More test rides, and a steel option.

I don't think people meant that you can't go fast on a steel bike. You definitely can as evidenced by Crankin's son. Steel won't prevent you from going faster, you definitely can as you improve. It's just known for comfort and durability instead of speed but plenty of people in steel bikes can probably run circles around people on carbon bikes - its more dependent on body condition then the type of material the bike is made of :)

Getting faster is up to you. Riding more, riding smart, riding intervals, and riding with people who are (slightly) faster than you will make you faster. A carbon bike that is 3lbs lighter than a steel bike will not do that all by itself. Nothing against carbon, just be cautious of believing that the minute you get a carbon bike that you will be fast automatically.

That being said, when I bought my steel Jams Coda Comp with 700x28 tires bike for commuting in 2003 to replace my 1986 steel Specialized Stumpjumper with knobby 26x1.5 tires, yeah, I cut 10 minutes off my 10-mile commute the first day I rode it. But that's a pretty extreme upgrade, and mostly had to do with the wheels, I suspect.

I do get a kick out of people who are sooooo concerned with having the lightest bike, the lightest components, even the lightest shoes...when really just losing 5-10-15 pounds, whatever, will make them much faster than a lower spoke count.

Ride lots of bikes and then make your decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily_in_nc

I just looked up the Jamis Quest Femme, and the stated weight is just 18.75 lbs, so I can certainly see that being a plenty fast bike! Wish the smallest size didn't have such a high standover (29.1") -- I'd be interested myself! It's a really pretty bike!

http://www.jamisbikes.com/usa/thebik...estf_spec.html

---

That is a high standover. I'm 5'0" with short legs. I have to shorten my petite pants :mad: I agree, though, it's a good looking bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

I'd be willing to make a 60-mile special trip for a bike. That's nothing in the grand scheme of a bike's life. I'm just sayin'.....

Jamis or not, you asked about steel bikes and I felt the need to disabuse you of the notion that they're all heavy clunkers. As Crankin said, compare apples to apples.

---

And I appreciate everything you had to say. It turns out there is a shop only 45 miles away so I'm planning a little road trip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tulip

Getting faster is up to you. Riding more, riding smart, riding intervals, and riding with people who are (slightly) faster than you will make you faster. A carbon bike that is 3lbs lighter than a steel bike will not do that all by itself. Nothing against carbon, just be cautious of believing that the minute you get a carbon bike that you will be fast automatically.

That being said, when I bought my steel Jams Coda Comp with 700x28 tires bike for commuting in 2003 to replace my 1986 steel Specialized Stumpjumper with knobby 26x1.5 tires, yeah, I cut 10 minutes off my 10-mile commute the first day I rode it. But that's a pretty extreme upgrade, and mostly had to do with the wheels, I suspect.

I do get a kick out of people who are sooooo concerned with having the lightest bike, the lightest components, even the lightest shoes...when really just losing 5-10-15 pounds, whatever, will make them much faster than a lower spoke count.

Ride lots of bikes and then make your decision.

---

I'm not looking at a carbon frame bike. Just the fork. I am not one of those people that runs out to buy the latest and greatest (or what the advertisers tell us we "need"). As a matter of fact, I'm a little rebellious in that sense. My cell phone is years old, and if they'd let me, I would still use my 35mm camera. I can usually see past gimmicks. If it's a "trend", I stay away ;) This is why I'm doing all this research, so I make the right decision for me. And it's also why I sincerely appreciate everyone's input. I know "lighter" doesn't mean better or faster - that's up to me.

So, really, thank you. I'm finding the research fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IBrakeforPastry

I'm not looking at a carbon frame bike. Just the fork. I am not one of those people that runs out to buy the latest and greatest (or what the advertisers tell us we "need"). As a matter of fact, I'm a little rebellious in that sense. My cell phone is years old, and if they'd let me, I would still use my 35mm camera. I can usually see past gimmicks. If it's a "trend", I stay away ;) This is why I'm doing all this research, so I make the right decision for me. And it's also why I sincerely appreciate everyone's input. I know "lighter" doesn't mean better or faster - that's up to me.

---

You can definitely do a steel frame with a carbon fork! That's what I have on my cross bike. :)

I know, I know! I'm concerned about the fit. The Dolce fits so well. How do you test ride something that's not yet built? What happens if the geometry is just not right? The guy in the store seemed so willing to help, and I would love to work with him and have him build something just right.

I have to get through these midnight shifts, then I'll get off the computer and back into the store ;)

Ah, your inseam complicates things, as you probably already know. I didn't realize that was an issue, too. I assume the Pacer comes in some smaller sizes. Perhaps that's the option to consider, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Ah, your inseam complicates things, as you probably already know. I didn't realize that was an issue, too. I assume the Pacer comes in some smaller sizes. Perhaps that's the option to consider, then.

---

I didn't realize it would be an issue, either. I thought I would just need a smaller size. But, yup, I noticed the top tubes on the steel bikes don't seem to slope much.

the Surly long haul does come with 26" tires and 42cm; that ought to work for someone 5 feet tall.

I am just short of 4'11" and rode a Salsa Vaya a few days ago in their smallest size. It seemed pretty comfortable, except for the fact that the handbars were hugely wide. I could standover the top bar without a problem.

And the new red color is striking.

I rode a Surly Pacer for a few years, the smallest, 42cm size. I used it for long road rides, often on rough roads. It's not light and fast but it's extremely comfortable and stable. Great little frame. I only moved on from it when I found a steel Gunnar Sport frame in my size on ebay. I tried a carbon fork on the Pacer, but I liked the steel fork it came with better. I now have that Surly Pacer steel fork on the Gunnar.

The Gunnar is a real luxo sport touring bike. Dreamy ride. I did a 110 mile day on it once, over a 11,500' pass, and I was tired but not beat up at the end of the day. For comparison, I also have a nice carbon fiber road bike, a 2007 Specialized Ruby. Both my Ruby and my Gunnar have Mavic Open Pro wheels, so I can directly compare the frames here. The Ruby is quite a nice ride, but I think the steel is a little nicer. My bf also rides steel. He recently got a IF Steel Crown Jewel and he says it has an amazing ride.

I'm exploring getting a ti road bike frame but I'm worried that it won't ride as nice as a steel bike.

Yeah, I highly recommend a steel bike, especially for a small rider.

I will also argue that wheels and tires, especially tires are going to make a huge difference in how any bike performs and I am not talking going narrow on the tire either. Schwalbe has a great page about tires and rolling resistance on their website. I encourage everyone to read it.

You won't go wrong with a ti road bike. I love mine. And I love my carbon bike.