OT – Bike recommendations

[thebazman]

[quote=flu]Get this one.

$900…Plus it comes with a small 50cc Honda motor…
That’s the only kind of bike I’d ever ride for a long distance. Slap on a forced induction kit (turbo or supercharger), and you can push 50hp+ :)…

Yeah, I know. They don’t call me flu for nothing.

[/quote]

50 HP?

Man, that would be quite a sleeper! LOL!!!! 🙂

[Hatfield]

I agree with drunkle, ignore the steel vs. aluminum nonsense, and don’t bother screwing around with electric motors and the like. I also recommend against getting a mountain bike unless you’re actually going to do some trail riding.

I went through this about 2 years ago, and I decided on a Giant FCR-3. This is a pretty decent commuter/hybrid bike. It has a fairly upright posture so it’s comfortable to ride, it’s fairly light, and it’s fairly fast. I actually did the Tour de Palm Springs (100 miles) on mine in 2008. It’s a very decent bike for the money.

Add a rack and a bag in the back, and you’re set to go. I paid a little over $300 for mine at Bicycle Warehouse. I did look at the Treks, but bang-for-your-buck, it’s pretty hard to beat Giant. I do recommend that you get some bar ends, as the straight bar gives you pretty limited hand positions which gets tiring on long rides. Also, be sure to invest in a good helmet, lights, bell, etc.

I’ve since purchased a Specialized carbon-frame road bike that I use for longer rides, but I still ride my Giant FCR-3 all the tine. It’s great for anything up to about 40 miles.

[Hatfield]

I agree with drunkle, ignore the steel vs. aluminum nonsense, and don’t bother screwing around with electric motors and the like. I also recommend against getting a mountain bike unless you’re actually going to do some trail riding.

I went through this about 2 years ago, and I decided on a Giant FCR-3. This is a pretty decent commuter/hybrid bike. It has a fairly upright posture so it’s comfortable to ride, it’s fairly light, and it’s fairly fast. I actually did the Tour de Palm Springs (100 miles) on mine in 2008. It’s a very decent bike for the money.

Add a rack and a bag in the back, and you’re set to go. I paid a little over $300 for mine at Bicycle Warehouse. I did look at the Treks, but bang-for-your-buck, it’s pretty hard to beat Giant. I do recommend that you get some bar ends, as the straight bar gives you pretty limited hand positions which gets tiring on long rides. Also, be sure to invest in a good helmet, lights, bell, etc.

I’ve since purchased a Specialized carbon-frame road bike that I use for longer rides, but I still ride my Giant FCR-3 all the tine. It’s great for anything up to about 40 miles.

[Hatfield]

I agree with drunkle, ignore the steel vs. aluminum nonsense, and don’t bother screwing around with electric motors and the like. I also recommend against getting a mountain bike unless you’re actually going to do some trail riding.

I went through this about 2 years ago, and I decided on a Giant FCR-3. This is a pretty decent commuter/hybrid bike. It has a fairly upright posture so it’s comfortable to ride, it’s fairly light, and it’s fairly fast. I actually did the Tour de Palm Springs (100 miles) on mine in 2008. It’s a very decent bike for the money.

Add a rack and a bag in the back, and you’re set to go. I paid a little over $300 for mine at Bicycle Warehouse. I did look at the Treks, but bang-for-your-buck, it’s pretty hard to beat Giant. I do recommend that you get some bar ends, as the straight bar gives you pretty limited hand positions which gets tiring on long rides. Also, be sure to invest in a good helmet, lights, bell, etc.

I’ve since purchased a Specialized carbon-frame road bike that I use for longer rides, but I still ride my Giant FCR-3 all the tine. It’s great for anything up to about 40 miles.

[Hatfield]

I agree with drunkle, ignore the steel vs. aluminum nonsense, and don’t bother screwing around with electric motors and the like. I also recommend against getting a mountain bike unless you’re actually going to do some trail riding.

I went through this about 2 years ago, and I decided on a Giant FCR-3. This is a pretty decent commuter/hybrid bike. It has a fairly upright posture so it’s comfortable to ride, it’s fairly light, and it’s fairly fast. I actually did the Tour de Palm Springs (100 miles) on mine in 2008. It’s a very decent bike for the money.

Add a rack and a bag in the back, and you’re set to go. I paid a little over $300 for mine at Bicycle Warehouse. I did look at the Treks, but bang-for-your-buck, it’s pretty hard to beat Giant. I do recommend that you get some bar ends, as the straight bar gives you pretty limited hand positions which gets tiring on long rides. Also, be sure to invest in a good helmet, lights, bell, etc.

I’ve since purchased a Specialized carbon-frame road bike that I use for longer rides, but I still ride my Giant FCR-3 all the tine. It’s great for anything up to about 40 miles.

[Hatfield]

I agree with drunkle, ignore the steel vs. aluminum nonsense, and don’t bother screwing around with electric motors and the like. I also recommend against getting a mountain bike unless you’re actually going to do some trail riding.

I went through this about 2 years ago, and I decided on a Giant FCR-3. This is a pretty decent commuter/hybrid bike. It has a fairly upright posture so it’s comfortable to ride, it’s fairly light, and it’s fairly fast. I actually did the Tour de Palm Springs (100 miles) on mine in 2008. It’s a very decent bike for the money.

Add a rack and a bag in the back, and you’re set to go. I paid a little over $300 for mine at Bicycle Warehouse. I did look at the Treks, but bang-for-your-buck, it’s pretty hard to beat Giant. I do recommend that you get some bar ends, as the straight bar gives you pretty limited hand positions which gets tiring on long rides. Also, be sure to invest in a good helmet, lights, bell, etc.

I’ve since purchased a Specialized carbon-frame road bike that I use for longer rides, but I still ride my Giant FCR-3 all the tine. It’s great for anything up to about 40 miles.

[Eugene]

[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.

everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.

kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.

riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]

Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.

We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.

[Eugene]

[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.

everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.

kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.

riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]

Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.

We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.

[Eugene]

[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.

everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.

kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.

riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]

Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.

We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.

[Eugene]

[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.

everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.

kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.

riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]

Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.

We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.

[Eugene]

[quote=scaredycat]if you bet against lance, you would lose.

everyone likes to pretend it’s the bike.

kinda like when you put on your air jordans, you know, you could beat michael if he were wearing orthopedic shoes.

riiiiiiggghht.
mike would beat you if you duct taped his legs together.
[/quote]

Cycling is not basketball. Very little skill involved. Almost pure physics and anatomy. Lance is good not because he’s some sort of a cycling genius. Lance is good because he was born with the right combination of efficient lungs and leg muscles that allow him to max out at a higher sustained energy output than your average cyclist.

We had a stage of Tour of California here today. The winner covered all eight stages in 31.28’21”. The worst performance of all participants was 32.38’07”. Which means that it took only 3.5% longer for the worst rider in the competition to finish all stages than for the fastest bicyclist on the planet. Which means that the worst rider in the competition averaged perhaps 8-10% lower energy output over the entire race than the best. That’s assuming there were no breakdowns or accidents involved (I did not follow the race closely). A skilled rider without Lance’s genetic predisposition to cycling might average 20-30% lower output. Lance would easily lose that on transmission losses and increased rolling resistance of a bad mountain bike. If, on top of that, Lance is unable to maintain his optimal cadence at all times because of a broken gear shifter … forget about it.

[scaredyclassic]

the guys in the race are significantly stronger than strong dudes just riding in the hills; they’re pros. i meant the average strong recreational wannabe fast rider in teh hills is not gonna beat lance. because lance’s chain is rusty or he just has one speed (although hed have to get to pick the gear). it is not like basketball in the sense that it’s primarily about power and ability to keep going. but he has a lot more power than the average dude buying a bike locally who shaves his legs and rides 100 miles a week in the hills..

aluminum’s ok i guess. but because it’s a lighter weight metal that fatigues they just end up making the tubes real fat and they weigh as much as steel anyway. the best advice probably is just to buy whatever excites you and motivates you. for me thats steel. maybe thats why im being this way. i dont think of a bike as apractical purchase like a computer or fridge wher eyou reserach and buy the best. it’s more like love. or sex.

so ok. maybe i overstated the case. i admit it. maybe lance ona rusty old bike might get overtaken bya strong young dude under the right elevation conditions and if the bike is too rusty and messed up to actually roll.

but if you gave him a steel road bike with relatively fat tires from teh 1970’s that is heavy (like, say 35 lbs, and pit him against any young dude on a carbon road bike from yesterday. no contest.

and for you, none of it matters except that the bike excites you.

paint is actually very important. and style…

for me, houses are more generic than bikes

[scaredyclassic]

the guys in the race are significantly stronger than strong dudes just riding in the hills; they’re pros. i meant the average strong recreational wannabe fast rider in teh hills is not gonna beat lance. because lance’s chain is rusty or he just has one speed (although hed have to get to pick the gear). it is not like basketball in the sense that it’s primarily about power and ability to keep going. but he has a lot more power than the average dude buying a bike locally who shaves his legs and rides 100 miles a week in the hills..

aluminum’s ok i guess. but because it’s a lighter weight metal that fatigues they just end up making the tubes real fat and they weigh as much as steel anyway. the best advice probably is just to buy whatever excites you and motivates you. for me thats steel. maybe thats why im being this way. i dont think of a bike as apractical purchase like a computer or fridge wher eyou reserach and buy the best. it’s more like love. or sex.

so ok. maybe i overstated the case. i admit it. maybe lance ona rusty old bike might get overtaken bya strong young dude under the right elevation conditions and if the bike is too rusty and messed up to actually roll.

but if you gave him a steel road bike with relatively fat tires from teh 1970’s that is heavy (like, say 35 lbs, and pit him against any young dude on a carbon road bike from yesterday. no contest.

and for you, none of it matters except that the bike excites you.

paint is actually very important. and style…

for me, houses are more generic than bikes

[scaredyclassic]

the guys in the race are significantly stronger than strong dudes just riding in the hills; they’re pros. i meant the average strong recreational wannabe fast rider in teh hills is not gonna beat lance. because lance’s chain is rusty or he just has one speed (although hed have to get to pick the gear). it is not like basketball in the sense that it’s primarily about power and ability to keep going. but he has a lot more power than the average dude buying a bike locally who shaves his legs and rides 100 miles a week in the hills..

aluminum’s ok i guess. but because it’s a lighter weight metal that fatigues they just end up making the tubes real fat and they weigh as much as steel anyway. the best advice probably is just to buy whatever excites you and motivates you. for me thats steel. maybe thats why im being this way. i dont think of a bike as apractical purchase like a computer or fridge wher eyou reserach and buy the best. it’s more like love. or sex.

so ok. maybe i overstated the case. i admit it. maybe lance ona rusty old bike might get overtaken bya strong young dude under the right elevation conditions and if the bike is too rusty and messed up to actually roll.

but if you gave him a steel road bike with relatively fat tires from teh 1970’s that is heavy (like, say 35 lbs, and pit him against any young dude on a carbon road bike from yesterday. no contest.

and for you, none of it matters except that the bike excites you.

paint is actually very important. and style…

for me, houses are more generic than bikes

[scaredyclassic]

the guys in the race are significantly stronger than strong dudes just riding in the hills; they’re pros. i meant the average strong recreational wannabe fast rider in teh hills is not gonna beat lance. because lance’s chain is rusty or he just has one speed (although hed have to get to pick the gear). it is not like basketball in the sense that it’s primarily about power and ability to keep going. but he has a lot more power than the average dude buying a bike locally who shaves his legs and rides 100 miles a week in the hills..

aluminum’s ok i guess. but because it’s a lighter weight metal that fatigues they just end up making the tubes real fat and they weigh as much as steel anyway. the best advice probably is just to buy whatever excites you and motivates you. for me thats steel. maybe thats why im being this way. i dont think of a bike as apractical purchase like a computer or fridge wher eyou reserach and buy the best. it’s more like love. or sex.

so ok. maybe i overstated the case. i admit it. maybe lance ona rusty old bike might get overtaken bya strong young dude under the right elevation conditions and if the bike is too rusty and messed up to actually roll.

but if you gave him a steel road bike with relatively fat tires from teh 1970’s that is heavy (like, say 35 lbs, and pit him against any young dude on a carbon road bike from yesterday. no contest.

and for you, none of it matters except that the bike excites you.

paint is actually very important. and style…

for me, houses are more generic than bikes

[Author]

Posts