How about a Novara Safari Bike.. part touring bike (therefore can handle the weight) part MTB - mountain bike (so can handle the off-road stuff) and it seems to be made for comfortable commuting rides (wider tires = smooth ride & plenty of gears at 27 & those handle bars allow for plenty of hand positions)

I feel sorry for the OP who just wanted a bit of advice on what bike to purchase. And I'm tired of posts that seem to indicate that purchasing an aluminum bike will lead to a broken bike (or worse) in no time at all. For the level of questions in the commuting and hybrid forums frame material is.... immaterial. The amount of force one is going to apply to the frame and/or components is not likely to cause breakage.

Hey Eugene: Purchase THE BIKE THAT FITS. Forget what it's made out of. Aluminum or steel will both be fine bikes.

Bike= a name painted on the frame . all the other parts ,
even the frame itself , are a price point calculation.

lunch, you know, still not free..

Go to a professional Bike shop the people there will help you figure out
what your money can get in the current market.

and will give you an idea about the types of bikes sold these days..

brand loyalists on this site tell you about their choices,
:innocent: you can make your own .. ?

Yeah, me too! :innocent:

Your sizes seem small for someone who is 6'3". I'm 6' and wear pants with a 32" inseam and I ride a 58cm road and 19" mountain. You should start looking at a 60 cm road bike and at least a 20" mountain bike. More likely you'll fit on a 22" mountain bike.

A good quality aluminum mountain bike frame from one of the major manufacturers is going to be far better than a Helmart special. Like I said, I ride aluminum hard and the durability isn't a concern.

The performance of thinner tires on dirt is what I was talking about. I have lots of experience and excellent handling skills but even I don't want to ride skinny tires too far on dirt.

The shock probably wasn't tuned to your weight so it was pretty soft when engaged. Tuning it would make the ride better off-road. The lockout comes in very handy for those sections where you stitch trails together, however.


Again with the misinformation. Mountain bikes are slower but not that much slower. JeremyZ's claims notwithstanding, the speed differential is only a few mph. If you are trying to ride a road bike off-road, you'll be a whole lot slower on it in the dirt than the mountain bike will be on pavement.

Then don't go around spreading misinformation.

Cyccommute says:

This was my first inclination, as well. I was thinking the OP is more like a 61 cm.

This is true. Thanks to modern-day aluminum technology and bicycle design, there are some pretty durable aluminum bicycle frames that exist, today.

All dirt varies. It could be hard or loose. It could be fine or clumpy. In general, the harder the dirt is, the more hybrid and road bike friendly it becomes, as well. There's certainly no need for a MTB to shy away from just about any type of dirt, whatsoever.

It all depends upon the types of trails being combined during your trek.


Well by your own admission, MTN bikes are slower on pavement. Now just how much slower might be debatable. However, slower is slower. Nobody mentioned just how much slower. Nonetheless, a comparative assessment can be readily deduced by our combined experience. Since we both know that dual suspension MTN bikes are slower than HT MTN bikes, and that all MTN bikes tend to be slower than road bikes, it's only logical to deduce a progression in the loss of velocity as we continue to add suspension and weight to the MTB.

Of course, it's a given that as the terrain increases in complexity, the MTB has a distinct advantage and its efficiency increases in proportion to that rise in complexity, as the road bike's efficiency decreases.

I only state facts that can be easily researched and confirmed, either by experts in the field, or scientific data that is accessible by all, in the public library.

- Slim

JeremyZ quantified how much slower a mountain bike is than a road bike...10 mph which I consider to be a bit of a fish tale. From personal experience, my commute along the same route by mountain bike is, roughly, 2 mph slower than my commuter bike. And often, that difference is due to me riding on the trails...i.e. dirt surfaces like Eugene_B is going to ride...rather than riding on the pavement.

All this kerfufflage about speed is somewhat superfluous for Eugene_B's needs anyway. It's a 4.5 mile commute. If he rides at 15 mph (road bike speed), he'll cover the distance in 18 minutes. If he rides at 12 mph (mountain bike speed) he'll cover the distance in 22 minutes. Is 4 minutes really all that important?

Dual suspension bikes don't necessarily need to be slower than hardtail mountain bikes nor are they necessarily heavier. How slow they are and how much energy is lost to pedaling is influenced by the suspension. I have an Epic that acts as a hardtail and, with a lockout shock, is rigid until it hits a bump of sufficient force to overcome the inertial valve on the rear shock. Then the rear shock unlocks and is active. But that is only transitory. The shock locks back down shortly after becoming active. And the bike's weight is comparable to my hardtail mountain bike or my YBB. While I wouldn't get into any races...well, too many races...with roadies, all three bikes are perfectly adequate for long range rides. I purchased the YBB for the specific purpose of mountain bike touring.


It's not the 'facts' that you state but the incorrect conclusions that you draw from them that is the problem. Mixing myth with facts doesn't make the facts better.

Cyccommute says:

Slower is slower....Roughly speaking or not.

The loss of velocity becomes a greater concern with increasing distance. The OP desires weekend tours. A suspended mountain bike could quite seriously delay the OP at the expense of unnecessarily wasting his energy, while touring.
That's the very purpose of the touring traditionally chromoly steel road bike. To avoid such nonsense, by using it, as the most efficient vehicle on two wheels, while touring on pavement!

Agreed! You're just reinforcing my original point. The more engaged suspension, the slower the MTB.
You could possibly use your MTN bikes for touring, but they won't be as efficient as the traditional touring road bike.


What myth? My drawn conclusion is simply logical. That being that if aluminum has a fatigue life much shorter than steel, then steel must last longer than aluminum. That statement goes for all applications of aluminum and steel, when used similarly. It doesn't mean that aluminum is going to suddenly explode or disintegrate. However, it does mean, that the probability of an extended life for aluminum diminishes with each individual event of use.

Forget about a folding bike, they simply aren't built for that terrain unless you're talking about something like a Montague Paratrooper. Many folding bikes have 16" or 20" wheels which are going to dig into the mud and get bogged down. The only real advantage a folding bike has for commuting is you can fold the bike up at work and store it under your desk, but if it gets real muddy you won't be doing that anyhow.

I wouldn't recommend a mountain bike because they are made for aggressive trail riding, like riding down a mountain or on a mountain bike track. Check out Youtube for mountain bike riding vids to see what those bikes are designed for. The bike's frame geometry and the rider's body position isn't the best for long rides on the road. Sure, lots of people commute on mountain bikes, but you don't necessarily have to if you're buying a new bike.

If you look at Surly bikes, some of the frames like the Long Haul Trucker will accept 26" wheels with fatter tires than normal touring bikes. I wouldn't want to ride on 700cc tires in the last two sets of terrain you had pictures of, no matter what type of bike they are on. It's a trade-off: wider tires are better for off-road and less efficient when on paved roads. You'll have to decide where the dividing line is for you.

A cyclocross bike would also fit your needs because they are meant for both road and trail riding, albeit not the same type of trail riding as mountain bikes.

I've got a Salsa Mukluk 2, and although it isn't the type of bike you need, I can say that I am impressed with Salsa in general - well designed, good component quality, etc. You should look into the Salsa bikes the others have recommended.

You'll also want to get a geared bike and not a single speed. It sounds like you want to do some exploring, and a single speed bike isn't going to cover the same amount of ground or climb the same hills as easily as a geared bike will.

The last thing I'll say is that as someone who gets all of his groceries on a bike, you'll want to get a rack if you plan on doing the same. The backpack isn't a good option when you're carrying a gallon of milk and/or a jug of orange juice along with other items, the weight will become uncomfortable after a short while.

MadCityCyclist says:

Agreed! :thumb:

I wouldn't go so far as to say all that. The mountain bike is probably the most universally versatile bicycle in the entire world. The hardtail mountain bike can be used for XC, commuting, recreation, exercise, mountain touring, forest exploration, military purposes, dirt-jumping, and for utilitarian purposes. It is truly, a do it all kind of bicycle. IMHO the MTB has two problems. It tends to be slow and dependent upon what suspension systems that are engaged, it saps the riders energy over a period of time. It's because of these two reasons, that your average MTB is not an ideal choice for interstate touring.


Both the 26 incher and the 700c have their pros and cons. 700's or 29 inchers tend to keep a line much better and are not as easily detered by pathway interferences. 26 inchers while smaller, are easier to accelerate. However, once accelerated, they are harder to maintain their momentum and require a greater expenditure of energy to do so. The 26 inchers do come with wider tires and are more efficient on more challenging terrain surfaces.

Agreed! :thumb:

Wow, man! The Salsa Mukluk! What can I say? You either live near the beach, on the frozen tundra, or in an ice-fishing camp :lol:... That's one helluva bike though! :thumb:


I think we're all in agreement there, for sure!

I absolutely agree with you on this one too! :thumb:

I know cyclists who either pay people with cars to take them grocery shopping or they take a cab, just because of milk, juice, and beverages. It would be nice to live within a cycling community where a van could be used, just to take folks shopping for groceries.

- Slim :)

First, it's speed. Velocity is a vector quantity which has a direction and speed associated with it. But let's concentrate on his immediate problem which is getting to work across a field. His best choice is a bike that is handles that task best, which isn't a traditional road bike. Especially not someone who is relatively new to cycling and whose handling skills might not be up to the task.

He really needs two bikes but that's probably not going to happen. So should the choice of bike be for the occasional weekend touring or the one that serves his needs on a more regular basis? He can use the mountain bike, with a lockable fork, for touring but the touring bike may not do the job on weekdays. Riding a skinny wheel bike in an off-road situation makes crashes more likely. I know from long experience, that when you laying on the ground, your forward speed is essentially zero. That really slows you down.


Not reinforcing your original point at all. Your point was that suspension slows you down, my point was that it doesn't. Your point was that suspension adds weight, mine was that it doesn't.

Touring isn't about efficiency unless there is a de France following the word 'Tour'. Touring is about the ride and the location. It's not about the speed at which you cover the ground.

Perhaps it would matter if you plan on keeping a bike for 30 or 40 years, although there are a few 1930s and 1940 Monarch Silver Kings currently listed on Ebay. If you aren't aware of them, Monarch Silver Kings were aluminum bikes. Those are 70 to 80 year old bikes. There are plenty aluminum bikes from the 80's to 2010's still floating around and, I suspect, some of them will still be around 70 to 80 years from now.

As has been state elsewhere, Eugene_B should concentrate on fit and suitability for what he wants to do and not worry about the frame material. And to be realistic, he's more likely to find a bike that fits his needs in aluminum than in steel because even though you think that aluminum is delicate and unsuitable for a bicycle, the major manufacturers don't think that way.

Agreed. The OP should concentrate on getting a bike that will handle his commute over the terrain that he wishes to travel upon. He can always upgrade to something else as his skills/confindence improves to where he can stay on the pavement consistently. A mtb is the right tool for that particular job at this time.

IIRC, the OP stated his budget as between $1k-2k. I say he get a decent entry level mtb, accessorize it with lights, flat kit, inflation/hydration, a cargo management system of his choice- and save the rest for n+1. :)

Cyccommute says:

No. As long as we're speaking in terms of straight line motion, I can use either term interchangeably. I would prefer to speak in terms of straight line motion, just for the purpose of layman comprehension. People in general conversation don't ordinarily draw a distinction between speed and velocity. However, I happen to be more aware of that distinction, perhaps much more than you would ever know. Distance per unit of time is speed and displacement per unit of time is velocity. Displacement being the calculate difference from ones starting point to ones finishing point. ;)

From what I gather, the OP's general terrain consists mainly of hardened dirt trails and paved roads. That spells hybrid to me. Certainly, if a hybrid can handle the terrain, then most certainly the Surly LHT bicycle can handle the terrain, because it can accomodate tires of much greater width than the average 32mm hybrid tire. This fact then places the Surly LHT at the top of the list, because not only is it the best candidate for multi-modal touring, it can also handle the daily commute. It would appear that the use of a mountain bike in this instance would be superfluous, when compared to the LHT. No cyclist worth his salt is going to crash on hard dirt trails and paved roads while riding a properly equipped Long Haul Trucker on the OP's given terrain. Of course, if he selects a MTB over a LHT, or a hybrid, that's fine too! I'd rather take a gun to a knife fight, as well!

Cyccomute! Are you completely remiss of your very own words? Practically throughout this entire thread you've freely admitted that mountain bikes tend to be slower, but not that much slower. Now, you're going to back pedal and say that suspension systems don't slow you down. That's the quintessential factor that distinguishes a mountain bike from any other. It's suspension system! C'mon! :rolleyes: Just stop it!

So are you attempting to tell me that touring cyclists aren't concerned with efficiency. Sure, sight-seeing, immersing yourself into the midst of nature, cycling in different and remote locations can be very relaxing and awe-inspiring indeed. However, touring is planned. You want to take the fastest, yet the safest routes. You want to have access to water, food, hospitals, and fire stations, in case of an emergency. You want to have only touring or road bikes in your group. All must have three chain rings for climbing. All bikes and gear must be inspected before take off. Everyone has to know how to repair their own flat. Why are touring clubs so obcessed with these details? It's because of efficiency! All plans incorporate phrases like, "the fastest way there", "the safest route to take", and "we should be there by" ...These phrases all imply concern about time and safety. The more time spent on the road, the greater the intensity of stress. You want to get to your scheduled destination, as quickly as possible, bearing in mind, that all participants are not going to move with the same speed or velocity. That's why you always have some designated person to pick up the rear. Planning and efficiency is an integral part of touring.

Well my Nishiki Sebring will be entering into its third decade soon, and it's my very favorite of four. I like it even more than both my Raleigh Grand Prix or my Trek 7.5FX. That's the bike I both toured and commuted with for so many years! I'd love to keep her for another three decades, god willing!

Now, here you go again! When did I ever imply that aluminum was delicate? Never! I've never stated that aluminum was a delicate material. In fact, there are several places within this very thread, where I've clearly stated that aluminum has been made more durable, thanks to the advances in technology, material design, and construction. Aluminum is quite strong, given its high strength to weight ratio, and it has become quite durable as well. It's just not quite as strong and as durable as the venerable chromoly steel!

Right! The only thing that really matters here, is Eugene and the proper fit of his new bicycle!

- Slim

PS.

I'll have nothing more to say about this matter within this thread. I'm done with frame materials!

Squash the touring talk for now. OP has stated he would like to do some travelling with the bike, not necessarily go touring with it. Also, touring covers a lot of different territory- we talking Credit Card, supported, or self contained? The LHT is going to be overkill for the commute and CC tours (this is assuming the OP can handle drop bars); a mtb w/ some less aggressive, but still dirt capable, tread or a dual sport should work for now.

Ultimately, it's the OP's decision. Given his uncertainity about a bunch of stuff, he really should be shopping for/at the LBS and doing test rides. We could make suggestions until the end of time, but in the end it doesn't really matter. How many times as something looked really sweet in a 2D representation on a computer screen- only to find out there's something revealed by the test ride that makes you stop and go "I ain't so sure this is the one afterall..."?

Hey there No1mad!

Listen, the LHT Deluxe can do it all! The 26er has clearance for 2.1" wide tires for god's sake! If it turns out that the OP likes the drops, the LHT Deluxe is a shoe-in! If he doesn't, then the list shrinks by at least 75-90%. If you rule out the hybrids, just a few will be remaining. Then he should at the very least, know what style he's looking for...

You can't do overkill on commutes! If Cyccomute says it's alright to ride dual suspension MTN bikes on urban commutes, then you can't possibly do overkill on any commutes. I see plenty of people commuting in downtown San Francisco with LHT's. It's like a trend or something!

Anyways, I think you're cool, guy! :thumb:

I think a decent pair of hiking boots and backpack would also be an option for a 4 mile commute over that terrain. Then you can just focus on gettting a bike for the road.

I don't think that the LHT is overkill for commuting but it's not the proper tool for what Eugene_B wants to do in his commuting. While he could ride a rigid bike over that terrain...I did much worse for 10+ years during the bad old days of mountain biking...he would find a hardtail mountain bike with a front suspension would handle the job much easier with less headache. If he wants to travel with it, it would do that job too. In fact he might find places to go where the charms of the mountain bike would shine and take him on adventures that an LHT would not.

Or he can try out bigger roads and see if they're really all that scary.

Alan S!

Sometimes you can be a total Buzzkill! :lol:

The OP originally lists four purposes for needing a bike. They were 1) Commuting..2) Grocery shopping..3) Trekking and exploring the local rural area...and 4) Long distance touring using Amtrak/Greyhound services.

True. With the HT MTB, the first three are covered in style. You just need your rack, panniers, and fenders. Then you're all set. However, when you get to #4, you can't efficiently do long distance touring with a MTB. Therefore, the LHT is a reasonable compromise reconciling the four purposes. That said, I happen to agree with your previous statement, that the OP really needs two bikes.

Namaste

- Slim :thumb:

You say that a mountain bike can't be used for touring. I know that it can because I've done it. The touring part of the bicycle's usage would be a small fraction of the daily use and, yet, you reach the conclusion that the touring part is the most important part. A mountain bike would be optimal for the daily use while still being serviceable for the occasional traveling use, albeit not as efficiently as you would like. The touring bike would be optimal for the occasional use while being far less than optimal for his intended daily use. So exactly how is the LHT a more reasonable compromise?

OP, have we got a bike yet?

Don't over think this. This isn't like getting married.

The OP is running for the hills.:twitchy:

Has anyone suggested the salsa fargo yet? Disc brakes. Able to take knobby and wide tires. Fender and rack mounts (if needed). Drop bars if you want to go aero (and will take narrower slick tires). Could go with the vaya too, but the fargo looks like it'd be the best of all the worlds people seem to want.

I think there's a drastically simple solution here...although as others have said I think the OP has run fearfully (or perhaps even tearfully) far, FAR away from this thread !

Dude, just go down to your local bike shop and test ride several different styles of bikes. Find the one you enjoy riding the most. Don't listen to what anyone else says about what you need, just go down there and freaking ride. You'll know when you find the right bike.
.
.
.