As an older rider (56 y.o. and only small framed @ 63 kilo) I am looking for a new bike which will not rattle the bones too much on the commute to work (16k).

My problem is I have a 25 y.o. steel frame road bike (English Raleigh Pro-am 12) and although quite heavy by today's standards, it is reasonably comfortable to ride.

How hard is the ride in these new $A2,500 to $A3,500 aluminium bikes? (e.g. Trek 1500, Trek 2300). Or should I stick to steel?

Mind you, I am determined to have the speed and thrill of a road bike or touring bike rather than a mountain bike, because I also ride in long cycling events (such as the 210k Round-the-bay-in-a-day ride).

Any advice from those that have made the decision before me?

Also, how effective are carbon forks and carbon seatposts to improve the ride? Or would a good gell seat and padded handlebars do a better job?

The bike sellers are trying to get me to have a steel frame made up with Integra gear, but the price is coming up closer to $A5,000 than $A3,000. Is it worth it?

Would appreciate any advice, especially from older riders who know what I mean by thin bones!

Since your current bike is comfortable I'm not sure I understand. Is the objective to get a faster bike that is still comfortable? To me weight only matters going up hill I will pay more for smoother shifting, wider spread in gearing, and quality of construction, but skipping one meal would save $500 worth of lighting the frame.

Joe

Harshness can always be cured by using wider tires. But it sounds like you're looking for the same fit you have now, and the same degree of shock-absorption, but in a lighter, faster bike.

I would avoid gel saddles and shock absorbers in a bike that will be used for long road rides. Gel tends to compress soft tissues and cause numbness; springs soak up your energy as well as that from bumps.

You should try to analyze what it is about your current bike that makes it compatible. Look at the chainstay length and seat- and head-tube angles, and compare them to modern bikes. Do they more resemble a racing bike, or a touring bike, or a cyclocross bike? You'll find that the geometry has as much to do with the comfort and stability of a bike as anything; the short-wheelbase, agressively-angled racing bikes of today are fast and light, but offer an entirely different riding experience from the classic sport-touring bikes of the 70's.

Personally, at 52, I find that the bike I look forward most to riding is my Airborne, which is set up as a light touring bike. Fairly wide tires on touring wheels, medium-long chainstays, wide-range gearing, titanium frame, chro-mo fork. It's not terribly light, but it's extremely comfortable whether I'm commuting or riding centuries. I do have a lightweight racing-style bike which is fun for fast Sunday training rides, but there's nowhere on it to pack my lunch.

I think you need to tell us more about what you want the new bike to do, and about what you like and dislike about the old bike. (Most people don't associate the words "speed and thrill" with "touring bike.")

RichC

Thanks Joe and RichC for your very useful comments.

Joe, I guess I didn't describe my reasons for the new bike very well - mainly it is the age of the gears, brakes, etc, and a bit of rust (on the bike, not me) and I would like to take adventage of the new technology and mechanisms, but why not go for a lighter bike as well, I thought. At 63k I do not weigh a bike down much, so can climb hills pretty well, and I take your point that lightweight isn't everything, but when I picked up the Trek 2300 in the showroom the other day it felt so much like it wanted to be ridden fast!! As RichC refers, I probably look forward to a greater thrill on Sunday training rides on my new bike, which would be my other reason for wanting the light road bike.

Saying that my old bike is comfortable is more to do with being used to it rather than a comparison with other bikes I guess, because I only have the one. I'm gleaning from your 2 replies that I probably should aim for 2 new bikes - one for comfortable commuting and one for thrilling road running. Now I just have to choose which one comes first!

Rich, I would be interested to know what effect the length of chainstay has on bicycle fit/performance - I am not familiar with the term. I am not much of an expert on bicycle fit, but am learning.

allanb

Hi,
I have the same bike Rich does. The bit of metal that goes out to the rear wheel is what we're discussing. make it shorter, and you get better acelleration at the cost of a harsher ride and a small chance of the rear wheel going over your head. Our bike is titanium, and that cushions the blow somewhat. Which brings me to the subject of today's sermon. I am a titanium convert, I am in my fifties; and want a bike that has a nice ride. Titanium bikes usually have a nice ride. A good example of the breed is the Litespeed Tuscany, if you can find one to test ride. The newer steel alloys are very nice, you should also try one of the new steel bikes while you're at it.

A shorter chainstay is stiffer than a long one, but all modern chainstays are a lot stiffer than ones of 20yrs ago. Longer chainstays are neccessary if you want to have clearance for wider tyres/fenders and heel clearance for panniers. Generally a longer bike will react more slowly, but that is also due to the more stable steering geometry needed on bikes designed for carrying heavy loads, or for endurance riding. It makes no real difference to your actual straight-line speed. Expedition tourers have loads of clearance and long chanstays. Racing bikes have them as short as possible. In between you get degrees of light-touring bikes which are excellent for both fast fun rides and everyday commuting. These are sometimes called Audax style bikes after the organisation which organises fast non-competative rides:
https://www.audax.org.au/
If you have the money, then Ti makes a superb bike, esp in the hands of experts like Lightspeed, but even the cruder Airbourne is a nice ride. Modern steel is also very good, and is usually better value than Ti, esp when it comes to custom builders.
What brands or manufacturers do you have in the shops.

Howdy allanb and welcome to the forums from an ex-melbourne boy (grew up in the inner south east). The info you get here is all pretty good stuff. In relation to what the bike stores are telling you, you don't have to spend 5,000 to get a comfy ride.
Absolutely key is the right size bike - 2,500 spent on the right size is better than 5,000 on the wrong size. In other words do the bike fit thing. The extra money is mostly for performance (lighter groupset, lighter wheels etc. and not necessarily comfort).

The Specialized Sequoia is affordable and offers a road bike style frame with a slightly more upright seating position.

If you prefer to not have the suspension seat post just replace it with a decent carbon one.

It comes standard with 700x26 wheels, however feel free to go up to 28 or down to 20.


My partner and I purchased ours six months ago and are very happy so far. Also has plenty of brazeon for panniers or mud flaps if you require that kind of thing.

As everyone else says fit is the key thing. I'm sure a local bike shop near you would stock it or some other decent alternatives!

I apologise for not answering your other questions specifically. It's up and beyond my own personal experience...