Hybrid Bicycles - Looking for hybrid advice, 1000-1500$ range.

Hi, I am a novice bike rider. I am looking for a hybrid in the 1000-1500$ range. I have tested the Trek FX 7.5 and it seemed great. I have just reviewed the Quick 2 and it seems to have significantly better components (similar to FX 7.7). I cant find any store that carries the Q2 to try it. I have also looked at the Sirrus. Could you please give me your opinions. Thank you very much.

At that price range - ride every hybrid you can find...... then pick the one you like the best.

I don't mean to discourage/dissuade you - but at that price range you can get a fairly nice road bike. I started biking on a Trek 7.2 fx after a 16 year hiatus and soon outgrew that bike and soon ended up with a road bike. In case you decide to upgrade soon in the future - you'd rather have a bike that's easier to sell.

Jamis has a few very good models ranging from WAY below a thousand up through you price range. The Coda line is steel. the site is clear and easy to navigate. I've a LBS that has Jamis nearby, only stock the cruisers though. Bianchi has some nice models as well. Some regions of the US lack Bianchi dealers. The point is that as far has seeing or testing any given bike depends on what's nearby, this speaks to the man's saying "pick the one you like ..." Look at Giant or Marin, these are aluminum for what that's worth . As far as a "road bike", drop bar an' all ? ... well I've only to say that I prefer 'em but would be hard pressed to prevail upon you do consider one. Just by "reading you" though, I suggest that you focus on a hybrid. DO view the sites I've suggested, as you'll see, hybrids needn't be wimpy and you may find something you'll not soon outgrow. FlatBar style hybids are racier so look at those. Not just the overly comfy, upright types popular these days.

I don't mean to discourage/dissuade you - but at that price range you can get a fairly nice road bike.

Or a nice used car. Or a hell of a skateboard.

I think it should be a general convention of this forum not to try to get people to buy another type of bike than a hybrid unless the OP is looking for a capability like speed or off road capability that makes it relevant.

(Even though raja was ultra tactful in his suggestion!)

there's a fundamental question that always sneaks its way in this forum. after what point should you stop spending money / upgrading for a hybrid bike? for example, it was correctly pointed out that a carbon frame for a hybrid is pointless.

i myself am planning to buy a 7.5 in the spring and am trying to figure out where to the draw the line. what do i have to gain by moving to a 7.7? here's our good friend shook's reason:



i considered the 7.6 but since i live in manhattan and dont want/have space for more than 1 bike, i wanted something a little higher end. i feel that the price of the 7.7 is justified by the jump to bontrager race wheels vs. the 7.6's ssr. there is nothing wrong with the ssr's though, i am sure it's a quick bike. i want something that i dont have to upgrade for a while. with 'higher end' components, it'll keep my future upgrades to a minimum right off the bat

yet, in the 7.2 fx thread, i got the feeling that the difference between decent wheels (ssr) and high end wheels (race) for a hybrid isn't much. so which is it? i am already very happy with deore components of the 7.5. i don't need anything "better" which would not perform better but merely be lighter (and i don't care for that at my level).

7.5 vs 7.7

same exact frame
both carbon fork
deore vs 105 components (this is probably the biggest reason for price disparity. i love deore, i don't need any more
ssr vs race wheels (worth the difference?)

i also considered a 7.3 FX. it only has a deore rear derailler whereas the 7.5 is deore all the way and i love deore. so between a 7.5 and a 7.7, what would you pick? what does the 7.7 have that is actually worth upgrading (in a practical sense) than the 7.5?

^ probably nothing if practicality is the driving factor. the isozone monostay thing does a great job of eliminating vibration from the road. this was the 1st thing i noticed going from my 7.2 to my 7.7. it literally feels like you are riding on smooth pavement while you are on rough pavement/concrete/tarmac/etc. the 7.6 has this feature too which is great.

for general fitness, commuting, etc, the 7.2/7.3 is probably enough. it all depends on what you wanna do, what you expect from your bike, that's all. whether or not these changes from model to model warrants the extra hundreds of dollars is another question.

if you love the deore, then like you said, it's not worth the upgrade. ssr vs race - again, depends on what you want to do/what you expect. i personally wanted the quickest ride - since i only ride for fitness (no commuting, etc) - i wanted the race wheels just to fulfill my speed rush. while i dont know how the ssr's are, i can say one thing - acceleration on my 7.7 is a night and day difference from my 7.2. you can get this bike up to 20mph so much faster than the 7.2... but this also depends on the rider.

if you have the opportunity, take both for a test spin (7.5 / 7.6) and see which one you prefer. i realize with advice coming from all angles, conflicting advice, ppl telling you to do this and that - the best thing to do is what you feel right. since you are between models, definitely test ride both. which one you wind up getting is up to *you*.

I test rode the 7.5FX and the Gary Fisher Mendota. Both were great bikes, but the Mendota had a more solid and cohesive feel to it. Maybe it was the slightly better components and the disc brakes, or the Bontrager Satellite Elite carbon fork...but it was a light, quick ride. At your price point I'd definitely give it a try, although for the money I think the 7.6fx or 7.7fx is a better deal. In the end it's all about the fit, and how you feel about the bike...just get what you like!

^ probably nothing if practicality is the driving factor. the isozone monostay thing does a great job of eliminating vibration from the road. this was the 1st thing i noticed going from my 7.2 to my 7.7. it literally feels like you are riding on smooth pavement while you are on rough pavement/concrete/tarmac/etc. the 7.6 has this feature too which is great.


My crosser feels this way too and it doesn't have an ounce of carbon in it. Good tyres with not too high a pressure are most of what is needed. This means tyres that are wider than a racer's - which is why carbon tubes do make sense on a racer, which needs narrow (and therefore high pressure) tyres to keep air resistance down.



i wanted the race wheels just to fulfill my speed rush.


You can drop a lot of weight from a wheel and it will make hardly any difference to performance. I posted a mathematical proof on another thread.

Or



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Power_required

In a 250 m sprint from 36 to 47 km/h to (22 to 29 mph), a 90 kg bike/rider with 1.75 kg of rims/tires/spokes increases KE by 6,360 joules (6.4 kilocalories burned). Shaving 500 g from the rims/tires/spokes reduces this KE by 35 joules


So -



while i dont know how the ssr's are, i can say one thing - acceleration on my 7.7 is a night and day difference from my 7.2. you can get this bike up to 20mph so much faster than the 7.2...


I suspect that will be almost entirely due to the change in tyres. Rolling resistance dominates performance at lower speeds - which is most of the way up to 20mph - and this mostly a function of tyre quality. The 7.2's are cheap and designed with anti puncturing as a priority - both of which things increase increase RR - while the 7.7 has real performance tyres. The stock 7.2 also has a suspension stem, which will eat pedaling energy.

More rigid wheels can help acceleration and maximum speed a little - people worry about the weight of things but they never thing about energy losses due to wheel flex.

Finally, if you were using the stock pedals on each bike you should see a big differenc in power - the 7.2 has platforms and the 7.7 clipless. (BMX pedals are nearly as good at power transfer as clipless if anyone is looking for a VERY cheap upgrade.)

So, yes, I'd expect the 7.7 to accelerate noticeably better than the 7.7, but most of the difference could be made up very cheaply. Better tyres, a standard seat post, BMX pedals - done. That isn't to say that the 7.7 isn't a very nice bike and worth owning, but you're paying for very quality for its own sake rather than for the additional functionality it brings - just as you are in most luxury markets.

I know road bike people think light wheels make an amazing difference and spend a fortune on very small weight losses (until they get enough money to buy discs or deep v's, then they suddenly accept an increase in weight...) But in case you hadn't yet noticed - a lot of roadies aren't terribly bright. To stay on a bike for six hours ignoring your back ache and saddle sores and looking at your front wheel requires will power, yes. Brains, no.

Most people buy a hybrid and never upgrade anything. Except the saddle sometimes (OUCH!). If it's your bicycle, you can throw anything you want into it - if you can afford it. My former Trek 7.5 FX currently has components that quite exceed those offered on the carboniferous 7.9 FX.

Older 7.2's have the suspension seatpost. I do not know what year that stopped, but my 2009 7.2 has a solid seatpost.

I'll second the comment about proper inflation. I kept my 700x28 tires inflated to 120 psi for the first month or so, which falls in the middle of the 115-125 recommendation on the sidewall. This past week I inflated according to http://sheldonbrown.com/flats.html#pressure

The ride smoothed out dramatically at 90 psi front / 110 psi rear. Same effect at 100 psi front / 120 psi rear while carrying a load.

I had some other thoughts, but then realized they did not have much to do with the OP's question. To get on point, the Trek 7.5 seems about the right price point to get solid components without going overboard. As a novice, that should be plenty of bike for a good while.

Noone has mentionned anything about the 2010 Cannondale Quick 2? Please let me know what your opinions are. Why isn't this bike more common?

there's a fundamental question that always sneaks its way in this forum. after what point should you stop spending money / upgrading for a hybrid bike? for example, it was correctly pointed out that a carbon frame for a hybrid is pointless.

I need to be perfectly honest here and say that as someone that works in the bike industry I read some posts on BF that leave me dumbfounded. This one is near the top. This is as polite as I can be.

I'm going on record and say that I would conservatively estimate that at least 75% of the people that buy high end road and mountain bikes cannot ride them to the best of the bike's capabilities. People buying multi thousand $ racing bikes and riding them recreationally is considererd normal behaviour yet a hybrid bike is not worthy of expensive parts or a high tech carbon frame. Yep makes sense to me.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?sid=10Sirrus&eid=4356

Specialized Sirrus Expert. MSRP $1550, prob find it cheaper unless your LBS is too high and mighty for their own good.

Still mostly a hybrid...Although I would want a mountain geared cassette, at least 11-30. Specialized makes their hybrids with wheels that should last, as well. Probably light as a feather, too. IF you want to be able to add a cassette better geared for hills, the Sirrus Elite has a Shimano LX rear derailleur, and shifters. My mountain bike is basically full LX, and shifting is so crisp and responsive.

The Jamis Coda ELITE would be an awesome bike, as well. Ive seen one in person, and boy are they SWEET! Steel frame, Carbon fork, disc brakes... More of a true hybrid, in the sense it has mountain gearing on a rather roadie like frame/wheels.

You said you looked at the sirrus...have you taken it for a spin yet? I have the bottom of the line Sirrus (just a week old) and LOVE it. Of course I will upgrade my rear derailleur, but otherwise its a great bike, and very comfy. I like specialized overall though.

http://giant-bicycles.com/zh-TW/bikes/bmx/3486/35202/

Ignore the bmx catagory, they got it wrong.

The Accend, I believe is Taiwan exclusive.
It's a hybrid with simple shocks and features 105.
Most comfy FAST bike Ive ever ridden.

It's around 1500, and no taxes in Taiwan :P

This can be your hybrid commuter or adventure ride.

Noone has mentionned anything about the 2010 Cannondale Quick 2? Please let me know what your opinions are. Why isn't this bike more common?

Wow,ask a simple question,trigger a debate. Hey folks,remember the OP?

I'll try to answer your question. The Quicks aren't that popular because Cannondale is considered something of a luxury brand;consider them the Cadallac of the bike world. Most folks looking at C'dales are going for road bikes or MTB's. The Bad Boy line gets noticed because they're higher-end hybrids,but the Quicks/Adventures/Comforts kind of get ignored. I haven't seen many in shops,and have only rarely seen them on the street. That's not to say they're bad bikes,it's just that folks looking for this style of bike usually go with Trek or Giant or Specialized etc,etc.

The specs for the bike look nice. I think it would be a nice flat bar road bike. Donno about that fancy seatpost quick release;not sure how you could effectively secure it against theft without having to pull the seatpost every time you lock up. Knowing C'dale it should be light and handle good,and should have excellent build quality. Really though,the best bet is to test ride one and see how you like it.

I need to be perfectly honest here and say that as someone that works in the bike industry I read some posts on BF that leave me dumbfounded. This one is near the top. This is as polite as I can be.

I'm going on record and say that I would conservatively estimate that at least 75% of the people that buy high end road and mountain bikes cannot ride them to the best of the bike's capabilities. People buying multi thousand $ racing bikes and riding them recreationally is considererd normal behaviour yet a hybrid bike is not worthy of expensive parts or a high tech carbon frame. Yep makes sense to me.

i thank you for your politeness but you could have been more direct and i would have been cool with it. this is the #%$^#&@ post i've ever read :lol:

someone was looking for the fastest hybrid he could buy. several people argued that the upright position of a hybrid would bottleneck the speed advantages of a carbon frame. is this not true? they even went as far as to say that a carbon frame on hybrids is for people with more money than common sense. of course people are free to get carbon frames on hybrids. it makes them happy and that's all that matters. i simply can't afford to pay for expensive parts that don't give me noticeable performance increase. so i am biased whereas if i had the funds i'd happily buy a madone 6.9 as an object of pride. i give opinions for my point of view only (this is not to tell others what they can or can't do).

i thank you for your politeness but you could have been more direct and i would have been cool with it. this is the #%$^#&@ post i've ever read :lol:

someone was looking for the fastest hybrid he could buy. several people argued that the upright position of a hybrid would bottleneck the speed advantages of a carbon frame. is this not true?



Yes. Trying to increase speed by reducing weight is next to futile outside of a race, where tiny amounts can transform placings:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Power_required

Shaving 1 kg off the weight of the bike/rider would save 0.01 m/s at 9m/s on the flats (1 second in a 25 mph (40 km/h), 25 mile (40 km) TT). Losing 1 kg on a 7% grade would be worth 0.04m/s (90 kg bike + rider) to 0.07m/s (65 kg bike + rider). If one climbed for 1 hour, saving 1 lb. would gain between 225 and 350 feet (107 m) - less effect for the heavier bike + rider combination (e.g., 0.04 mph (0.06 km/h) * 1 hr * 5,280 ft (1,609 m)/mile = 225 ft).


Spending on carbon to reduce energy lost to frame flex is even more pointless (references available on request - this is probably too technical to interest most people here).

Carbon makes sense on road bikes because thin tyres ride appallingly but are an important part of aero at their top speed and carbon main tubes can be used to cushion the ride. At a hybrid's lower (because of rider position) top speed thin tyres aren't a worthwhile aerodynamic optimization - especially as they cost turning and braking grip, make a bike vulnerable to pot holes, and can increase rolling resistance, which is proportionately more significant at lower speeds. Anyway, the potential gain in speed from thinner tyres is too tiny to matter outside of a race even if you forget the drawbacks.



they even went as far as to say that a carbon frame on hybrids is for people with more money than common sense.

I'd say that they're people who haven't been properly informed by the bike industry. I only hope that these people have at least been warned to bring their bike into the shop for a professional examination after a crash. If not then they could find that their bicycle just shatters - literally - the next time they hit a pot hole. Damage from an unsuccessful theft could do this also - it doesn't have to be visible.

If you have a carbon bike, I wouldn't get paranoid about the above - just be sensible. But I think as hybrids as practical transportation bikes, not racing bikes for people who are scared of drop bars. And this vulnerability isn't practical! What I'd really like to see are more cromolly hybrids - cromo does tough like nothing else. I don't think hybrids should have carbon forks either - forks are the most vulnerable components on a bike and where a failure will have the worst results. Again, I wouldn't worry if you have a carbon fork - problems are very rare - just have the fork checked if you have an accident.

Carbon fibre frames are about ride quality and efficiency not necessarily about outright speed. When you construct a frame using metal tubes and want it to have decent ride quality some vertical compliance is built into the frame. The problem is lateral compliance cannot be eliminated. When you stand on it climbing a hill for instance the force at the crankset also causes the frame to twist slightly and when it rebounds it propels the bike forward, this is the lively feel fans of steel frames talk about. Carbon fibre frames can be engineered to behave however the designer wants it to. They'll normally have over built headtubes, bottom brackets and chainstays for lateral stiffness so that there is less power loss from the rider. What you put in comes out. There's nothing quite like standing on a carbon fibre frame and feeling the forward thrust with every pedal stroke. Why should efficient power transfer be available to road bikers only?, nonsense!!. Hybrid riders are also the engine suppling the power. You don't need to be an open road rider to be a serious cyclist. The toptube and seat stays can be more more delicate for vertical compliance and offer a smooth as butter ride. Carbon fibre offers the best of both worlds. I would argue that with the quaility of city streets compared to our highways carbon fibre is more useful on a hybrid rather than on a racing machine being ridden along the smooth shoulder of a highway.

I find BF is way to full of opinion not fact. New riders come here for advise and they get opinions based on peoples limited or no experience. People don't seem to want other people to have nicer things then they own so they discourage them from buying above their own lot in life. These top of the line carbon hybrids from companies like Trek, Specialized etc are so much fun to ride. They accelerate like crazy and have a ride quality that aluminum bikes simply can never match. Worth every penny. Let the detractors ride their janky bikes.

thank you for the education. i was not aware of carbon's efficient power transfer :thumb: i only discourage others from spending too much because i'd hate to see them take a big gamble and find out they wanted something different. this applies especially to people who are newbies (like me) and say this is going to be their first bike. next time i buy a bike i'll look for an entry level madone instead of a trek 2.3 aluminum bike. i'll just have to carefully read the warranty on carbon frames for trek or specialized and make sure they are lifetime as long as i don't get into a crash or abuse my bike. any forum is going to have more opinion than facts. it is a forum of enthusiasts and not experts. posts must be taken with a grain of salt. thanks again!

I'd say that they're people who haven't been properly informed by the bike industry. I only hope that these people have at least been warned to bring their bike into the shop for a professional examination after a crash. If not then they could find that their bicycle just shatters - literally - the next time they hit a pot hole. Damage from an unsuccessful theft could do this also - it doesn't have to be visible.

If you have a carbon bike, I wouldn't get paranoid about the above - just be sensible. But I think as hybrids as practical transportation bikes, not racing bikes for people who are scared of drop bars.

thanks for the post. always good to see differing opinions. fortunately my current fuji absolute 2.0 is more bike than i need. maybe in a a year (s?) when i'm ready to move up i'll learn more. i know carbon technology is still developing. i look forward to the time when carbon frames become as popular and common as aluminum.

Carbon fibre frames are about ride quality and efficiency not necessarily about outright speed.


But there isn't a problem with ride quality unless you are using narrow high pressure tyres. And the efficiency argument is based on lies about frame flex and energy losses.



When you construct a frame using metal tubes and want it to have decent ride quality some vertical compliance is built into the frame. The problem is lateral compliance cannot be eliminated. When you stand on it climbing a hill for instance the force at the crankset also causes the frame to twist slightly and when it rebounds it propels the bike forward, this is the lively feel fans of steel frames talk about.


Yes. What's the problem with this?



Carbon fibre frames can be engineered to behave however the designer wants it to. They'll normally have over built headtubes, bottom brackets and chainstays for lateral stiffness so that there is less power loss from the rider.


There is no power loss from frame flex. It's a myth. (www.bikethink.com/Frameflex.htm) As you just said - without seeming to understand your own words - the energy from flex is stored and released. This is actually a desireable characteristic because it evens out power transmission from the frame, prevent components that lose energy when they flex from being overloaded. (www.kirkframeworks.com/Flex.htm)



What you put in comes out. There's nothing quite like standing on a carbon fibre frame and feeling the forward thrust with every pedal stroke. Why should efficient power transfer be available to road bikers only?, nonsense!!.


This is utter bollocks and convincing only to someone who doesn't understand engineering. You've been trained to recite industry marketing material without understanding the engineering underneath it. In fact, even the bike industry's own PR stunts show that you say isn't true - when I have more time later I'll discuss the notorious steel vs carbon test in the August's Procycling.



Hybrid riders are also the engine suppling the power. You don't need to be an open road rider to be a serious cyclist. The toptube and seat stays can be more more delicate for vertical compliance and offer a smooth as butter ride. Carbon fibre offers the best of both worlds. I would argue that with the quaility of city streets compared to our highways carbon fibre is more useful on a hybrid rather than on a racing machine being ridden along the smooth shoulder of a highway.


Once again: bollocks. 30mm tyres instead of 28s will make more difference than all the carbon in the world. Let alone 38s instead of 23s.



I find BF is way to full of opinion not fact.


You seem to be having a hypocrisy detection malfunction: you haven't given a single fact - just unsourced and unreasoned opinions. The best modern engineering techniques - the ones used to design bikes - and first rate frame designers - including Keith Bontrager - say that you're wrong. Working in a bike store means that you know how to work a till and (hopefully) tune a derailer. It doesn't make you an engineer or expert on materials!



These top of the line carbon hybrids from companies like Trek, Specialized etc are so much fun to ride. They accelerate like crazy and have a ride quality that aluminum bikes simply can never match. Worth every penny. Let the detractors ride their janky bikes.

Again, bollocks. Power meter readings and instrumented tests on steel and carbon frames say there is little to no difference. (See that issue of Procycling.) Some riders perceive a large one because the carbon frame is stiffer which provides more proprioceptive feedback, which the brain interprets as "Faster!" But if you knew the first thing about frame design you'd know that rider's subjective impressions are usually wrong - I suggest you read Keith Bontragers discussion of frame flex for this reason also.

And please - don't whine about other people giving opinions rather than facts when you can't source a single one of your claims.

Let me ask you these three questions - all of which require factual answers instead of buy-a-more-expensive-bike-bs

- What do you tell customers about the risk of crash damage when they buy a CF bike? Because I'll bet that most people here weren't warned.

- How much extra power, as a total of the percentage, do you think is lost to flex in a metal frame as opposed to a CF? Assume pro riders riding hard to get a worst case. What's your evidence for your figure?

- How much less speed on the flat, pedalling at, oh, 200W, do you think this power loss equals?


I should warn you, to be fair, that I have answers to both of the last two questions, and they say that everything you said was ill-informed nonsense - although its the sort of nonsense thats helpful if your job is to get people to waste more money and increase your commission.

Dude your absoluely right!. Carbon fibre has no real benefit as a material for a bike frame. It's a scam that is being played out everyday all over the world in every bike shop. We even have top level racers, teams and managers fooled. They should really still be riding cro mo bikes that flex beacause as you say it's desireable. Just ask Keith. Ha ha got you fools hand over your money, it's all about the money. Cha ching! Was that the sound of the cash register taking another fool's money? Dude your ruining it for all of us greedy bike shop employees, we're getting rich behond our wildest dreams selling carbon fibre bikes. If I sell enough carbon bikes this month maybe I'll have enough dough saved up to buy that custom steel frame I've always wanted.



This really is not about carbon fibre is it? It's more about you justifing your own position. You don't think anyone should have a hybrid other than what fits your narrow definition of a hybrid. It should be cheap, have fat tires, no front suspension and only made out of metal. It's okay I understand. 23c tires, carbon fibre frames, high end components, front suspension forks have no place on a hybrid beacuse it's not what you need or want. What brands should people own? Specialized, Trek? No way. The big bike companies are obviously behind this carbon fibre scam being played out.



What do I tell my customers about crashing their carbon fibre bikes? Simple the same thing I tell people that ride steel or aluminum bikes. Crashing hurts, it can wreck your body and your bike and please always wear a helmet and that if you have crashed a carbon bike hard enough to wreck it it you would have done the same regardless of what it's made of. They make race cars and aeroplanes out of carbon fibre. Carbon is strong stuff. Crashing means a sudden and harsh impact. Crashing is not gently falling over. Crashes amongst recreational riders are extremely rare, particularly hybrid riders. Riding a bike id considered a very safe activity. Lots of data on bike safety on the web, you seem to like reseach. You seem to like to scare people away from carbon because of what would happen if someone crashed. Your living in the past.



Instead of finding all this data on the internet why not go and try out a carbon bike? It's called experience. Don't PM me anymore. Challenge me to a dual? Your a piece of work. I think your still pissy because I laughed at you for your ridiculous comment about anti dive braking in another thread and you have a need to prove me wrong.



Okay you win. Carbon fibre bikes suck. I just want to take money from people that don't know any better. People that buy carbon bikes are all stupid suckers. Just don't go over to the road forum and let those guys in on our secret, that's my bread and butter. Cha ching!! Was that the sound of the cash register again! Yes, nice. Big fat commision check.

Oooh, I can hardly wait for the mathematical equation retort. :p

Well said, Saddle Up (the second paragraph sums it up nicely).

Interesting discussion!

Not so sure I'd automatically discount carbon quite so much... there certainly are very specific engineering reasons why it is used in many applications that it should have some measure of "engineering reasons" to be used in bike frames. I pretty much discount the brakage thing, if properly formed, it should be as strong if not stronger than steel/alu.

I am curious about the metal side... I have a cro-moly steel bike from 18 years ago. At least with the same company, I see aluminum being used these days. I DO notice todays frames do seem to be fatter. Which I'm guessing is because the aluminum simply can't be as stiff/strong unless it is larger in cross section.

My "riding experience" is mostly from this past summer as I was off a bike for about a decade before that. I think I'm smart enough to know that it would take a while riding on an aliuminum frame bike before I coujld make any judgements on the "ride" of the frame. So what are folks opinions of the "ride" between cro-moly and alu?

Can someone please post their thoughts on TREK 7.5 vs Cannondale Q2? Please...

I'd like to give you the benefit of my experience. I ride a Jamis Coda Comp and it's an alright Hybrid. I bought my wife a Trek FX 7.5 and I LOVE it. A great bike just as it comes from the dealer. It got my attention so I decided to get a Trek FX 7.7 but after a very recent ride on a carbon framed bike I'm looking for a 2009 FX 7.9. I don't have money to burn, that's why I'm after a 2009! The higher numbered Trek FX series are great bikes even with not really great components in some areas. Just take a ride on a carbon framed bike! Just pick one up in a dealership! It's amazing how light they are!

Dude your absoluely right!. Carbon fibre has no real benefit as a material for a bike frame. It's a scam that is being played out everyday all over the world in every bike shop. We even have top level racers, teams and managers fooled.


Firstly, I note that your post was free of ANY factual content. Again. After your whining about other people giving nothing but "opinions".

And congratulations on the poor reading skills: I didn't say that very rigid CF frames don't have benefits for pro-riders - just that frame flex doesn't equal more power transmission. Stiff frames are definitely beneficial in fast descending for control purposes, for example.



This really is not about carbon fibre is it? It's more about you justifing your own position.


Oh, you're hurt. Oh - I don't care.



What do I tell my customers about crashing their carbon fibre bikes? Simple the same thing I tell people that ride steel or aluminum bikes. Crashing hurts, it can wreck your body and your bike and please always wear a helmet and that if you have crashed a carbon bike hard enough to wreck it it you would have done the same regardless of what it's made of. They make race cars and aeroplanes out of carbon fibre. Carbon is strong stuff. Crashing means a sudden and harsh impact. Crashing is not gently falling over. Crashes amongst recreational riders are extremely rare, particularly hybrid riders. Riding a bike id considered a very safe activity. Lots of data on bike safety on the web, you seem to like reseach. You seem to like to scare people away from carbon because of what would happen if someone crashed. Your living in the past.


Sorry: you're a dangerous incompetent. This what the manufacturers say:



http://www.velonews.com/article/3270

From Deda:
Carbon lasts longer than metal.Only love is stronger than carbon.Bonding is a different story.I believe that a good glue (epoxy) can last for 2000 hours of work, or about 800 days, not in continuous daylight, and below 35 Celsius. Whenever a carbon "part" has crashed, even if you cannot see a failure, if there is any reasonable doubt about having surpassed the elongation limit, the part must be replaced.
--Fulvio Acquati
Deda Elementi


I can't repeat this enough: CF bikes need professional inspection after a crash in a way that steel and alu bikes don't! Elongation or other damage can be invisible
to the eye but cause catastrophic failure under minor stress like a small pot hole. The result looks like this:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h136/scanner302j/DSCF4314.jpg

And it is most likely to happen under the strains of riding fast or turning or braking hard - ie at the worst moment.

Metal bikes can fail too, but crash damage is visible and failure is gradual. I suggest you google "carbon fiber failure mode" to understand the danger you've exposed people. Reading the manufacturers' data sheets would also be useful.

If anyone has any doubts about what 'm saying re the need for inspecting a CF bike after a crash, go to the racing forum and ask - for your own safety.



I think your still pissy because I laughed at you for your ridiculous comment about anti dive braking in another thread and you have a need to prove me wrong.


I never even read it - it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand braking and forks if you haven't even been trained in the basics of selling carbon frames responsibly and, in fact, know less than the average poster in the road bikes forum.

Indeed, most serious roadies now agree that the frame flex story is a myth. The reason is that for the past several years people have been able to test this claim using power meters - a strain gauge type meter on a pedal will measure power MINUS frame flex. And people have found this difference does NOT exist.

The situation here got so bad that in August the bike industry ran a PR event to try to show that a MINUTE difference existed, of the type that would matter to serious racers if no one else. The results are in the August 2009 issue of Procycling - and it is claimed that a modern professional level carbon bike reduces energy lost to frame flex by 3% compared to a steel bike of 30 years ago.

However -

1. 3% loss in power means 1% loss of maximum speed on the flat (cube root relationship of power and air resistance.) This means a loss of around 30 seconds distance in an hour's riding. That might matter to a racer, but to anyone else? No.

2. The test assumed that the entire difference in energy was due to flex. In fact, it's doubtful that any was - the course was a difficult one and the 30 year old bike had down tube shifters and poor brakes by modern standards, and the test riders commented that they had been terrified riding it! So they are unlikely to have pedaled as hard - hence a power difference. A modern steel bike could easily have been used but wasn't. (Modern racing shifters and brakes usually cost more than a Trek 7.2 - people pay for them because they let you go faster without crashing!)

3. 30 years of wear would have made the steel bike less rigid, and steel bikes are typically less rigid than aluminum ones.

In short, in the most biased test they could construct, the PR people could only show a maximum possible difference of 30 seconds in a hour on the flat between a metal and carbon fibre frame. The real difference is almost certainly much less - probably nothing.

Now, carbon still makes sense for road racing biking bikes - because it provides a better ride with narrow tyres and allows better handling in some circumstances that matter to a racer - but what it doesn't do, not possibly, is make a bike go faster in a sense that justifies spending more money to anyone but a racer.

I'd definitely buy a Specialized Roubaix carbon racer for racing or fun, but I wouldn't buy a carbon hybrid as a transportation bike. It costs more, adds a minor element of danger, and doesn't do anything relevant in return. (In fact, if you search the forums you'll find that cheap carbon frames are often flexier than typical alu ones when tested - and what I mean by a cheap frame still costs more than a carbon hybrid!)

Finally - do remember whats-his-names ignorance of basic safety information that he is supposed to be trained in. This is sadly typical of bike store staff. Do not assume competence - learn enough to recognize it, then support it by buying from it instead of shopping around for an extra 1% discount.

Interesting discussion!

Not so sure I'd automatically discount carbon quite so much... there certainly are very specific engineering reasons why it is used in many applications that it should have some measure of "engineering reasons" to be used in bike frames.


It's a great material. But the price you pay is catastrophic failure.



I pretty much discount the brakage thing, if properly formed, it should be as strong if not stronger than steel/alu.


You're obviously not an engineer - "stronger" breaks down into a raft of different technical factors. CF has terrific stiffness, but shock causes delamination. (As you could have found out with a 10 second google search before rushing in to give your opinion.) This isn't a problem in, say, aviation because aircraft aren't crashed and then flown again..



I am curious about the metal side... I have a cro-moly steel bike from 18 years ago. At least with the same company, I see aluminum being used these days. I DO notice todays frames do seem to be fatter. Which I'm guessing is because the aluminum simply can't be as stiff/strong unless it is larger in cross section.


Completely wrong. Read http://www.63xc.com/scotn/metal.htm - Basically alu is used partly because it is cheaper and partly because it is better for making fatter tubes from.

Can someone please post their thoughts on TREK 7.5 vs Cannondale Q2? Please...

Q2 is a step above Trek 7.5 in terms of components. If they're both the same price, the Q2 is a better deal. Keep in mind the Q2 has road gearing while the 7.5 has MTB gearing. If you're going to climb a lot of hills you may want to go with the Trek or step down to the Q3 if you like the Cannondale better. 7.5 competes with the Q3, not the Q2. Hope this helps.

man that pic is painful to look at!

meanwhile is so smart.

Can someone please post their thoughts on TREK 7.5 vs Cannondale Q2? Please...

I test rode a Q2 and Q3 before buying my 7.5. I had always ridden Cannondales in the past and I was partial to the brand. But overall I didn't love the fit and feel of the Quicks.

Buying based on specifications is not great...you need to actually try the bike.

Matt

And this is what Trek says about carbon frames and parts:
http://www.trekbikes.com/faq/questions.php?questionid=45 What if I crash my carbon frame or part? Carbon fiber is a great material for producing premium bike frames and parts. However if a carbon part or frame experiences an impact it requires more expertise to determine its integrity than is needed for a comparable metal part. If your carbon part or frame has been crashed, we strongly urge you to have it assessed by your local Trek dealer as they are equipped to look for damage. Carbon fiber will not dent like metal but will crack which may lead to failure. We do offer a Crash Replacement/Carbon Care program via our dealer network for carbon frames up to five years old which gives a rider a credit toward a new frame/part. To take advantage of this program contact your local Trek retailer. Which raises another important point - if you buy a carbon frame check the manufacturer's crash replacement policy. Again, an honest and competent LBS guy will talk you through this when you buy. But again I really don't see the point of a carbon hybrid. I can understand the intuitive appeal of riding a bike a little bit more "like Lance's"... but the reality is that carbon fibre is as helpful to a hybrid as a spoiler is to a soap box racer. If you want to spend more on your bike I'd suggest a cromolly frame for toughness, disc brakes, and premium tyres.

[QUOTE=Saddle Up;9655720]Dude your absoluely right!. Carbon fibre has no real benefit as a material for a bike frame. It's a scam that is being played out everyday all over the world in every bike shop. We even have top level racers, teams and managers fooled. They should really still be riding cro mo bikes that flex beacause as you say it's desireable. Just ask Keith. Ha ha got you fools hand over your money, it's all about the money. Cha ching! Was that the sound of the cash register taking another fool's money? Dude your ruining it for all of us greedy bike shop employees, we're getting rich behond our wildest dreams selling carbon fibre bikes. If I sell enough carbon bikes this month maybe I'll have enough dough saved up to buy that custom steel frame I've always wanted.

Well, this thread's already effectively been hijacked, so might as well jump in: classic case of not understanding another's (Meanwhile's) argument. M's tone is at times a little harsh, but I can't see anywhere the claim that 'carbon fibre has no real benefit as a material for a bike frame ...' etc. Of course it does, for a pro-level cyclist (road or mtb): a frame can be made extremely light AND extremely stiff (and extremely expensive:D) AND (where applicable) extremely aerodynamic.
Carbon also, allegedly, 'absorbs road noise' slightly more effectively than steel or aluminum. Maybe, but I can't for the life of me see how any such advantage wouldn't be swamped by tire choice/pressure, saddle, bar tape or grips, heck -- even the chamois in your shorts. Never 'felt' this alleged difference meself; seems to me it ranks right up there with "laterally stiff/vertically compliant":)

man that pic is painful to look at!

If it makes you feel better, the rider wasn't hurt beyond some road rash - possibly because the accident happened under such non-extreme circumstances. The most alarming thing was this was a previously un-crashed bike - it's possible that it had received a shock in transit, assembly or a theft attempt that caused delamination went it the pot hole. Or might just have been a manufacturing failure.

But seriously, for anyone who has any doubts here - check on the road forum: carbon fibre frames aren't suicide machines but they do need treating with extra respect. And this applies to components too - especially bars, stems and forks.

Which means -

- Check the replacement policy that comes with the bike

- Have the bike inspected* after even a minor crash and be ready to replace parts as needed

- Think very carefully when buying a used CF bike or bike with CF steerer parts. You don't know what the bike has been through and you won't get the benefit of a cheap frame replacement.

For me, carbon just isn't worth the effort except on a bike I'm not going to race. Ymmv, but at least know the facts when you walk into the bike store, otherwise you're at the mercy of the dishonest and the incompetent.

*A lot of bike stores aren't competent to do this. If you must buy a carbon hybrid then buy at the place the local racers use. This way the staff might know how to inspect a CF frame properly. Yes, they will probably will patronize you. Sorry.

Carbon also, allegedly, 'absorbs road noise' slightly more effectively than steel or aluminum. Maybe, but I can't for the life of me see how any such advantage wouldn't be swamped by tire choice/pressure, saddle, bar tape or grips, heck -- even the chamois in your shorts. Never 'felt' this alleged difference meself; seems to me it ranks right up there with "laterally stiff/vertically compliant":)

I'm sure that bikes like the Spec' Roubaix do have riding characteristics that benefit a racer doing high mileage on skinny tyres and in need of every last speed edge he can get, to make his hundreds of hours of very painful training pay off. Slightly.

"Slightly" counts a lot in racing - because a slight lead is still a lead. Paying 100% more to get a 1% advantage is what high end racing hardware is about.

Doesn't really make sense for a hybrid though. Even if you assume that a cheap CF frame does the properties of a more expensive one. Imo. Ymmv.

M's tone is at times a little harsh...
No, actually, it's rude and completely unnecessary.

Q2 is a step above Trek 7.5 in terms of components. If they're both the same price, the Q2 is a better deal. Keep in mind the Q2 has road gearing while the 7.5 has MTB gearing. If you're going to climb a lot of hills you may want to go with the Trek or step down to the Q3 if you like the Cannondale better. 7.5 competes with the Q3, not the Q2. Hope this helps.

Excellent points, ***but*** your LBS should be able to change the rear cassette and/or chain rings on either bike, which will totally alter the gearing. This will cost very little or might even be free.

Also - are you sure the two bikes have different gearing? This is a property of the chain rings and cassettes fitted, not whether the hw comes from road bike or MTB ranges.

No, actually, it's rude and completely unnecessary.

Actually, its quite necessary. Also, his attitude was not all that harsh.

He's trying to drive home a point that few people seem to understand. The advantages of Carbon Fiber just don't make sense for a quality, reliable transportation bike when weighed against the disadvantages.

(He also drives home a great point about the incompetency of many bike store employees)

Edit: removed post as my comments, although correct, were rude. My apologies.

Take your argument to a separate thread - stick to the OP.

Was someone riding that bike when it did that?!!?

Was someone riding that bike when it did that?!!?

Yes. Not very hard either! A damaged CF bike can look fine - then PLING! The same can happen to any carbon components. It's a pity, because CF's durability if it isn't crashed is excellent.

The increasing use of CF in bikes without matching customer education is bloody annoying - racers can be assumed to be capable of taking care of themselves but "civilians" should be told what they are buying and how to use it safely. Oh, it's not a huge risk - but it's still bloody unfair.

Can you please only post responses to the question which originated this thread. If you wish to discuss anything else, please do so elsewhere. The person who started this thread is not interested in your issues.

I have been conducting a survey of people I see who crashed or fell off their new aluminum-framed bikes. They had all grown up riding on steel-frames. They didn't know that they should start slowly when switching to aluminum as it's a different sort of ride. As one fellow summed it up - "It's much less forgiving."

I asked these folks if the bike-shop that sold them these bikes had given them any sort of warning about the difference. The answer was 'No' across the board. I dread to think of someone buying a carbon-framed bike and not be told anything about it.

Can you please only post responses to the question which originated this thread. If you wish to discuss anything else, please do so elsewhere. The person who started this thread is not interested in your issues.

Talking about yourself in the third person is somewhat bizarre. But all the same:

What you should have learned from this thread is the key lesson: when two bikes are hard to choose between then buy from the better bike store.

Any mid range hybrid (except a few very rare dogs) will be ok. The store, otoh, will do the final assembly, and a lot of stores aren't ok. Bearings go missing, parts are tightened by feel instead of using a torque wrench and checking against a spec sheet, assembly paste isn't used on the pedals. Buy from a store that offers a free tune up and is close enough for you to use it. If there isn't a store close enough for you to try the Q2(?) and the 7.5 felt good when you rode it and the store is a good one, then buy the 7.5.

Maybe think a little about changing the cassette, saddle, tyres, pedals and grips to get the bike exactly right before you do - it's cheaper to do these things now than later. You should also be able to negotiate a discount on a rack or fenders or lights.

A quick trick for recognizing a good store: ask if the store builds custom wheels. As in from scratch. You don't need them, not nearly, but the odds are that any store that does this is much better than average.

PS Google can't find a "Cannondale Q2". If you really need other people's opinions on specifics, you might want to link to the manufacturer's webpage for the bike. You should probably also say how you want to use the bike, what type of rider you are, etc. Eg a heavy rider riding on hills in the wet has more need of disc brakes. Feel free to use the third person if it helps.

Excellent points, ***but*** your LBS should be able to change the rear cassette and/or chain rings on either bike, which will totally alter the gearing. This will cost very little or might even be free.

Also - are you sure the two bikes have different gearing? This is a property of the chain rings and cassettes fitted, not whether the hw comes from road bike or MTB ranges.

Here are the specs:

7.5 FX
Shimano M443 Octalink 48/36/26
SRAM PG950 11-26, 9 speed

Quick 2
FSA Omega MegaExo Triple, 30/39/50
SRAM PG-950, 11-26

Quick 3
Shimano FC-M443-8L, 26/36/48
SRAM PG-950, 11-26

Here are the specs:

7.5 FX
Shimano M443 Octalink 48/36/26
SRAM PG950 11-26, 9 speed

Quick 2
FSA Omega MegaExo Triple, 30/39/50
SRAM PG-950, 11-26

Quick 3
Shimano FC-M443-8L, 26/36/48
SRAM PG-950, 11-26

Well, the top is virtually the same, but Q3 (the OP should have given the complete bike name rather than complaining at the lack of responses, hmm?) and 7.5 have about 12% more climbing grunt. I'd doubt anyone would really notice a difference.

Can you please only post responses to the question which originated this thread. If you wish to discuss anything else, please do so elsewhere. The person who started this thread is not interested in your issues.

Just a nOOb here. But for Og's sake how the heck is anyone supposed to get any relevant info as pertains to their OP if it turns into a free-for-all, totally irrelevant to the original query? Which, BTW, is the reason I opened this thread to begin with as I am also interested in the Quick 2/3 vs the Trek 5/6.

Many thanx to the couple of posters that addressed the topic, but would it be possible to stay on track and get more input?

ETA-In case it wasn't crystal clear, I was simply elucidating beyond a mere "this" to the quoted post.