Recreational & Family - 5'4" beginner (female) looking for great all-around bike

Hi--
I am looking to purchase a bike primarily to ride around the city and get some exercise (we're talking an hour of biking tops!) - so I'm wondering if I should buy a city bike or a hybrid. I'm also wondering if I can get a decent bike for around $400 for my needs. I used to have a trek beginner's mountain bike (320?) about five years ago but I didn't like it b/c it was too heavy, too difficult to pedal uphill, etc. Can anyone recommend something lighter and more "urban friendly." I don't see myself taking the bike on many trails other than your basic neighborhood park path. I'd really appreciate any bike suggestions in my range as I am clueless in this area!
Thanks!

Hi--
I am looking to purchase a bike primarily to ride around the city and get some exercise (we're talking an hour of biking tops!) - so I'm wondering if I should buy a city bike or a hybrid. I'm also wondering if I can get a decent bike for around $400 for my needs. I used to have a trek beginner's mountain bike (320?) about five years ago but I didn't like it b/c it was too heavy, too difficult to pedal uphill, etc. Can anyone recommend something lighter and more "urban friendly." I don't see myself taking the bike on many trails other than your basic neighborhood park path. I'd really appreciate any bike suggestions in my range as I am clueless in this area! Thanks!
My 18 year old daughter just bought a TREK hybrid and it is very light. I guess it is an international model, I couldn't find the exact equivalent on the US Trek website, but it is a 7000 series bike with no suspension, and it had a "Woman Specific Design" (WSD). It was certainly in your price range. A hybrid is probably going to suit your needs more than a mountain bike. Look for a triple front chain ring if you do expect to do some hills...that small inner ring (the "granny gear") ensures that you will have low enough gears for any urban hill. the more upright seating position of a hybrid is a bit better for casual riders to have good visibility, although you lose a little bit in power and aerodynamics compared to a low, forward leaning position. If you do get a mountain bike, slick urban tires are a little faster than the knobby ones you would need on rough trails. Not sure what you mean by "city bike" but if you mean a comfort bike with really fat tires, that will be a bit slower and harder to pedal than a hybrid. Also, if it's a one-speed, you will have a really hard time on hills.
Robert

My wife who is 5'3" just got a Giant Sedona DX mountain style comfort bike in a 14" frame. It retails for $370 but you should be able to get it for a little less. It has some decent Shimano components on it. The front derailer was Shimano C101/102 which isn't great; the rear derailer was the better Shimano Alivio (even though specs say Acera, which is one product line down). You might want to check out the Giant Cypress DX hybrid bike which comes in 15" step-through frame, which may serve your needs better.

I'm very happy with my Marin Larkspur. Gearing's fine, price was right and I can adjust it to my liking. Looks good too.

You should really be looking into a road bike, not a mountain or comfort bike. Trek, Felt and LeMond have some good entry level road bikes and I think you'd be much happier. A lot of these comfort bike riders are lucky if they log 10 miles in a month, it is a lazy person's bike. Go road.

Urban Shooter: "A lot of these comfort bike riders are lucky if they log 10 miles in a month, it is a lazy person's bike."

Whoa there! way to make ridiculous generic statements! Road isn't the only way to go; I have a Trek 7100 which I use to commute to/from school (a 10 mile trip in itself!) a couple times a week; I use it on roads, sidewalks, and bike paths up and down some minor city hills with great satisfaction. I've had it about a year now, and I'd definately reccomend it for the uses Hochie described; comes in well under $400 too.

Urban Shooter: "A lot of these comfort bike riders are lucky if they log 10 miles in a month, it is a lazy person's bike."

Whoa there!...I have a Trek 7100

Terms like "comfort" and "hybrid" are used dfferently by different people. To me, a hybrid has larger, and/or skinnier tires (eg. 700cm VS 26") and somewhat better performance than a comfort bike, which is a mountain bike with a shorter top tube and handlbars higher than the seat. The Trek website actually refers to the 7100 as a "Hybrid recreational" bike, not a "comfort" bike. Nevertheless I agree with Parachutes. There's no reason to label everyone who has a "hybrid" or "comfort" bike as a slacker. Lots of people have road bikes rusting in their garage too. Since the original poster wants to ride casually in the city, she might appreciate the upright posture on a hybrid...it's good for visibility. She also wanted something lighter than a mountain bike, and my daughter's 17 inch WSD Trek hybrid is 26 lb, compared to 30 for my old steel Panasonic road bike and 35 for my mountain bike (weighed by the admittedly approximate method of subtracting my weight as I held each bike, standing on a $10 IKEA bathroom scale.
Robert

I have a Cannondale Comfort 400 that I use to commute to work, sometimes through the local park trails. I love the fat seat and upright position. As a 5 '4 female, I like the fact that my rear is not hiked up in the air more than necessary on the city streets, but that's just me. It cost $539 in 2004. I also have a Cannondale Jekyll that I use for singletrack, but I never would have bought the second bike if I hadn't so completely adored the first. And now, I'm thinking about a road bike...

Thanks for all of the suggestions! I have also been leaning towards a hybrid for my needs b/c I've done some of my own research. I'm considering getting a model without front suspension b/c of the excess weight. Is this a good idea? But, I definitely want a seat that's comfortable. What would you suggest to make the seat as comfortable as can be (I'm not into wearing padded bike shorts)--
Thanks again!

Front suspension is a matter of differing opinion. On one hand, it is a lot of weight to add, if you don't really want it. There's certainly nothing wrong with using a standard fork, instead. On the other hand, if you have wrist or hand problems, the suspension might make a world of difference. The only way you'll know for sure which is best for you is to test ride both.

Seats are a pretty individual matter. The most important factor is getting the right width. My local bike shop has a gel pad that you can sit on so that they can measure your "sit bones." A lot of people swear by gel and pick out the most plush seat they can find, but getting the right size seat is more important.

You can also get a seat tube with suspension and a seat with springs, to take some of the bumps out of your ride. Either of these is more effective for comfort than front suspension, in my opinion, and less weighty.

For way more saddle-selection advice than anyone ever needs: http://sheldonbrown.com/saddles.html

And, of course, you can always talk to the (hopefully) friendly sales representatives at your neighborhood bike store.

Oh, and about the bike ... I have a Trek 7200FX ($360) hybrid, and it sounds like any of the FX line would meet your needs. I use it for about what you described (local bike paths and streets) and I'm very happy with it. I plan to upgrade to a lighter (and much more expensive) road bike when I get into longer rides, but the FX suits my needs, for now.

Thick gel pads on your saddle may feel good at first but they tend to allow pressure to build in areas where you don't want pressure. If you want to go on rides longer than 10 miles, I would stay away from those overpadded seats. Sheldon Brown recommends a seat with springs for those looking for more comfort rather than gels.

The front suspension really isn't needed by most hybrid users and is just extra weight.

Hybrids tend to come with riser bars with adjustable stems and 'Fitness' bikes tend to have straight bars more like a mountain bike with a fixed stem.

My wife has the Trek 7100 hybrid and loves it though I wish it were geared a bit higher and had skinnier tires. We've gone on dirt roads, hardpacked trails with no problems. I may swap the suspension fork for a carbon one and get slick tires for better traction and less rolling resistance. Or get her one of the FX models. But she's loathe to lean forward.

try a Bianchi Strada. It's more $$, but worth it. My wife rides one.

Urban Shooter: "A lot of these comfort bike riders are lucky if they log 10 miles in a month, it is a lazy person's bike."

Whoa there! way to make ridiculous generic statements! Road isn't the only way to go; I have a Trek 7100 which I use to commute to/from school (a 10 mile trip in itself!) a couple times a week; I use it on roads, sidewalks, and bike paths up and down some minor city hills with great satisfaction. I've had it about a year now, and I'd definately reccomend it for the uses Hochie described; comes in well under $400 too.

Ditto! I have a Trek 7200 that I ride around town quite a bit (as in, if I don't need the car then I take the bike). I'm not looking to break any speed records; Just want to get where I need to go and be comfortable while I'm at it.

Anyway Hochie, I think the Trek comfort/hybrid series bikes are good values for the buck and you might surprise yourself with how much you ride if you find a bike that you feel good on. Good luck to you :)

My bike is a Trek 7100fx. I use it for commuting, Sunday bike rides, 30km training rides and everything in between. I've added to my trek a little though (bar ends, toe clips & carrier).
As it is a hybrid it is not exactly a racer, but it serves me well enough.
Just the other week I used it on 560Km supported cycle tour, and covered the distance alright
I started to tire towards the end though, (mind you I was a part-time volunteer too, so I was on the go alot)
Anyway, back to your question. It's your money. Buy whatever you'll enjoy riding.

We just bought a pair of Trek hybrids, 7300fx for me and 7200fx for her. I put 28mm tires on mine. They are wonderful bikes, comfortable, fast, and easy to ride.

Our LBS and many others here pointed to the little higher performance of the FX series and they all said don't worry about a shock type fork, you don't need it for pavement and they just add weight. That was good advice. We are thrilled with our new bikes.

I wanted to get a WSD '06 for the wife but they are about a month away, so we took a '05 7200FX ladies model. It works really well for her.

Our LBS and many others here pointed to the little higher performance of the FX series and they all said don't worry about a shock type fork, you don't need it for pavement and they just add weight. That was good advice. We are thrilled with our new bikes.

I agree, even though I do have the shock type fork. I don't 'need' it but there's a stretch of road on the way to my little one's school that is rougher (pot holes, crators, etc. - where is my tax money going?!)than most off road trails. Early in the morning, I appreciate the comfort the shocks provide. :D

Lighter bikes seem to also be more expensive. You might consider checking local shops and seeing if there are used bikes. Purchasing pre-owned might be a way to affordably get a much nicer bike that fits your needs.

As far as choosing ... go ride some. Don't just circle around the parking lot either, try up a hill, going as fast as you can, lifting it, etc. Also check for places to connect things. Less expesive bikes tend not to have all the little braze-ons you might want for fenders, racks, etc., that really make a bike useful as a vehicle. I didn't really pay attention to this until I started trying to improve my youngest son's bike, and there was no way to attach anything.

Hi Hochie, we just bought my wife this:
http://www.raleighusa.com/items.asp?deptid=7&itemid=226&childid=502
Was right at $300 even...she loves it...we did 7 miles on Sunday and the bike works flawlessly..good luck.

Steve

Thanks for all of the suggestions! I have also been leaning towards a hybrid for my needs b/c I've done some of my own research. I'm considering getting a model without front suspension b/c of the excess weight. Is this a good idea? But, I definitely want a seat that's comfortable. What would you suggest to make the seat as comfortable as can be (I'm not into wearing padded bike shorts)--
Thanks again!

As mentioned elsewhere, a highly padded saddle may seem like it is comfortable at first but it gets uncomfortable very quickly. Part of saddle comfort is just getting used to a saddle in the first place - building up "calluses" so to speak. It's just a matter of riding and time until become comfortable with the saddle.

As for the padded shorts: I don't look good in lycra. I am the person that the saying "lycra is a privilege, not a right" was coined for. But I wear it anyway! It's not a fashion statement. A pair of padded shorts (worn without underwear :eek: ) is as important to your comfort as a padded saddle. The pad moves with you and prevents chaffing. It has no (or few) seams that can irritate delicate places. Plus the close fitting cloths don't flap in the wind so they don't whip you as you go downhills. They also don't bunch up and get uncomfortable. The best part is that, in summer, they are incredible cool even though most of them are black because they allow sweat to pass through and evaporate quickly.

Give them a try before you decide you can't wear them. If you are uncomfortable wearing them around in public, do what I do and carry a pair of hiking shorts that I slip on whenever I go in a store. That way I save others from being embarrassed. Personally, I can't see myself so I don't really care ;)

I'm 5'4" and i purchased a Trek Navigator 100 early this summer. It has a 14.5" frame and I find it very comfortable. I figured I was more likely to actually use the bike if I was comfortable - so I wanted to sit upright to take the strain off my neck and back.

Now, I've recently wanted to go faster - so I found a route to work with higher hills, and it is nearly 2X as long - so I've definitely gotten a lot fitter.

I'm debating getting a road bike (to satisfy my need for speed)- they are very reasonably priced second hand - but I enjoy my bike - with a milk crate tied to the carrier - it is really handy. So When I want to go really fast - I'll find a higher hill.

I also really appreciate the Granny gears - when I need to start on a hill - they are great - and I haven't had to walk my bike up a hill yet.

Mrs Javaman bought a Trek Navigator also, a 200 I think (because it was red). She is 5'4'' and also got the 14.5" frame. She hasn't ridden a bike in 20+ years, so she was surprised at how comfortable it was. After riding 95 miles over the past 3 weekends, she still says it is really comfortable. It has a range of gears like a mountain bike, so it's easy to pedal uphill, if you are willing to go slow. It's a very nice bike.

it depends on your age and health (weight)

what depends?

If you are uncomfortable wearing the lycra shorts, get the mountain bike style shorts. They have the lycra and chamois underneath regular shorts "legs". I've worn mine on several 20+ mile rides with no problems though for longer or more strenuous rides I would recommend the road type shorts. My wife prefers the road shorts over her mountain bike shorts.

There are several makers of women's cycling clothing that offer all sorts of shorts, halters, jerseys, jackets, bras, socks. Cycling clothes do a fantastic job of wicking away sweat, keeping you cool and comfortable. Plus the tops have pockets in the back for carrying food or a cellphone.

Women's loose fitting shorts link (http://www.performancebike.com/shop/sub_cat.cfm?subcategory_id=1222)

If you are uncomfortable wearing the lycra shorts, get the mountain bike style shorts. They have the lycra and chamois underneath regular shorts "legs". I've worn mine on several 20+ mile rides with no problems though for longer or more strenuous rides I would recommend the road type shorts. My wife prefers the road shorts over her mountain bike shorts.


Since July I have logged about 1500 miles, including a two day 150 mile tour, 4 metric centuries (62 miles) and one full century - all in baggies. IMHO fit of the bike is the important factor, type of shorts is meaningless, unless you are racing and obsesed about weight an aerodynamics.

Since July I have logged about 1500 miles, including a two day 150 mile tour, 4 metric centuries (62 miles) and one full century - all in baggies. IMHO fit of the bike is the important factor, type of shorts is meaningless, unless you are racing and obsesed about weight an aerodynamics.

Fit and comfort of shorts and clothing can be just as important as bike fit. I, personally, detest the feel of baggies on my legs. The hem of the shorts presses on the top of my thighs and drives me crazy. A good lycra short moves with me like a second skin and doesn't create pressure points. It makes the difference, for me, between riding for 6 or 7 hours per day for weeks at a time and turning around and going home.

Plus, I'm already get whipped by the straps on my Camelbak on a 35mph downhill, I'd hate to get smacked around by my shorts ;)