Hybrid Bicycles - My test rides & some follow-up questions.

I'm 42, haven't been on a bike in 30 years, and want to start commuting (in the city - Seattle) and riding bike paths (maybe a dirt road or two) with my very small, but growing children in the coming years. So I tested a bunch of bikes this past week (selected based on readin these forums plus what the bike store had). GF Mendota, Jamis Coda Elite, Specialized Sirrus Elite, Trek 7.6, Civia Bryant.

I rode each for 15 minutes on the same route which included one medium sized hill. So here's what I learned:

1) Hills are hard (e.g. legs need more muscle). I need a bike that makes hills as easy as possible.
2) Making sure you don't select the small gear in the front with the large gear in the back (or vice versa) is hard, and screws you up if you do.
3) No way on drop handlebars (Bryant). City street riding needs flat bars with hands firmly on/close to brakes.
4) Bikes need rear view mirrors
5) Cars are much more scary on a bike than when you're in a car.
6) Seattle streets are in need of major repair.
7) Bike salesman while generally helpful can't help you too much more than the internet.
8) I like the ergonomic/flatish handlebar grips. I like the bar ends too.
9) I like disc brakes, but it must be all in my head why (couldn't tell a difference). Are there disadvantages to the "mini-V" brakes on the Sirrus or the rim brakes on the Trek?
10) I rode bikes with different geometries, but couldn't really tell a difference.

As you can see, I didn't learn much about the bikes. I was busy trying not to get splatted, making turn signals, avoiding pot holes, but I think even under more ideal conditions, I wouldn't be able to tell much difference.

So, where to go from here? How do I further narrow down my choices? I'm not convinced another ride will do anything for me - I just don't think I have the experience necessary yet to notice differences, much less figure out preferences. Budget really isn't an issue. How do take the next step - color of the bike?

A few "stat" questions that might help me:
1) The Mendota has a much shorter wheelbase than the others in comparable sizes. What's that going to do for me?
2) If I decided one of those 3rd wheel things that you tow behind and kids ride on (looks like 1/2 a bike), would one of these be better/worse for that?
3) Would getting a "bike fit" done prior to purchasing point me to geometry that's better (assuming more riding won't help)?

Thanks in advance for any advice,
Justiss

a shorter wheelbase is designed to be able to handle sharper turns/curves

1) There's only so much you can do about hills. It always takes the same amount of energy to move a particular weight up a certain distance. Lower gears just let you shift the energy from short-term to longer-term energy reserves. Other than that, all you can do is improve muscles, improve endurance, or drop weight.

4) You can buy those. They typically run about $15. Some of them (particularly the Myrricle Mountain, which is one of the best) aren't really compatible with bar-ends, though.

9) In dry weather and when not in other extreme circumstance (really long downhills, for instance), most any brakes will lock your wheels. If you're a fair-weather rider, you don't really need discs.

The advantages of discs mostly come in bad weather and more extreme conditions. Because the rotor isn't as close to the ground as the rim, it doesn't tend to catch as much water, oil, mud, snow, etc. The rotor is drilled out, giving said water, mud, etc. someplace to go other than under the pads during braking. Rotor alignment is largely unaffected by how true your wheel is. Disc brakes are also more tolerant of the high temperatures that can be produced by the long, high-load downhills that people doing bike tours may encounter. All of that combines to give more predictable, reliable braking in bad weather and strenuous conditions.

Aside from that, hydraulic discs in particular give you really nice modulation and control.

The down sides of disc brakes are that they can be a little harder to do maintenance on, and they tend to add a little weight to the bike as compared to rim brakes.

try some road bikes

The lock-on bar grips with wrist rests are comfortable for me. I bought v-brakes - less weight to lug up hills and I can get spares anywhere, and flat bars - replaced with a short stem and a riser bar to bring them closer. MTB gears get you up the hills, slowly but succesfully. Lighter bikes are easier on hills.

Shorter wheelbases make bikes more nimble in town, as do smaller wheels. So there's another debate over 26" rims over 700c.

15 minute test rides only show that the leg length is correct. Most of the major aches develop after two hours. :-)

I spent a week looking at bikes and decided on the spec: light alloy frame, tough 26" wheels for potholes, V-brakes, flat/riser bars and slick-ish urban tyres. I ended up with this, and it is delightfully good. I don't think Scott are doing the 26" wheel version in 2010 though. But there are plenty of similar bikes around.

150649

snafu21 ~ nice bike!

Thank you very much. The credit goes to Scott for their Scott Sub 30 (2009) - the 2010 bikes are a bit less whizzy, although I think the Scott Sportster with front Suspension, is also well regarded. The bike is a blast - a 24lb bundle of silent deadly urban bicycle-ness. Saddle height is level with bars on my bike. Same frame as the Sub 10, and I got it at close-out prices. Because it's er, brown.

For what it's worth, they're described as the Hummer of the urban bike world, and also riders who bought the 26" wheel version for commuting, now say they would prefer the 700c version. Me, I like potholes and kerb jumping, which it does admirably. It's also quick.

And now, back to our original programming.

Shorter wheelbases are also "twitchier", and don't ride quite as smooth. An aluminum bike, with a longer wheelbase, doesn't ride as stiffly, as one that is shorter.