Clyde1820

I, too, appreciate the "dual sport" category of bike. The category is a bit of a hybrid/cross, with a suspension fork, and either MTB or road components (depending on trim level). I don't much like the low-end of such shocks, as there's definitely a difference in feel between them and the high-trim level of shock. (Ie, the Trek DS 8.2 versus the 8.6.)



I find that above 38-40 width, I can begin to tell the drag on the bike. Not all tires will do this, assuming a decent center tread for speedier travel. Might go as high as x42, myself, but that's about it.


Have an older balloon tire bike myself, right now. Big boost in comfort, but a huge penalty in how ponderous the beast can be.



Hm. Hadn't considered a "staggered" tire approach. My current tires (26x1.9" balloon) on the beater bike like the rear pumped up +5psi over the fronts, same model/size of tire. Down to a 1.5" front would certainly boost the handling quickness, on this thing.

Daddy Wags

A move up from the Trek FX 7.3 up to the FX 7.4 will get you the carbon fork while still retaining the triple crank and stronger wheels which the 7.5 loses.

NormanF

The country bike is well worth considering. Its the mating of the road bike X touring bike X cyclocross bike to create a bike that is a master of all trades and none.

My Schwinn Super Sport DBX, the Salsa Vaya, Soma Saga, Novara Divano, Surly Ogre, Trek Crossrip and the Raleigh Clubman/Townsend are all example of bikes that have disk brakes, a more upright seating position, a relaxed frame geometry both for very stable handling under load and for increased stand over clearance, will accept fenders, take fatter tires and have the ability to go on fire roads and still rule the pavement.

All rounder bicycles are no longer a niche market and they make superb commuter bikes due to their design. They resemble the road sports touring bikes of the 1980s but they are so much more than that thanks to what they can do. If you have to have only ONE bike, the country bike should be at the top of your list.

Clyde1820

I love the Trek CrossRip bike (frame, lightness). It's just a bit tall for me, in the proper size. And so, I'm evaluating a range of bikes and keep coming back to this one for pure spirited, athletic joy of riding. Downside is, it has no suspension shock, is perhaps a bit firmer/quicker than I'd prefer. Could easily live with it, that is if I can deal with the tall standover height and "bigger" bike feel. Mulling.


The Raleigh Port Townsend and Sojourn bikes are both interesting, but too darned tall for me. Otherwise, I'd be seriously considering them. Reynolds 520 or 631 CrMo frame, CrMo forks, drop bars, a more-relaxed touring geometry. Tall for me, even at the 50-53cm frame size. The geometry's nice, otherwise.

The Raleigh Clubman (2013) at 53cm is above my max standover height, and has drop bars. Seems too big, though I haven't yet seen one of these.

Nice possibilities, though, given the frames.


The Soma Saga looks nice. Great geometry, Tange Prestige CrMo heat-treated tubes, might work in 52cm, and has either 700 or 26in wheel choice. Interesting. Hadn't considered Soma. Drop bars, though. But if the sizing and fit is right ... Sort of reminds me of the Robert Beckman Sakkit 26 a friend of mine had, back when.



So many interesting possibilities. Thanks for the options, Norm.

Clyde1820

It is at the top of the list, this basic format. Great combination, absolutely. Within size, price constraints. (Ah, it's fun gettin' older.)

NormanF

I got mine in a medium frame and the only changes I had to make was install a mustache bar and raise the stem, install a mega-range cassette, install a Brooks Flyer saddle, install a rear rack, install a headlamp, SKS black fenders and some 35 mm Michelin City tires. My Schwinn Super Sport DBX has been a capable all-round bike. It will never be fast but I can go practically anywhere with it. I have no regrets about buying it.

ColonelSanders

Hi Daddy Wags,
Whilst I would be concerned about going from a 32 spoke wheel to a 24 spoke wheel, does it follow that the 32 spoke wheel is either definitely stronger than the 24 spoke one, or stronger by an amount that would matter?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question, but on the surface think it ridiculous to have weaker wheels on the more expensive bike in the same family of bikes.

Daddy Wags

Going from a 32 spoke wheel to a 24 spoke wheel is a concern for me because I am 230 lbs and would be carrying weight at times on a bike rack. A smaller person need not be concerned. There is a reason touring bikes come with 36 spoke wheels and light touring bikes with 32 spoke wheels.

DorkDisk

The 24 spoke wheel is most probably lighter and more aerodynamic and just as strong for a light rider. Higher end gear tend to be oriented towards lighter cyclists. For someone like me, for example - that 24 spoke wheel is probably strong enough. I have a pair of ten year old, 28 spoke radial lace front, and 32 spoke raidal / one cross that weigh in at about 1400g I use offroad that is still true and round. A 200lb rider would have killed them years ago. Many people want light wheels , especially at the higher end

Clyde1820

In this next bike, I would strongly prefer 36H+, double-walled, strong rims.

Have done 40H rims, due to size/weight/load and terrain issues. There are many minor potholes and road imperfections around here, beyond the simple weight concerns. 36H is really a minimum, for me, unless the wheels are known for a fact to be really overbuilt.

Mattyb13

Specialized Crosstrail Comp or Pro Disc. Amazing bikes for what you are looking for.

Clyde1820

Thanks.

Have been considering the CrossTrail and the Ariel (women's sized version). Both seem roughly similar to the Trek DS or Neko in many respects.

One thing I like is the comparative quickness of the Trek DS, as compared to other more-relaxed commuting/city bike arrangements such as the Jamis Commuter, Breezer Uptown or similar. Much lighter, more nimble, with better acceleration and stopping. Plus, the ride quality improvements help my older bones, what with the mild suspension. Can go with better frames/forks, but am trying to keep the prices down.


BTW, if anyone hears of an ad for a Trek DS 8.6 in 17.5" sizing, that's in decent shape for under $500, let me know.

ColonelSanders

It is interesting that you mention the quickness of the Trek DS.

I've noticed that people often comment on how quick the bikes in the Trek DS line are, more so than people seem to mention the other mountain bike inspired hybrids like the Giant Roam & Specialized Crosstrail.

Now maybe there is nothing to this and it is merely a coincidence that people have mentioned the quickness of the Trek DS line, because I don't think I have yet seen a direct comparison of quickness between the Trek DS & the Giant & Specialized equivalents.

Mattyb13

+1 ColonelSanders. I have test ridden both the DS line and the CrossTrail line. They are comparable. I didn't see or feel a major difference in performance, quality of components of weight per price tier. I went with the Crosstrail largely because it was super comfortable, the look and feel and desired usage I was looking for and I thought it looked better than the Trek. HOWEVER, I think some of the Trek Niko models for women look far nicer than some of the Ariel models for women. Plainly put, the Crosstrail has taken everything I have thrown at it. I commute 13 miles one way to work on it. Mainly bike paths some streets, bumps, quick turns etc. The Crosstrail just loves it. I average about 17.5-19.5 over the course of most of my commutes.

headloss 

All else being equal. Two identical rims and hubs, one with less spokes, is going to be weaker due to less shared surface area. Each individual spoke sees a greater variation in applied forces so fatigue will be concentrated.

Spoke count isn't the only variable though. A deeper rim will be stronger than a shallower one. A double wall double eyelet rim will be stronger than a single eyelet rim, different gauge spokes, different builders, etc. Lots of things to be considered besides just spoke count, not to mention how the spokes interact... overlapping spokes are stronger (two cross, three cross, etc. patterns).

The real benefit to having more spokes, which really isn't debatable and makes the above points moot, is that if you break a spoke on the road, you'll have an easier time adjusting the remaining spokes to achieve an acceptable trueness on which to ride home. So, there's that redundancy thing.

Personally, I prefer higher spoke count wheels for my 200#.

More expensive bikes get lighter wheels, not stronger wheels. You are paying for (perceived) performance and looks, not durability. Look at a radial spoked wheel, it's all about looks.

FLJeepGuy

Another Specialized Crosstrail rider here. When my wife and I were shopping, she seriously considered the Ariel before buying the full-on comfort Specialized Expedition. Like the riders above, I've yet to have a single problem with my Crosstrail Disc. I'm a heavy guy and ride quite a bit and so far, the Crosstrail Disc has been comfortable and bulletproof. Another thing to note, the tires on the Crosstrail will handle a fairly high PSI which greatly improves it's road manners.

If the Ariel fits you, I'd suggest giving it some serious consideration.

John Redcorn

What PSI do you use? Heavy guy here @ 220, getting my crosstrail tomorrow or weds (already updated my forums info lol) I' ve been doing 65psi in my mtb for good pavement riding, I think I should be able to go higher here?

Mattyb13

I run 90 or so PSI in my Crosstrail comp disc. Mainly bumpy bike paths and roads. Some light dirt path. Love this bike. My girl even bought the Crosstrail Elite Disc over the ariel.

FLJeepGuy

I'm 6'/290 here... The bike came with 700x38c tires with a street tread, so they're a good bit narrower (and taller) than my mountain bike. The tires are stamped 75-100 PSI and I normally run between 85 and 90 for road use. I suppose I could go even higher, but that seems to hit a good spot between comfort and rolling resistance for me. I can usually average between 15-20mph when cruising along. I do air down a bit for the light trail riding I do with my kids, but I use my mountain bike for anything more aggressive than that.

Clyde1820

On the current "beater" I have 26x1.9" @ 80psi, F/R.

On the new bike ...

• If 26", I'd prefer 1.5-1.75" @ ~80+ psi.
• If 700c, I'd prefer 700x42 @ ~75-85 psi, depending.

We'll see, once I pull the trigger on a new-to-me ride.

ColonelSanders

Thanks for that info.

What I was wondering with the wheels on the FX7.5 is if they take some of the measures you have mentioned above, so that they actually aren't weaker than the wheels on the FX7.4.

Having said that, it is hard to imagine overcoming such a large loss of spokes and still being as strong as, considering the relatively minor price difference of the bikes.

headloss 

No clue, since a bontrager built wheel for a mass produced bike is all unlabeled or proprietary parts... at the very least, I'd have to have one of each wheel in front of me to take measurements and see if there are any differences or not. Aside from spoke count, they aren't exactly forth coming... and really, that makes sense; anyone who really cares about knowing all the itty bits of info about a wheel are going to cast aside the stock wheels and replace them with something better anyways.

Going up the FX line, speaking in general and not necessarily about wheels, I think there is a point of diminishing returns on quality as a function of cost. Marketing creates perception of higher quality and some people are willing to dig deep for that. I'm sure that with every next level, there are some marginal improvements across the board but they become less important (unless the parts selection just happen to coincide with what someone personally wants). I'm sure when they designed the higher level models, the designers had an idea of who they were marketing it too... which in this case, happens to be someone who isn't concerned about stronger/heavier wheels. But, anyways, it is possible that the wheels aren't weaker (or not enough so to matter in real world practice); who knows?

What gets me is the kind of weight we are dealing with here. The average proprietary wheel from Mavic, Fulcrum, Shimano, or whatever will have 20 or 21 spokes in the back. There are definitely benefits to a 32 spoke wheel and I'd think the only downside to the higher spoke count is weight and appearance. Appearance isn't quantifiable but weight is. On average a spoke weighs about 5 grams. SO, we are talking a difference of maybe 12 spokes on the "lighter" wheels. That's roughly 60 grams of savings per wheel... to some people, that's important. Personally, I'd be laughing at the people who thought this was a reasonable investment... I'm not laughing though, because a large number of wheels are being built this way because that's what people want. That's a lot of wheels that I won't use. Different strokes.

jsdavis

I have a Muirwoods 29er. That thing is a freaking beastly commuter. My only gripe is that the rear brake is outside the triangle. And yes, those wheels are hefty. The 29er version will take 55mm Schwalbe Big Apples if you want, but will happily take fenders with the 42mm tires too. The down side to the loooong fork is that mounting a fender gets all weird.

redcon1

I shopped a lot of hybrids for a similar bike you are looking for-- before looking at my daughters tuition and room/board bills, upon which I cut my budget roughly in third and purchased my Focus Arriba.
I was looking at the Planet Urban series, which I'm not sure the standover meets your reqs and doesn't have a suspension or carbon fork, but in my mind would fit your needs nicely.

Focus - Bikes | 2014: Urban 2.0 |

Coming from a MTB background, I can't agree that the cheap suspension forks found on these bikes are NOT heavy junk. And I rode a bunch, albeit a few years ago now.
What good is a heavy, poorly damped, low travel fork when you're running 35-40mm tires anyway? All the suspension you need is in the rubber, I say. JMHO.

Clyde1820

Have looked at a couple of the Focus bikes. One dealer in the area, but without a lot of inventory, so not much to look at, at the moment.

Can't say what the standover height is, on the Planet Urban bike. Focus doesn't seem to list the data. Can't do greater than 27.5" or so. Any taller gets into a painful zone for me. Less is better (ie, MIXTE frames, step-thru geometries).


Agreed, that much of the "affordable" end of the spectrum almost exclusively puts on inferior shocks, at least from a performance standpoint.

My only real goal of a suspended front end is ride quality. I can do a rigid fork, no problems with that. But I have a preference for the improved ride quality imparted by a reasonable shock that can suck up minor road imperfections. Won't ever be used in a MTB situation, nor really anything worse than a hard-packed trail in a bit of the wet, possibly a light logging/service trail or forest road. Nothing with drops, big bumps, chuckholes or similar. 25yrs ago, sure. But never again.

So, for ride quality purposes, a suspension fork might suit. One thing I am considering is the allowance in the given frame for swap of a "proper" (quality) shock at some point down the line. Some frames negate this possibility, due to proprietary changes they make on that platform. Most seem sensible about it, though, allowing SunTour, RockShox and others to fit, so long as the right choice is made. I have no problems with this, knowing I might well want to upgrade the shock in a couple years to something better.

Primary criteria: geometry; fit; basic ability to accommodate features, upgrades that I want (or might want later). Would add fenders, wider tires, a different seat post and seat, different bars and grips, possibly upgrading derailleurs, hubs, shock in future as needed. Sure, going after all of it now would ultimately be lower cost, but the budget doesn't allow for that. So, a decent platform is fine, so long as it doesn't limit some choices later.