Originally Posted by Digital Gee
After my first metric century the other day, I've begun doing some thinking about my next bike. I have two questions:
1. Is there some kind of rule of thumb that would compare riding a knobby-tired low-end MTB on the street with a better bike equipped with thinner tires? In other words, I went a particular distance (in this case, 62 miles) on my Trek 3900. Had I been on, for instance, a Trek 7500 FX (or something similar) would it be reasonable to expect that I could have gone 10% further on the same effort? 20%? More? (In other words, would a better bike -- more appropriate bike -- make a Century more feasible?)
2. My next bike will probably be a sub-$1000 hybrid (I like flatbars). Probably can't buy until Spring unless the deals are just completely irresistable. I know there's a ton of threads on this in the forum, but I'm asking particularly from the 50+ group -- any suggestions, recommendations, etc. as to which bike?
Here's my (minority) opinion, from someone who presently has 7 bikes and has ridden everything, road, cyclocross, touring, mountain, fixed-gear, folding, shaft-drive, old and new. I have two $1000+ Bianchis and a Trek 7000 mountain bike, but I always seem to gravitate to my 2 1980's Centurions, one a fixed gear (that I built up), the other a touring bike. The former cost me $50, the latter $15 (on sale!). Both have drop bars, in-line brake levers and nice seats. I enjoy both Centurions and never worry about them getting stolen (I don't even lock either up when I bike to breakfast!). I keep up with folks my age (64) on my old bikes and can fix every part on them. Works for me, anyway.
Jim