goagain

I am probably splitting hairs on something that doesn't much matter for the kind of very casual riding I'll do, but I'm like a kid that wants to know "Why?" all the time. Please humor me if you have time.

I'm the granny newbie obsessing whether to get one of the Cypress/Sedona W (alum w/ susp fork) or Cypress/Sedona W ST (cromo w cromo rigid fork). After reading a zillion posts, I've about 98% decided to go with one of the cromo models unless it's way way heavier than the alum ones, because I think the suspension fork on the alum models would be useless or even a disadvantage for me. KISS

For those not familiar with these models, Giant calls them "comfort" bikes but they seem to be more like hybrids, not cruisers. They are very entry level--$400/$330 and all are the women's styles. All four models (alum, cromo each in 700 and 26") have 21 gears.

Now I must decide whether to go with 700c (Cypress) or 26" (Sedona) wheels. A few questions:

1. The Cypress alum has 700x35, but the cromo has 700x38 tires. These bikes seem identical except for the frame material, different forks, and tire width. Why would the cromo have wider tires, and how do these compare for casual riding? (around my small hilly neighborhood, bike paths or parks, maybe some occasional grass, gravel, or dirt, nothing really rough) Not concerned with high speed, but want ease of pedaling up small but steepish hills and reasonable comfort. Casual inexperienced rider, no long rides, maybe a 10 miler group or rail/trail ride if I get good enough but that would be very rare and may not happen at all. I'm just getting back into some riding after decades of not.

Both the alum and cromo Sedonas have 26x1.95 tires, no tire difference on those.

2. If I understand correctly, the 700c are supposed to roll a little easier, but aren't quite as cushy/comfy as the 26" tires. Narrower is better at high speeds (which I won't be doing), but slower at low speeds--just saw that in a post here concerning the 700c. Also, somewhere I've gotten the idea that the 26" are a little less prone to getting flats. Are these assumptions correct? I know nothing about all of this except what I've learned on forums.

3. This is probably crazy, but I'm a shade under 5-3 and wondering if the 700c aren't going to seem too tall for me, or will "look funny" on a small size (or possibly XS) frame.

I am leaning toward the 26" wheels (Sedona) but I know that's at least partly because I'm a little leary or afraid of the 700c's, not familiar with them at all. Any thoughts on which bike/tires I should get?

The only bike shops within reasonable driving distance sell Giants, and there is one Trek shop a little farther away. I looked at the Trek 700 women's model but it didn't seem to be as good as the Giants for the money, so that's why I'm considering these four models. I don't want to spend more than $400.

I will probably make my purchase within the next week or two. I will try to test ride them, but I doubt I'll know for certain which is better from a short ride in the parking lot. (Do I have difficulty making decisions? I'm not sure. LOL)

I so very much appreciate any info, thoughts, or advice you can provide! Then I will try to hush up. Thanks all--

AdelaaR

The difference between 26" or 700c and 35mm or 38mm is very small and negligible for casual riding.
Test ride and pick the one you like.

A suspension fork can add to comfort depending on the use.
If you're going to ride on and off sidewalks a lot or on bad roads it's worth considering.

qmsdc15

The reason I recommended the 700c bikes is because 1.95" is really too wide for anything but mountain biking or boardwalk cruising. 1.95" is equal to 49mm.

The difference between 38 and 35 isn't something to worry about. They probably spec the wider ones on the bikes with rigid forks to make them look more comfortable. Honestly, you don't need a suspension fork or wide tires. Ride the stock tires for a while. If you find them just too heavy, get some 700x28 or 32.

Burton

I`d suggest yo go with a cromoly frame and a rigid front end.

For any bike in the $400 or $500 price range, the front fonk will not be servicable, (disposable), will have poor damping and will rust from the inside out. It`ll also add about 5 lbs to the front end.

Same for an aluminum frame. In that price range the aluminum frames available are not as light or as durable as more expensive aluminum frames. You`ll get more for your money with cromoly and it won`t deteriorate over a five year period.

And this may go against the grain of some forum members - but I like WIDE tires! And -no - they`re not slower or suitable just for cruising or moutain bikes. I currently have 700 x 38c on my hybrid and have 28 x 2in tires on order. My other `best ride` has 26 x 2.3in tires and I`ll be bumping those up to 2.5in. One of the cheapest most effective and llightest suspension systems on the market.

qmsdc15

How old are you Burton? I'm 54 and no longer strong enough to push 2.3in wide tires all day long. Actually I was never that strong.

goagain wants a ride that is efficient, one that will go with less effort, a very sensible desire in my opinion. Fat tires are horrible in this regard.

zonatandem

We ride a road tandem and use 700x25 tires.
My wife/stoker is 4' 10 3/4" tall . . .
Narrower tires roll better and can be run at higher pressure.
Would skip the 'suspension' BS . . . bike shorts and bike gloves will help as will proper positioning on your new bike.
Do some test riding and see which you prefer . . .
Good luck!

Burton

So what would you consider `effecient`? I`ve pushed those 2.3in tires to 43kph without any incline or tailwind, 54kph with a moderate incline, and can cruise on them at 30kpf for my complete 10km commute in still air.

Considering the speedlimit on the bicycle paths here is only 20kph and the municipal speed limits in the city vary from 20kph to 40kph, I`d say that from a practical point of view - that exceeds all requirements.

Burton

Guess you`re younger than I am then!

But I have set up three bikes with different tire sizes and cruise at 30kph on all of them on my 10km commute to work every day. Tire size makes no difference.

nfmisso

goagain;

Go with the Chrome-Moly and 26" wheels. It is the best match for what you have listed. You may want to swap the tires out in the future - there are lots of choices that will fit; you can go narrower or wider.

On my hybrid I found that Bell (with Kevlar belts) 26 x 1.75 are the best compromise for rolling resistance, smooth ride, puncture resistance and cost per mile. Each rider has their own optimum. My commuter has a Bell Kevlar 27 x 1¼ on the front and a Specialized Armadillo on the back - great combination for me and where I ride.

AdelaaR

Wait ... What? You have speed limits on bike paths? :confused:
Personally I never even consider the speed limits when cycling.
I've coasted downhill at 70+ km/h where only 30 was allowed and I don't care.
I ride a bicycle and I feel that makes me immune to those things.

qmsdc15

goagain, notice that those advising you to get wider tires without exception have more than one bike and they use bikes with narrow tires when they want to go fast. Wider tires will almost always have greater rolling resistance and weigh more than narrower tires, You will feel the difference the most when climbing hills.

qmsdc15

Why do you commute on 1.25" if you prefer 1.75"?

Why are you recommending 1.95" for use on paved roads??

nfmisso

Please re-read.

I did not say that I prefer 1.75; I just said that was the best compromise for my hybrid. For my commute (12 miles each way); the best compromise for that bike is 1¼.

If you could read - I further went on to state that " Each rider has their own optimum".

Given her size, and the choices; I stand by my recommendation of 26" wheels and Cro-Moly frame. And I further mentioned that I would consider changing the tires after getting some riding in.

Again; please learn to read.

Burton

You want to post your own opinion - feel free. But if you think you can speak for myself or anyone else on this forum - you`re being pretty presumptious and don`t have a clue what you`re talking about.

Yeah - I have a road bike with 700 x 23c tires on it. Mostly it stays home because it WON`T accept wider tires and the road conditions in Montreal destroy tires and rims on these bike. I work in a bike shop and just during the past two weeks have replaced 4 rear wheels on those low spoke count wheels with skinny tires that you seem to feel are some kind of advantage.

MY commute - which happens every day rain or shine - happens on either a cromoly frame with rigid fork, $15 700 x 38c city tires on 36 spoke welded rims, fenders, and carries a thermos of coffee; or alternativly on a mtb frame with full fenders, $33 26 x 2.3 BMX tires, and a couple water bottles. I usually have a small backpack.

Both bikes have speedos calibrated to their wheelsize and so far over a 60km test period for both - top speed, cruising speed and average speed (with headwinds in the morning, rain, traffic, stopsigns etc) - are virtually identical and are what was posted.

I doubt that the OP is going to push things to the speeds I might, but she should be entitles to a comfortable low maintenaince ride and wider tires double as a suspension, get fewer flats and can run on lower air pressures safely so if she forgets to check the tire pressure one week it won`t destroy the tire sidewall.

Burton

LOL - Yeah - Montreal probably has the most extensive system of pike paths and parks of any city in North America as well as more bicycles as the whole rest of the country combined! And those bike paths get shared with rollerbladers during the summer as well so as well as posted speed limits - Montreal has a force of policemen (and women) that includes a detachment that rides bicycles all summer and patrols the parks and bike paths. And they do write tickets - and since they`re equipped with radios - no point trying to outrun them.

However - they`re primarily concerned with safety (a good thing) and any rider that wants to go past 20kph is free to drive in the street where the speed limits are higher.

wiredfoxterror

Go with the rigid suspension - you'll hate the bouncy feel when you ride on paved roads and paths with the other bike.

AdelaaR

O nice if you can ride on the road
I usually ride around 20-24 mph on the flats and so I feel the bike lane is unsafe for me, especially considering the bad condition it often is in compared to the road next to it.
That's why I usually ride on the side of the road ... out of safety. Never had any accident yet.
Many car drivers, in their ignorance, do not understand this and so I get honked at all the time because they feel the road is their domain although they never even tried the bikelane and never noticed it's state.
I simply salute them with my hand to pretend I think they know me and honked at me to say "hi"

This is completely against the law in Belgium, ... but I'm pretty clever:
If I ever get pulled over by a policeman claiming I should ride the bikelane I will state that I am 100% sure I was going over 50km/h ... at that speed you are considered a motorcycle and are prohibited from using the bike lane ... he won't have actually measured my speed and so he'll have to assume I'm telling the truth

AdelaaR

If you dial your suspension to the appropriate setting and learn how to pedal correctly without putting excessive force down ... a suspension fork shouldn't be bouncy.
I like my suspension fork for rougher terrain and lock it out when doing roads.

qmsdc15

Both of my hybrids have 700x28s, my hybridized MTB has 26x1.5". The MTB is noticeably heavier and slower. I much prefer the relatively effortless pedaling on the 700x28 tires.

700x35 or 38 are wide tires for riding paved roads! 1.95" is ridiculously wide. A fit bike shop employee who rides every day rain or shine is going to be stronger than an older woman just starting out.

goagain

Thanks, everyone! I am loving the more detailed info I'm getting. And even though some of it is conflicting, it is giving me good info. I appreciate all the viewpoints.

If you can, I would like a little more elaboration on a few comments:

nfmisso: You said the 26" wheels are the best match for my size and what I listed. So, are 26" wheels better for someone of my height, or are they better for the kinds of riding I anticipate, or for both?
As you know, I have some concerns that 700c will be too "big" for me (meaning diameter, not considering the width of the tires), but that may only be because I'm not familiar with anything larger than 26". ??
Or is it the wider width what you like better about the 26" ones? I was assuming it was the smaller *diameter* that you thought was best for me, but is that assumption correct?

qmsdc15 and Burton: Please tell me if this is a fair synopsis on tire width, sort of combining the comments of both of you:
Wider is more comfortable. Wider is more sturdy--less flats and sidewall issues. Wider can be fast but takes more effort to do so.
Narrower rolls with less resistance but isn't as comfy. Narrower is better (easier) for climbing hills or going fast. Narrower is pickier as to having correct tire pressure.
Is this what you are both saying?

There is some argument as to what "wide" is--- qms: 700x38 is wide but OK, 26x1.95 is far TOO wide
Burt: 700x38 is too narrow, 26x1.95 is wide enough and OK

qms: I am assuming it is the width of the 26" tires that you don't like, or is it also the diameter of them? Please elaborate further if you have time.

If my metric is halfway close, I think 38mm is about an inch and a half? Would the best of both worlds for me be the 26" wheels with 1.50 tires? Would those tires be fine on the same rims? (not just barely work, but truly be just as good a fit) I certainly don't want to change out wheels but tires have to be replaced anyway. Or are the 700c wheels just different in other ways besides the width?

I got the idea for changing the tires from another thread. I guess I need to stick to this one! But I think nfmisso mentioned something about that too. I am probably making this waaay too complicated.

But-- I am loving "comfortable low maintenance ride" and I'm also loving "ride that is efficient, one that will go with less effort" just as much. What's the best way to get both? (Am I too greedy?)

***BTW, I should have asked this long ago: Is one wheel or tire size more sure-footed or stable than the other? At my age, I definitely don't need to fall! That concern should probably rank above the other ones. Please comment!

Unless the cromo models are extremely heavy when I see them, I do think I'll go with one of them and the rigid fork. The suspension forks on these alum models won't lock out at all and as far as I can tell, aren't adjustable. They are low end models and I've become wary of them after reading different threads. Higher quality ones are probably very good but apparently not these cheapies.

Thanks, everyone, for your advice! Please keep it coming. And please comment on the "sure-footed/stable" thing so maybe I won't break my neck!

nfmisso

Hi;

26" - both; you mentioned pavement, grass, paths, dirt in your original post.

With respect to width; 1.95 is fine to start. My hybrid had that size originally; I tried tires from 1.4 to 2.1 on it in various combinations front and rear; and have settled on 1.75 as being right for me for the riding I use it for (some pavement, paths, gravel, no sand or real mud). There is a very large selection of 26" (ISO 559) tires available; most will fit. You may even decide that you want to have two sets of wheels, one with skinny street only tires and one with wider off road tires.

A bit about tire sizing: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html there are many different and incompatible 26"; the bike we are talking about has ISO 559.

For example: https://www.amazon.com/Kenda-Kwest-ti...5589661&sr=1-8 would be good for you mostly on the street, but not so good on gravel or grass.

These: https://www.amazon.com/Kenda-Kross-Fr...589661&sr=1-15 are good on street, gravel and grass; but are heavier, resulting in slower acceleration, but probably no difference in speed on the level. They will slow you down more going up hills.

These are fast on the street; disaster on gravel https://www.amazon.com/Michelin-Prote...589661&sr=1-19

These are awful on the pavement; but great in mud and sand: https://www.amazon.com/Schwalbe-Rocke...589933&sr=1-10

So many choices. Ride the bike for awhile, then decide where you really want to ride and change the tires if you believe there is a need. For pavement, continuous rubber down the center of the tire makes less noise and rolls easier. Aggressive tread slows you down, is noisy and causes tingly wrists.

These are the tires I have on my hybrid: https://www.amazon.com/Bell-26-Inch-C...5590192&sr=1-4 notice the continuous rubber down the center for pavement performance, the tread works well on gravel, and the Kevlar belts provide increase puncture resistance. They are ISO 559 size. I run them a 70 psi (side wall says 40-65 psi); but I am a big guy. I also run Slime Thorn Resistant tubes in them, which are heavy. I do not want to deal with punctures; with the result of compromises with respect to weight.

I have a different bike for my commute; which I once attempted to ride on a gravel path - never again. It has much narrower tires, and I would not even attempt to ride it on grass.

nfmisso

Sorry about separating my responses.

Yes 38mm is 1.5 inches.

The bike most likely has 18mm (interior width rims) which means any tire width from 25 to 60 will be okay. I have seen 23mm wide tires on 18mm rims - not a good combination. If you decide to go solely on the street, you can even get high pressure 26 x 1 tires (ISO 25-559); often marketed for trikes or racing wheelchairs that work great on a bike.

To start off, being closer to the ground will provide you with more peace of mind. As you get comfortable with riding the bike, you'll want to move your saddle higher.

26 x 1.95 (ISO 50-559) is a great place to start for stability; you may later decide that you like that or want to change as you gain more confidence.

qmsdc15

"...hilly neighborhood, bike paths or parks, maybe some occasional grass, gravel, or dirt, nothing really rough)"

My responses have been based on the suspicion you will not be riding a lot of grass, gravel or dirt. Riding where someone has planted, mowed and maintained grass would be rather rude, don't you think? Please stay on established trails. Gravel can be tricky which is why very few bike paths have gravel surfaces. Hard packed dirt is easily traversed with narrow tires. Riding trails when they are muddy damages the trails and should be avoided. I suspect you will be mostly on paved surfaces or smooth unpaved surfaces.


"qmsdc15 and Burton: Please tell me if this is a fair synopsis on tire width, sort of combining the comments of both of you:
Wider is more comfortable. Wider is more sturdy--less flats and sidewall issues. Wider can be fast but takes more effort to do so.
Narrower rolls with less resistance but isn't as comfy. Narrower is better (easier) for climbing hills or going fast. Narrower is pickier as to having correct tire pressure.
Is this what you are both saying?

There is some argument as to what "wide" is--- qms: 700x38 is wide but OK, 26x1.95 is far TOO wide
Burt: 700x38 is too narrow, 26x1.95 is wide enough and OK"

Sound OK to me. I suppose I get fewer flats with fat tires but I think it is more the result of thicker casing rather than wider footprint.

"qms: I am assuming it is the width of the 26" tires that you don't like, or is it also the diameter of them? Please elaborate further if you have time."

Yes, the width of the tires was my concern. Working with the smaller diameter 26" wheels makes it easier to design a bike to fit a smaller rider. I believe the principle drawback with the larger 700c wheels for small riders is limitation of how low you can position the handlebars relative to saddle height. The wheel gets in the way. There maybe other considerations.

Burton works at a bike shop so is undoubtedly better informed than I on the subject of bicycles. You should give his advice a bit more weight and take mine with a grain of salt.

If you opt for the 26" wheels you might be limited in how narrow a tire can fit depending on the width of the rims. However it's highly unlikely that a 1.5" would be too narrow and also unlikely that you will want to go narrower unless you get inspired to do longer rides.

My other thought was getting the right tire width out of the box would save you money. Since you are trying to spend less than $400 on your bike, I doubt you want to spend another $100 on a pair of top quality tires, and you can pay a lot more. I don't want to scare you, decent tires can be found for less than $50/pr. but that still would amount to a significant increase in the total cost of your bike.

Scooby214

If it were me, I'd go for the 26" wheels, as you won't notice a significant performance hit, based on the riding you have described. I have bikes with both 700c and 26," and enjoy riding around town on both. My commute today was 31 miles (including an errand after work) and I rode my 26" hybrid. I never found myself wishing I had ridden my 700c road bike. My 17 mile afternoon commute with an extra errand took me 70 minutes, which is speedy enough. My 26x1.75 Conti Contact tires are great for commuting because they roll fast and can cope with gravel roads when I get out with my son.

Unless you plan to push yourself pretty hard and build yourself up, either size wheel will serve you well.

nfmisso

depends on where you are....there are several in the SF Bay Area that are gravel (hard pack covered with rock about 1/2 to 3/4 inch in maximum dimension) with places that have been washed out or sunk and refilled that can have gravel several inches deep.