back problems to date. You're having some presumably?

I used to mountain bike when I was younger (for only about 3 years, until I got a car...naturally) and want to get back in to cycling because age is starting to overtake my metabolism and I can't naturally stay thin these days like I used to be able to. Want to go to street cycling though, just to lessen the strain/impact as I have a tendency to overdo things and I know it'll catch up to me quickly if I go back to mountain biking...plus street's just more convenient for daily stuff. I have the body type for cycling and I'd rather do that than running.

No knee or back problems, so that's why I was asking...didn't want to develop any if I stick with it, which I imagine I would as I enjoy it. I know it's supposed be relatively low-impact anyhow but I'd rather ask someone who I was fairly sure had been cranking the miles out over a long time.

Thanks!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Cavendish keeps falling. Boonen did the same towards the end of his career. I don't think it will be long before his retirement. In hindsight Boonen would have been better off stopping a bit sooner. Because of the Abu Dhabi fall (on his head) he now has permanent tinnitus.

Look at it:

Crumbs, that's not good.

 

[Frang]

Cavendish keeps falling. Boonen did the same towards the end of his career. I don't think it will be long before his retirement. In hindsight Boonen would have been better off stopping a bit sooner. Because of the Abu Dhabi fall (on his head) he now has permanent tinnitus.

Look at it:

is that an actual beer gut I can see. Christ, he could do with some clenbuturol.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I used to mountain bike when I was younger (for only about 3 years, until I got a car...naturally) and want to get back in to cycling because age is starting to overtake my metabolism and I can't naturally stay thin these days like I used to be able to. Want to go to street cycling though, just to lessen the strain/impact as I have a tendency to overdo things and I know it'll catch up to me quickly if I go back to mountain biking...plus street's just more convenient for daily stuff. I have the body type for cycling and I'd rather do that than running.

No knee or back problems, so that's why I was asking...didn't want to develop any if I stick with it, which I imagine I would as I enjoy it. I know it's supposed be relatively low-impact anyhow but I'd rather ask someone who I was fairly sure had been cranking the miles out over a long time.

Thanks!

You should be fine. If you start doing longer rides of a few hours then it's probably worth getting a bike fit, especially if you're getting a bit older and the body isn't quite as pliable as it once was, but all in all it's a great activity and you can exercise in some truly amazing places.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Cavendish keeps falling. Boonen did the same towards the end of his career. I don't think it will be long before his retirement. In hindsight Boonen would have been better off stopping a bit sooner. Because of the Abu Dhabi fall (on his head) he now has permanent tinnitus.

Look at it:

Haven't seen the footage, but it was a team time trial? Quite an achievement to crash that bad in a time trial.

*edit, ah, a pothole. Nasty.

"It was very likely a pothole that hit his back wheel," said Dimension Data director Rolf Aldag. "There's a lot of holes in the riding line, he probably hit one of those and at 60kph, it never ends really good. On the TT bike, you're down low with the load on the front, so if you go down, you go on your head so of course that's not too cool.

 

[Armel]

Haven't seen the footage, but it was a team time trial? Quite an achievement to crash that bad in a time trial.

*edit, ah, a pothole. Nasty.

I think it's because when you get older you have to take more risks to be able to follow the pace of the other riders; you're less aware of your surroundings. Things you'd probably would have seen a couple of years ago now take you down. Especially in something like a Team TT; he never was very good at that, but he can't afford to let the others down.

Also falls are cumulative, the older you get the more you've fallen and every time it leaves more of a mark. You'll see with Van Der Poel; he's fallen a lot because he's crazy. He keeps taking tremendous risks, also because he's a very good technician. He's young now, so no problem, but he's already had a higher number of operations to the knees. Won't have a long career as a result; quite certain of that.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

You should be fine. If you start doing longer rides of a few hours then it's probably worth getting a bike fit, especially if you're getting a bit older and the body isn't quite as pliable as it once was, but all in all it's a great activity and you can exercise in some truly amazing places.

Yeah, I'm almost 6'4" so I have to get a good fit just on that fact alone, otherwise I'm sure it will give me problems regardless. There are quite a few bike paths around me, as well as those along the canal system a mile or so away me that we have here in the metro Phoenix area. Should get interesting real quick if I can get started soon...summer hits not too long from now and it'll get brutal, even at night...water weight will be the first thing to go, heh. I'm not in horrific shape, sitting at around 230 lbs. which isn't too bad for my height but it doesn't sit well with my body type (lean). I should be able to drop weight quickly as long as I clean up the diet a bit as well.

 

[Armel]

Yeah, I'm almost 6'4" so I have to get a good fit just on that fact alone, otherwise I'm sure it will give me problems regardless. There are quite a few bike paths around me, as well as those along the canal system a mile or so away me that we have here in the metro Phoenix area. Should get interesting real quick if I can get started soon...summer hits not too long from now and it'll get brutal, even at night...water weight will be the first thing to go, heh. I'm not in horrific shape, sitting at around 230 lbs. which isn't too bad for my height but it doesn't sit well with my body type (lean). I should be able to drop weight quickly as long as I clean up the diet a bit as well.

That's not an issue; that's my height. Loads of people, that I know at least three of them in my football team, are at least that height and cycle. It's a very normal length. My uncle's 2 meters 12 (=6.11 or something??); he has a complete custom made bicycle. He has problems. You're just normal.

I don't understand why an amateur cyclist would buy a carbon one. It breaks quite easily, quite expensive, it's more difficult if you want to change the height of the saddle etc (sometimes you even need a bloody saw). Steel is the most comfortable, provides a better fit, excellent durability, they also have a better look to them (subjective this though) . I suppose you have cheaper varieties but I really like these ones (don't have one mind you): http://www.jaegher.com/ . The weight difference etc is very minimal.

If you're Valverde I could understand the need for a high end carbon. Otherwise not so much.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I obviously can't speak for all carbon frames, but I've had one the same one for ages now. It was £1,000 back in 2009 so certainly not top of the range, and despite one or two tumbles has served me very well for those years. Of course you could spend much more on a bike, but I'm really short so only weigh 58kg as it is, so splashing out on a super light bike doesn't really seem worth it. It depends on where you want to ride it though for me. If it's mainly city riding then I'd go for something sturdier as it will be mostly flat and the road surfaces of more variable quality.

 

[Armel]

I obviously can't speak for all carbon frames, but I've had one the same one for ages now. It was £1,000 back in 2009 so certainly not top of the range, and despite one or two tumbles has served me very well for those years. Of course you could spend much more on a bike, but I'm really short so only weigh 58kg as it is, so splashing out on a super light bike doesn't really seem worth it. It depends on where you want to ride it though for me. If it's mainly city riding then I'd go for something sturdier as it will be mostly flat and the road surfaces of more variable quality.

It's not for the weight. Steel is a bit (not a lot) heavier, doesn't really matter though because in all fairness the weight of the frame is quite relative in relation to the total weight of the bike. It's more for the comfort, the overall feel, it's stiffer, and a better possible fit (useful for my father since he has back-problems) etc... Especially on cobblestones.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

Yeah, I'm almost 6'4" so I have to get a good fit just on that fact alone, otherwise I'm sure it will give me problems regardless. There are quite a few bike paths around me, as well as those along the canal system a mile or so away me that we have here in the metro Phoenix area. Should get interesting real quick if I can get started soon...summer hits not too long from now and it'll get brutal, even at night...water weight will be the first thing to go, heh. I'm not in horrific shape, sitting at around 230 lbs. which isn't too bad for my height but it doesn't sit well with my body type (lean). I should be able to drop weight quickly as long as I clean up the diet a bit as well.

If you're bike shopping then have a look at gravel bikes. This is a new niche invented by the bike industry, but unlike most of their marketing nonsense it actually makes sense. Basically how many people who own mountain bikes actually want to put them through their paces on rough, technical terrain, get the suspension working, frame flexing etc? It's probably a minority - people are more interested in just riding out in the countryside on bike paths, farm tracks and the gravel roads you have in the US and you don't need a mountain bike for this.
What is needed here is something like a cyclocross bike, but with comfier geometry [less tall, longer wheelbase] - hence gravel bikes. Frame will take big tyres for comfort, nice geometry for riding all day, and will be drilled for a rack for longer, touring-style trips. Really like this style of bike as I think it's extremely versatile and fits the type of riding most people actually like doing.

Some examples

 

[Black Belt Jones]

It's not for the weight. Steel is a bit (not a lot) heavier, doesn't really matter though because in all fairness the weight of the frame is quite relative in relation to the total weight of the bike. It's more for the comfort, the overall feel, it's stiffer, and a better possible fit (useful for my father since he has back-problems) etc... Especially on cobblestones.

Don't think a steel frame can ever be stiffer than carbon - maybe in the old days before modern carbon fibre fabrication techniques. They do have their qualities, though.

I don't own a pure road bike (although I do have a carbon TT bike) so no strong opinions on what works on the road. On the dirt, though, the stiffness of a carbon frame is a big quality - you only see an appreciable weight difference between C and Al right at the sharp end of lightweight XC racing, for bigger trail bikes there's often not much in it as you say. The stiffness, though, is very noticeable and nearly always a good thing. Only problem is a carbon enduro bike from a major manufacturer is huge money, and mountain bike design is very vulnerable to changing trends and standards, so you'd be shelling out for diminishing returns in a market that basically has ADHD. Guy in our club bought a Dog's full monty carbon 26'' mountain bike a few years back, just before 26'' wheels were dead and buried.

Things are more sensible on the road - once the disk brake furore settles down a carbon roadie would be nice to have IMHO. Last years and years.

 

[Armel]

Don't think a steel frame can ever be stiffer than carbon - maybe in the old days before modern carbon fibre fabrication techniques. They do have their qualities, though.

I don't own a pure road bike (although I do have a carbon TT bike) so no strong opinions on what works on the road. On the dirt, though, the stiffness of a carbon frame is a big quality - you only see an appreciable weight difference between C and Al right at the sharp end of lightweight XC racing, for bigger trail bikes there's often not much in it as you say. The stiffness, though, is very noticeable and nearly always a good thing. Only problem is a carbon enduro bike from a major manufacturer is huge money, and mountain bike design is very vulnerable to changing trends and standards, so you'd be shelling out for diminishing returns in a market that basically has ADHD. Guy in our club bought a Dog's full monty carbon 26'' mountain bike a few years back, just before 26'' wheels were dead and buried.

Things are more sensible on the road - once the disk brake furore settles down a carbon roadie would be nice to have IMHO. Last years and years.

I used the wrong I meant stronger and it's quite fragile. Steel bends before it breaks; carbon not so much. I'll illustrate:



(Frame cracked in two; can't see this clearly on here though)

Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix 2006, Dumoulin etc... . And loads of others (although obviously not the entire peloton and it's still quite rare but I'm fighting the steel corner here as the best alternative for an amateur relative non competitive cyclist).

Mind you in 2019 there will be a new material as light as carbon and same qualities but it's almost unbreakable. https://rein4ced.com/

For performance and speed carbon is better off course (especially in CX since you have to carry it from time to time; 500 g is a big difference there). You're a competitive rider so Carbon makes sense.

Titanium is possibly better but never experienced one. In theory they sound great. But if you're paying for a custom carbon bike, as in a perfect fit, you lose loads of money.

Quality/Money wise I'd always go for steel (I also like retro). 1500-2500 € you have a very good one that's custom build to your size. For that money you don't have a same quality carbon one (they usually are build on standardized moulds I thought). Or Titanium one for that matter; I stress again not familiar with them though.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I used the wrong I meant stronger and it's quite fragile. Steel bends before it breaks; carbon not so much. I'll illustrate:



(Frame cracked in two; can't see this clearly on here though)

Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix 2006, Dumoulin etc... . And loads of others (although obviously not the entire peloton and it's still quite rare but I'm fighting the steel corner here as the best alternative for an amateur relative non competitive cyclist).

Mind you in 2019 there will be a new material as light as carbon and same qualities but it's almost unbreakable. https://rein4ced.com/

For performance and speed carbon is better off course (especially in CX since you have to carry it from time to time; 500 g is a big difference there). You're a competitive rider so Carbon makes sense.

Titanium is possibly better but never experienced one. In theory they sound great. But if you're paying for a custom carbon bike, as in a perfect fit, you lose loads of money.

Quality/Money wise I'd always go for steel (I also like retro). 1500-2500 € you have a very good one that's custom build to your size. For that money you don't have a same quality carbon one (they usually are build on standardized moulds I thought). Or Titanium one for that matter; I stress again not familiar with them though.

Can you fit a hidden motor inside a steel frame? Just asking for a friend.

 

[Black Belt Jones]

I used the wrong I meant stronger and it's quite fragile. Steel bends before it breaks; carbon not so much. I'll illustrate:



(Frame cracked in two; can't see this clearly on here though)

Hincapie in Paris-Roubaix 2006, Dumoulin etc... . And loads of others (although obviously not the entire peloton and it's still quite rare but I'm fighting the steel corner here as the best alternative for an amateur relative non competitive cyclist).

Mind you in 2019 there will be a new material as light as carbon and same qualities but it's almost unbreakable. https://rein4ced.com/

For performance and speed carbon is better off course (especially in CX since you have to carry it from time to time; 500 g is a big difference there). You're a competitive rider so Carbon makes sense.

Titanium is possibly better but never experienced one. In theory they sound great. But if you're paying for a custom carbon bike, as in a perfect fit, you lose loads of money.

Quality/Money wise I'd always go for steel (I also like retro). 1500-2500 € you have a very good one that's custom build to your size. For that money you don't have a same quality carbon one (they usually are build on standardized moulds I thought). Or Titanium one for that matter; I stress again not familiar with them though.

That first video is absolutely savage - hope he got up OK as he was prob doing 30 mph. Looks like the speed bump did it.

Titanium frames are prob the most beautiful I've seen anywhere - love the raw colour and they're often put together by bespoke craftsmen. Read so many posts of broken / cracked frames, though, think it's a risky proposition for a mountain bike. Don't know if it's something inherent material, or that small operations can't do quality assurance the way the big corporations can with their manufacturing.

Ti on the road you would expect more durability so prob a better bet.