jeneralist 

As many folks here know, I've been thinging about getting a different bike when the weather gets warmer. Not that there's anything horribly wrong with my current bike (Cannondale Adventure 400) -- but if we were all satisfied with what we already had that worked mostly well enough, American capitalism would collapse in a period of months.

As I understand it, the main "categories" of bikes these days are:

• road bikes -- light weight, skinny little tires, plenty of go-fast but not much comfort.
• mountain bikes -- good for off-road or going straight up a hill. Big, knobby tires.
• fixies -- I had one when I was 5. These days they don't have banana saddles.
• urban/comfort/commuter -- the lines between these classes is blurry, at least to me. Made to handle potholes; not for going too fast or too far. Usually upright-ish riding posture.
• cyclocross -- the go-fast of a road bike, mix in light weight (because you spend time carrying the darn thing!). No skinny little tires, though, becuase you'll be riding it in mud and gravel. Rugged.
• touring -- not getting much press these days. Wide range of gears to handle going up hill with lots of stuff in pannier or in tow. Heavier than a road bike, with wider tires. Designed to be comfortable for the long run. Often comes with fenders and racks pre-installed.

Let's compare that against the kind of riding I do:

• commuting back and forth to work on bike paths and urban roads, 7 miles each way;
• long rides (30 miles now, hoping to work toward 50-60 routinely) on weekends;
• longer rides once in a while for fundraisers, etc (eg, planning 180 miles in two days);
• and some touring (GAP/C&O last year; maybe Erie Canal this year)

My current bike has flat bars with bar ends to give me extra hand positions. I haven't tried racer-style handlebars, but I suspect my back wouldn't like them.

So, what don't I like about the bike I have?
Aside from the fact that it doesn't have that "new bike smell" -- it's great for riding to and from work. But when I do the long-distance rides on a weekend, it feels slow. Most of that is, of course, the engine (ie, me). But I'd like a bike that didn't have a front shock.

Looking at possible new bikes, the one feature that made me go oooh! the most wasn't fancy derailleurs, or disc brakes, or carbon, or steel. True confessions: I was looking at the Thorn website because my husband suggested I might be interested in a Rohloff hub. What really caught my eye, though, was that their frames have THREE braze-ons for water bottles! My current bike only has one!

Which, I suppose, puts me firmly in the "tourer, without racks" or "cyclocross made up like a tourer" categories.

Not planning on getting anything until spring (when need/want will coincide with finances, I hope).

Let the suggestions commence! Let's say, $1000? And if I had $1500 instead, what would that do?

(Oh, and current weight is 195 lbs. Should be able to handle fewer than 36 spokes on a wheel.)

(And yes, it is pathetic that what I'm using water-bottle braze-ons to justify a new bike. Ah, well.)

Seattle Forrest

First, you're making some assumptions that are going to be kind of limiting, in the sense that you're writing off stuff that might be good for you. My road bike is a LOT more comfortable than my (heavy!) cyclocross bike. I think the similarity between a CX bike is superficial: the CX bike won't handle as well, isn't as fast, and has different geometry. On the other hand, I've heard people say "They're similar enough that most people can do anything on a CX bike they could on a road bike, but they're different enough that you'll still want a road bike."

Also, I'm about 235 lbs, and have 20 spokes on the front wheel and 24 on the back. You can absolutely do with fewer than 36 spokes per wheel, although you'll want to make sure you get strong wheels, and that you have them retensioned after you put several hundred miles on them.

Drop handlebars might actually be easier on your back, especially if you use a stem that lets you rise them up out of the racing position. To each his or her own, but you should at least give them a try, like if you can borrow someone else's bike. The thing is, on a long ride, they give you a lot more hand positions, letting you stretch out and move around. Most people hate them the first time they ride drop bars, but pretty soon they learn that they don't have to hold themselves up, that they can sort of stretch out over them instead. I dunno, this is highly personal, and if you really want flat bars, you'll wind up spending less in the end this way.

I think you'd be best off either with a non-racing road bike ( ie one that can have things attached to it easily ), or a CX bike done up for touring.

jeneralist 

OK -- any recommendations as to a what a "non-racing road bike" might be, in terms of brands? Are you thinking of the "relaxed geometry" that I've been hearing a bit about?

exile

For your distance almost any bike will do. However, what issues you are incurring with your current bike is normal. There is a simple mathematical equation that solves your dilemma; (N+1). Simply put, N equals the number of bikes you currently have added to the number of bikes you should have.

Looking at your list of riding you currently do and would like to do you are looking more along the lines of touring, sports touring, cyclocross, and/or road bikes. Or in other words, bikes with drop bars. Don't be intimated because as with anything, you have to get used to them. Or if you prefer, you may look into getting trekking bars. The benefits or trekking bars and drop bars are the multiple hand positions.

Have you made any adjustments to your current bike jeneralist such as changing seatpost or fork, adding clipless pedals or toe straps, or looking into racks or changing your tires to add the the functionality of your bike?

Seattle Forrest

No idea. I think a lot of bike makers will have some "non-racing" ones, and also racing ones that won't do. I'd go to a few bike shops, look around, and see what appeals to you. Since you're not thinking of getting a new bike for a while, now is the perfect time to be thinking about it, and looking at lots of different options.

Well, no, but that might be a good idea, too.

Road bikes tend to have narrow forks and rear triangles, which means they don't have clearance for very wide tires. A lot of the ones meant for racing are limited to something like 25 or 28 mm. This might be perfectly fine - you're talking about MUPs and roads, where skinny tires make you faster. But it might not. Fat tires are more comfy, like shock absorbers, better in gravel, and might be better for touring. Also, it's pretty common not to have anything to mount racks, fenders, and the like to. My Cervelo RS accepts two bottle cages, and whatever I'd like to clip to the handlebars. There are non-racing road bikes that will let you mount stuff easily, but again, I'm not sure which ones.

"Relaxed geometry" basically means the handlebars come raised up a lot, so that you don't have to bend down as much. That might be a very good thing, but don't expect that all bikes in this category are going to be ready for touring.

antimike

All of these have drop (racerish) type handlebars

Giant - Defy (mens) - Avail (womens)
Specialized - Carbon fibre: Roubaix (mens) - Ruby (womens) and Aluminum: Secteur (mens) - Dolce (womens)
Felt - Z (mens) and Zw (womens) series
Fuji - Newest (don't know the ladies variety).

Like posts prior to this one, it is true that most bikes have a relaxed geometry line of rides, they may actually be under "endurance" models (long comfort rides).

Best bet is to go to your LBS and take a look at what they have and give it a test ride. You might be surprised what your back can take!

Hope this helps!

jeneralist 

Have not changed fork; if I don't wind up getting N+1, I suspect I may get a new fork.
Added bar ends for extra hand positions.
Tried toe straps, hated them, moved onto SPDs.
Have installed front and rear fenders, and fenders, for my C&O/GAP ride in September; took off the front rack when I got home.
Moved from 700c by 37 tires to 32s.

This is definitely an N+1 daydream. I'll keep my current bike for commuting; after all, I have it because the last bike I used for commuting (and everything else) got stolen.

exile

Sorry to hear about your other bike being stolen. And they say Philly is the "City of Brotherly Love".

It sounds like you outfitted the bike to your needs and still find that it has its limitations. That is the basis of the n+1 equation. You can only do so much before things like frame, geometry, and/or components become prohibitive to what you want to do.

Another poster passed this bit of wisdom on to me a while ago. Your first bike is your learning bike. The second bike is the culmination of what you learned from your first bike. In your case for instance you want additional braze ons. You also want to go faster and potentially go on a tour.

From what I gathered from your posts it sounds like you are on the right track as far as looking towards Touring or cyclocross bikes. Most touring bikes that I know of have 3 braze on mounts for water bottles. Surly LHT, Cannondale T2, Trek 520, etc., all come to mind. As I posted before I purchased my LHT from Trophy Bikes in Philly and I am very happy with their service and patience when dealing with me.

You have time so be patient. Look around at different shops and check out different bikes you see on the street. If you see something you like ask the owner about it. A gentlemen who worked at a bike coop in Ithaca was gracious enough to let me test ride his CrossCheck when I was up there shopping around.

XR2

I am dreaming of a new ride as well. I'm going to go custom so saving up the pennies is the order of the day. Probably going to go the randonneur route. I'm in lust with this bike however. 'Taint cheap though. I have time but big tires,somewhat speedy geometry,disc brakes,dyno hub/lighting and fenders are a must no matter who makes it. Lifetime bike.

Wogster

A lot of people think of bicycles like they do cars, in that you need a car that can do everything, bicycles are actually more like tools, so you need to think of bicycles like hammers or screw drivers, in that you need to correct tool for the job. You have 2 different jobs, so you really need two different kinds of bikes. For the commuting your Cannondale is probably good enough, maybe slap on some fenders and a rack, done. While the engine has some to do with slow bicycles, it's not the only factor, urban bikes tend to be intended for slow recreation, they can make good to excellent bikes for commuting, they are not intended as distance bikes or as fast bikes.

For long rides and tours, you need a different kind of bicycle, essentially a road touring bike. They can appear very similar to a road racing bike, but are different, typically the frames will accommodate wider tires, will have mounting points for fenders and racks, are designed for heavier loads and often will have the bars either equal to or slightly higher then the saddle. They often have triple rings, a wide gearing range and canti-brakes. Modern examples are the Surly LHT and the Trek 520. Both should come in under $1500.

Don't be so quick to discount drop bars, the key though with drop bars, is to have them the right height, for touring it's common to have them at 1970's height, that is somewhere between 2" above and 2" below the saddle. It's actually quite common to use the brake hoods as a position for most riding and only use the drops when you need some extra power. From the brake hoods, you can grab the brakes, if you need more braking power you can move your thumb down and grab them more solidly.

Seattle Forrest

My first bike with drop handlebars had cross brakes ( aka cyclocross brakes aka interrupter brakes but not the same thing as suicide levers ), which helped me get used to it at my own pace. This let me ride on the tops of the bars, as if I were on a mountain bike with narrower handlebars.





With these, I would lean forward for a moment to shift, then go back to a more upright position. To climb a hill, I'd get out on the brake hoods, and if there was a head wind, I could go down into the drops, but I could hang out like I was on a stool, and still be able to stop if something jumped out in front of me.

It's rare to see them come with a bike ( mine was a Novara Element ), but I don't think it would cost all that much to add them to another bike that was good for you anyway. The Surly LHT Wogsterca mentioned is maybe worth a look with that in mind.

lucienrau

As Exile said, your first bike is your learning bike.

Some other brands to look at are Surly, Jamis, Salsa and Raleigh. I started short distances then started longer distances and have started looking at doing touring in the coming year. When I started, the flat bar that came with my bike hurt my wrists. Looked around and set up an upright, swept back commuter setup on my hybrid (VO tourist bars and a good WTB saddle.) It was much much better.

I travel mostly by bike and once I started going longer distances (10+ miles) I started having back and wrist problems from the upright seating position, so I looked at quite a few different options for a bike with drop bars and what won was a salsa Vaya, but there are quite a few options including the Surly LHT, Jamis Aurora and a few of the Raleighs that are all steel frames, can take big tires and are built around touring, so they are comfortable, can haul stuff and can be stripped down to go fast enough for me. Others swear by aluminum, ride as many different bikes as you can to find out what you like.

I found touring bikes more comfortable and less 'heavy' than cyclocross bikes. When I started looking three LBS said, get a CX bike, it'll do what you want. I didn't like how any of them felt. I had been talked into a bad bike before by a different LBS so I was very wary of getting something that didn't feel right. I wasn't a huge fan of how road bikes felt for the type of riding I do either. It wasn't till the one good bike shop in my area put me on a Jamis aurora in my size that I had a good direction for what would feel right. I ended up with the Salsa since I go on some fire roads and light single track so I looked more at the "adventure touring" segment. If you do end up with a Cyclocross bike, the Surly Crosscheck has more options for setups than most.

If regular drop bas bother you after having them set up at or above seat hight (which is much more comfortable than below YMMV), you might try randonneur bars or mountain drop bars as both give a few more angles than straight drop bars. The thing is, try different setups out to see what works and in what situations. A handlebar switch may help you to figure out what direction you want to go in (it's relatively easy to flip a handlebar to get a few quick options.) I tried out four different setups on my trek to help me figure out what I really wanted. Of course, the new bike is so comfortable that I don't ever want to ride the hybrid and now want another bike to replace it (N+1 indeed.)

Rhodabike

There are bikes in between road and touring that aren't cyclocross bikes. Many have eyelets for racks and fenders and they tend to be less expensive than either pure road or pure touring bikes.
Some examples: Cannondale Synapse Alloy, Giant Avail 1 and Avail 2, Opus Cantate and Sibelius, Trek 1.1 and 1.2, Trek Lexa, Surley Pacer, Soma ES (Extra Smooth), Jamis Quest ... and probably a lot more.
The Trek Lexa, Giant Avail, and Opus Cantate/Sibelius models are women-specific, but the geometry isn't a lot different from equivalent bikes in the men's lines - mainly shorter stems and narrower handlebars.
Some of these bikes will take tires up to 28c with fenders. These are what we used to call "sport touring". Now they are called "Adventure bikes" in North America and "Cyclo Sportive" in the U.K. and Europe.
Just thought of something: you don't say how tall you are. Smaller touring or sport touring bikes often don't come with extra water bottle eyelets because there simply isn't room. You could always get one of those back of the saddle bottle carriers that triathletes use.

CliftonGK1

Ranodonneurring bikes would be good to look at. When I hear "sport touring" I think rando. Slightly less twitchy than racing road geometry, and not such an aggressive, flat-backed position. The ability to fit full fenders and 28mm tires, or 32mm without (sometimes even 35mm.
The Salsa Casseroll is a great example.

Nightshade

I will strongly suggest that you visit a wonderful blog written by a lady for ladies that will show you the wonders of European style bicycles designed for transportation in style and grace unknown in America. https://lovelybike.blogspot.com/

I visit there often since I really do like European (or "Dutch" as some here call them) style of bicycle. I think that if you read her blog you may get a better sense of what is out there that is not common in the U.S. but are starting to be imported to the U. S. .

Rhodabike

The original poster wants to do rides in the 50-60 mile range, working up to weekend charity rides of 180 miles total. In theory you could do that on a heavy Dutch style tank, in reality it would be a very long and arduous experience. Why work harder than you need to? For those distances you want light weight, lots of gears, and a handlebar that gives you lots of hand positions. Trust me on this, I've done my share of 120 k/75 mile day rides, as well as the odd century ride (100 miles).
Distances are short in Europe, few commutes are longer than 5 or 6 kilometers (3-4 miles. Towns tend to be no more than 10 miles/16 k apart. One of my brothers is working in Southern Bavaria right now, the rides he does with the local touring club are in the 20-30 mile range. When he rides organized tours around Edmonton/St Albert where he lives, that's the very shortest ride they do.

Rhodabike

Not many manufacturers actually call their sportive bikes "Randonneuring bikes", but yes, that's what they'd be best at. Masi has a model called the Specialle Randonneur, but this year's version seems to be very much a touring bike. Very nice bike though. I'm in the daydreaming process right now as well, and it's on my short list.
The Salsa Casseroll is a gorgeous bike. I'd love to have one, but the nearest dealer is thousands of miles away. Sigh.

jgjulio

+1 On these inline brakes. I have them on all my road bikes. They are easy to install and inexpensive. Specialized has them and Performance has them as well. I strongly recommend them.

CliftonGK1

Salsa, like Surly, is a QBP brand. Any shop that orders from QBP can get one for you.

Nightshade

Instead of trying to take issue ,and down play, with my post what say we let the OP read my offering and decide for herself if the info I offered is helpful.

cyclist2000

I think that a sport touring bike would work well for your needs. I like the gunnar grand tour frame. Since you haven't stated a cross country tour but stated GAP, C&O and Erie Canal, and you felt that your current bike is does not feel fast enough, I think a touring bike with a road triple crankset and 12-28 rear cassette would give the high gearing on the top end and low enough gearing for your tours.

I don't have a gunnar grand tour yet but that or a waterford sports touring frame is in my future.


I just looked up your cannondale adventure 400 and any touring bike will feel much faster.

Right now i have a Jamis Aurora Elite as my touring bike and that may fit your needs but I don't suggest it since I find it a bit sluggish in comparison with my road bikes. The chainrings are 50-39-30, tires are 32mm wide, this all adds to the sluggish feeling in comparison to my road bikes.

The Masi Speciale Randonneur looks like a nice bike but it has downtube shifters. Going to downtube shifters might be awkward feeling, I prefer brifters, a lot of tourers favor the bar end shifters.

This is the right time to shop for last years model at a discounted price.

CliftonGK1

The right tires will get rid of that sluggish feeling. I roll 32mm Pasela TG folders and they're every bit as comfortable and fast as any 25mm tire I've used.

Downtube shifters are fine if you're not using a tight gear cluster and/or a wide range of gears. I find they work best on old 12 and 14spd systems (6/7spd cassettes) where you're not shifting as often because the tooth differences aren't just 1-tooth jumps like with today's 9 and 10spd cassettes

jeneralist 

For my morning commute (7 miles/12km each way), or trips in my neighborhood, a Dutch would be great. The bike path to downtown is wonderfully flat. But I could like something lighter with a wider gearing range for my new bike.

That said, I'd love to find a wider range of bikes sold in the US sold with trekking bars.

Rhodabike

Since she already has a bike - a Cannondale Adventure 4 - that is upright and hefty, I'm guessing that she doesn't want to take it on very long road rides or she wouldn't be asking for suggestions.
I've looked at the blog that you suggested. The author, like a lot of young people who've recently discovered cycling and gone "vintage", has some highly romantic and very erroneous ideas. These include:
- Lugged frames are always higher quality than welded. Nope, every cheap crappy mass-produced 70s ten speed was lugged. (I should know, I had one back in high school.) Older chromo steels had to be lugged because they lost strength if they were welded. Modern chromo such as Reynolds 725 or Tange Prestige is welded because it can be. The weld point actually becomes stronger than the rest of the tube.
- Old heavy bikes were made heavy deliberately for stability. No, it was because they were the cheap low-end bikes of their time. The most stable bike I ever had was a sport tourer weighing 24 pounds. Not super light, but much lighter than any 50 pound tank. Stability is from design, not from weight.
The only people who ride those massive steel Oma and Opa tanks in the Netherlands (did I mention that Holland is as flat as a kipper?) are very young fit people who don't want to worry about bike theft.

Nightshade

Whatever