I think I've decided...(kind of long-ish)

Okay. So those who've listened to my ramblings know I own a Jamis Aurora and a lovely 520. I think I've decided (when I've saved up enough and made up my mind) to trade in my Aurora or sell it.

Understand the Aurora IS a nice bike. I just feel like it doesn't work for me. I feel slower on it than my 520. I blast up hills on my 520 and feel like I'm a several mph or more slower on the Aurora overall. My riding partner has noticed this as well and commented on it again, recently. I am frustrated. This is a pretty bike that functions well - but slows me down. If it were my only bike I would have no basis for comparision so I probably wouldn't be complaining (that's how life goes right) and I know I'm lucky to have two nice bikes. But If I have to choose a bike to ride - I dive for my 520.

My dilemma, I can't decide if I want to wait until Sept. and order another (hopefully in a different color) 520 - or order a LHT (I know they're kind of envogue and that is not the reason - component wise they are supposed to be slammin') I know the 520's geometry works for me. I like it. The components are good, but the saddle and other stuff (the rack) have to be replaced right off the bat. On the LHT, I've heard that the 26 inch tires (I'm short I'd need a 46cm LHT) roll slower. (It doesn't come with a rack.) I wouldn't want to be in the same predicament with a LHT as my Aurora. I could upgrade components on the Aurora - but I bought it at a "steal" and the upgrades would put it way over the base price. :( What do you ladies think? I value all opinions, even if I don't always agree with you - I fully respect your knowledge base. :D So, any thoughts?

What is your bike goal for this bike?

It seems you are disappointed in a perceived speed difference between your two current bikes (perfectly fair enough). They both seem to be touring bikes, however, and you are contemplating other touring bikes to replace one of them.

If you are always touring/always need racks then that makes sense. It's not the type of bike I'd be considering if speed were my issue.

Sounds like you are pretty happy with your 520. So, have you thought about getting a more performance oriented road bike (this doesn't have to mean an aero "crotch rocket"; they make these with more a more relaxed, century oriented, geometry two). Something like maybe a performance setup Madone (would not be my personal first choice, but keeping the Trek theme).

A few mph difference can be anything, even something as simple as tire choice, wheel weight differences could be a factor as well, so could a few mm to cm difference in your position between the two.

I know LHT are a favorite on this forum, but I, personally, would not consider one for anything other than a commuter or loaded tourer and I wouldn't expect it to go fast (but fast, for me, is holding on to a 20mph average pace with plenty of surges).

So it comes down to what you are wanting the bike to do.

I'm not married to "Trek" I guess. I often ride with a messenger bag and in street shoes - so I've always felt - awkward I guess about purchasing a performance road bike. I'm sort of retro-grouchy - I like the aesthetic look of steel frames. I beat some of my roadie friends on my 520 - so I thought the speed was pretty good. :) The type of riding I do is all over the city (or outside of it) - potholed streets hauling my arse and often cargo with me. I almost always have my messenger bag or panniers. I could use my bag on a road bike but I would be more "hunched" over and the weight of the bag could be an issue. I wear bike shorts (thanks to a lady on this board *grins*) but often underneath my jeans or reg. shorts. I guess I've always thought of myself only fitting in with the touring crowd. Do I have performance oriented options in Steel or Aluminum? I know this sounds like a silly question - and feel free to give silly responses with some serious advice sprinkled in. :D

Personally, I would go with what you feel best about; if speed is your main concern, then get a bike that will allow you to go faster and still meet all of your other needs (touring, commuting, road rides?).
I know that my average speed on my steel Jamis Coda, with one pannier is at least 2-3 mph slower than on my very light carbon bike. I love my Coda as an errand bike or a slow, touring kind of ride, when I am on vacation. But, I didn't use it when I was commuting. It would have taken me at least 15-20 minutes longer on that bike. I couldn't go on the group rides I do on that bike. Yet, there are people on this board who use the Coda as their #1 bike and don't see a speed difference. Perhaps my small size has something to do with it? I am not that weak! But, I think this means it's a very individual decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moderncyclista

Do I have performance oriented options in Steel or Aluminum? I know this sounds like a silly question - and feel free to give silly responses with some serious advice sprinkled in. :D

---

YES!

I think you could definitely find something in steel that would be a little more performance oriented geometry, still sit you more upright than a race bike, and maybe even have mounts for a basic rear rack (or not, since you already have the trek).

Custom is an option, though perhaps expensive (frames would start at $900 and go up up up from there).

Non-custom options off the top of my head would be bikes like:
Surly Pacer
Salsa Vaya (new, and actually a tourer)
Salsa Pistola (steel, road bike, century based, nice tall headtube (upright))
Salsa Casseroll Double (rack mounts and overall very versatile frame)
Gunnar Sport (again, long distance based with taller headtube)
Gunnar Roadie (more pure race)
Gunnar Fast Lane (roadie with disks, if that interests you)
Curtlo Custom Road (his customs start at $990 built the way you want them)
Jamis Quest (nice classic, old school road look and comes in WSD)
Jamis Satellite (comes in women's specific)

I think most of these would fit in with your style more or less and give you something a little different than your tourer in your stable to pick from (some more than others). I think you'd find a messenger bag fine with most (or all) of these as well as I tried to look for taller headtubes for a more upright geo than a TDF bike ;) I didn't pay too much attention to overall geo, so I suspect these run the gammut from pretty close to a tourer to pretty close to a race bike.

Edit: if you wanted to go pure on roadie for something different you could look at a Cervelo RS. It's definitely a pure carbon race bike, but they've built in a taller headtube. It's definitely outside of what I'm picturing you on from your description, but it could be fun to take out for a spin if you could find one around you (Trek does a similar thing with their Madones with the performance and sport fits, one with a taller headtube and more relaxed geo, the other more racey. Not sure if this trickles down into the Aluminum road bikes in their line or not) Cannondale also makes an aluminum Synapse with a more comfort bent (but still fast), again, probably outside what you are really looking at, but could be fun to try out.

I will say this on every post I see it, and everyone can ignore me or disagree as much as they like..., but: 26" (or 650c) wheels are not slower!

This is a myth that the LBS started, to justify carrying (and stocking) fewer parts and possibly not bikes that actually fit you! And it probably isn't the LBS' fault--they were likely told that by manufacturers who didn't want to change their tooling or increase costs by offering different sized wheels on the same model bikes.

They will tell you it has a "higher rolling resistance"...this is true, and accounts for less than 5 seconds over....100 miles! I researched this a fair amount when I started to build frames, in order to have confidence when I sold bikes with 650c or 26" wheels. They have been hugely popular for a long time with the triathlon crowd (where speed really matters), and really, really make sense for smaller rider who needs a reasonable reach and doesn't like the fact that 700c wheels, due to their larger diameter, often REQUIRE that her handlebars be higher than her saddle, regardless if that is actually a decent/efficient position for her (and it often isn't). Because a smaller wheel will allow frame geometry that translates into a much better fit and weight distribution for many smaller riders, THAT will make you faster, not slower.


My only concern about your choice of the LHT has nothing to do with wheel size. It just isn't designed to be a fast bike at all, from what I know. It is designed to be sturdy and reliable. My hunch is that tubing wise, it is a bit overkill for the smaller rider who isn't hauling around a lot of gear. It will probably weigh a lot, and if it has heavy wheels, regardless of their size, THAT will slow you down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lunacycles

I will say this on every post I see it, and everyone can ignore me or disagree as much as they like..., but: 26" (or 650c) wheels are not slower!

---

Sorry Margo, but I think I am confused.
I do understand that some cyclists cannot fit on bicycles equipped with 700c wheels and rewuire frames that use 650c or 26", and that's fine. Luckily I fit on 700c's so I never even questioned whether to use a different size.
What confuses me is that you are saying that there is no difference in speed.

I am not a mechanic and don't cycle for a living (sometimes I wish ;)...) so forgive me if I don't get it right - but this is how I always thought about it:
700c wheels have a longer circumference than 650c wheels. So, if you pedal at the exact same cadence and use the same exact gear ratio, and all other factors being equal, when you use 700c wheels you will cover a longer distance for each revolution than you would cover with 650c.
In other words - if everything else is the same, your speed will be higher when you use 700c wheels.
The way I see it, it sounds like the physics test back in college - you take wheel size, gear ratio, number of revolutions per minute... calculate the distance covered - you have the time interval, and voila' - that equals a certain speed. Now if everything else is the same - except the wheels, I would think you'd be faster with the bigger wheels.

So what makes you say that there is no difference?
:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moderncyclista

Do I have performance oriented options in Steel or Aluminum?

---

Yes +1
Also look up Bianchi, Colnago, De Rosa, and some other smaller Italian manufacturers - they have very hot :D steel and aluminum racing bikes!
And if you have trouble finding the right fit, yes - custom is definitely the answer!

+1 with Lunacycle regarding 650c/700c wheel.

I am no slower on my 650's than I was on my 700's. I find that I have a quicker acceleration on my 650's than my "big wheels."
I do think, however, that I'm slower on my 20" folding bike wheels. Maybe it's just that my little legs are turning more revolutions so they get more tired quickly.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tri Girl

I am no slower on my 650's than I was on my 700's.

---

Yes, I do believe that - I am sure that we can reach the same speed regardless of the bike.
What I am saying is that if you change wheel size you will have to change something else (power output, gear ratio, cadence...) in order to reach the exact same speed.
If you do not change enything else, only the wheel size - well, the 650 wheel is smaller so in one revolution my guess is that it will cover less distance than the 700.
Maybe I just don't know how it works - as I said I'm not a mechanic - but if I try to just make a few calculations, simple physics says that to reach the same speed with 650's you would have to use the same power output, which on a smaller wheel means higher revolutions or different gear ratio.
Correct?
I am definitely confused :)
Wisdom from the mechanics/framebuilders/engineers needed please...

Quote:

---

700c wheels have a longer circumference than 650c wheels. So, if you pedal at the exact same cadence and use the same exact gear ratio, and all other factors being equal, when you use 700c wheels you will cover a longer distance for each revolution than you would cover with 650c.

---

Yes, you are right. If you are in a 53x16 gear using a 700c wheel, pedaling at the same revolutions per minute, you will indeed be going a bit faster and covering a bit more ground than if you were riding that gear with a smaller diameter (e.g., 650c) wheel. However, if you are that same strong rider wanting to go the same speed using a slightly smaller diameter wheel (like 650c), you can simply just shift up a gear, say a 53x14, and you will be able to attain the same speed.

If you want to calculate gear inches, e.g., how far you are traveling per revolution of the wheel, you take the number of the teeth of the rear cog (say 13) and divide it into the number of teeth of your front chainring (say 52 teeth) and multiply it by the inch diameter of the wheel. I don't have my little metric conversion chart handy at home on a Sunday evening, but the point is, you can achieve the same speed regardless of wheel size by simply choosing a slightly bigger gear.

So, for a smaller wheeled bike, your largest gear, assuming you have the same drivetrain set up as you would on a 700c wheeld bike, will indeed be a bit smaller. If you are regularly spinning out on your 53 x 11 gear (ha ha) then, yes, your smaller wheels are "interfering with your speed." But for such phenoms/freaks of nature, this can be remedied by putting a larger gear on your bike, whether it is a bigger chainring or smaller rear cog.

If we were regularly spinning out our 53 x 11 gears on our 650c wheeled bikes, I would say, yes, the wheel diameter is affecting our speed (or, just as true, our gear choice/set up is affecting our speed). But I don't believe I have ever found a racer or all-around rider who ever is spinning out their biggest gear unless they are in an insane, suicidal mood descending a plus 10 degree descent and going for some speed record.

It just isn't an issue in real-world cycling.

Seriously: How often are you spinning out your biggest gear?

Does this make sense?

The argument for wheel resistance being higher for a smaller wheel has to do with the amount of wheel contacting the ground, the "tire patch" that makes contact with the road. It is a miniscule (MINISCULE) amount less for a smaller diameter wheel. Over really long distances this will translate into a tiny, tiny difference, speed-wise. But for 99.7 percent of us, with the riding we like to do, even at a very high level, even if we are very fit, we will never notice the difference. And, for the smaller folks, if our frame fits us better--as it is not being compromised by being stretched and contorted around giant wheels--the fact that we can attain a more efficient and balanced position with the geometries possible using a smaller wheel, this will make us much faster, and that miniscule speed difference will be beyond negligible given the benefits of achieving a better fit and weight distribution over both wheels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lunacycles

Does this make sense?

---

Yes, thanks!
I was only looking at gear inches - but yes, the whole story does make sense :)

Thanks for this in-depth discussion. Someone was trying to tell me that I was wrong for going for the Long Haul Trucker with the 26 inch wheels rather than the Jamis or 520 with their larger wheels. I did not know enough to have an answer for him, though I suspect that he knew that before the conversation started...

This isn't based on science - but some bikes just feel slower. Why is this? My Aurora is lighter than my 520 and doesn't have a rack (the 520 does.) The geometry? The gearing? I can't put my finger on it. I took the Aurora out for a spin today and yeah, I'm definitely moving slower. Speed isn't my primary concern - but why don't they perform the same? What is making that difference? The 520 has lower gearing even - but I move tons faster on it. I'm not concerned about 26 inch wheels, I'm actually kind of leaning away from the LHT. I know the components are supposed to be good - but unless I can ride one in my size - then it's a no go.

It could be the tires or the hubs on your aurora. I don't know what the trek 520 has on it stock. It could be the seat tube angle, crank length something like that. It could be that you're not using the gearing as efficiently, the aurora has larger gears, so are you hanging out in bigger gears and not spinning as efficiently as you do on your 520?

I don't think you should buy a surly long haul trucker without test riding one - because I don't imagine that it's going to be faster than the aurora.

I haven't really ridden an aurora much - I test rode Zen's around a parking lot once, and it seemed like a really nice ride. But I can't say that it felt slower than my surly pacer.

Do they both have the same tire on them? If not switch the tires and see what happens.

Geo plays a part, any weight difference in the wheelsets might (rotating weight is what you feel more than overall bike weight), a difference in your position (if you aren't at optimal efficiency and are closer on one bike than the other you may be noticing a power difference), some would claim build type (some bikes are built "stiff" and take all that power to your back tire and some are built softer which can be more comfortable but may loose you power from pedals to wheel in flex).

Lots of science crap goes into that unfortunately. Pinning down exactly why would be difficult.

Well. I've got alot to think about and possibly research - but I'm giving the Aurora six months - I want to get some more use out of it. Catriona: Yeah, I think I mash gears on the Aurora but spin on the 520 now that I think about it. Also, yeah I think it would be slow and steady on the LHT (which it is built for.) I've just had some say it's the "bike to get." I like to find what fits. MartianDestiny: They don't have the same tires. The 520 has Race Lite Hardcase 32's and the Aurora has some Vittoria (spelling is prob. bad sorry) Randonneurs 32's. I do think the Aurora flexes quite a bit. The other bike seeming stiffer. You gals have helped me peg what I do and don't like in a bike in general. It seems silly. I've been riding for years but never really thought about why I liked some bikes and disliked others. I'm going to give it some thought and do some more research. Thanks for the advice on all counts ladies. :) You're wonderful.

No worries. At least we're not doing what my bf says to me - It's all in your head.

But I've definitely had "slow" wheels and "slow" tires. Repacking the hubs with grease helped the slow wheels a bit. Banishing slow tires also helped. If the aurora's not as stiff, that's possibly why I thought it was a very smooth ride (but I rode around a parking lot for 5 mins maybe)

I climb better on my titanium road bike with a compact double than I do on my carbon bike with a triple. I don't have much of a clue why.

Okay. I've talked to my LBS. I'm gonna either trade/sell the Aurora (in the next few months - I've got til' August or September til' the new models are announced right?) and buy a new model year 520. I'd be okay with buying another 2009/2010 model too, so that's a choice as well (I just thought I'd look less cheesy with two diff. color 520's. As far as I can tell from Bike Pedia.com they change the color of the fivetwenty approx. every two years) I like having a back up bike and really I know I adore the 520. So, that's where I'm at for now. Unless, I change my mind. *grins* :D

Again, you gals help and suggestions were infinitely eye opening and thought provoking. (((((*hugs all around*))))) :)

Just asking . . . why do you want two of the same bike? My two main bikes are about as different as two bikes can get. Slow, heavy Surly LHT and fast sleek full carbon Ruby. Two very different ride but I love them both. If I were getting another bike I would definitely get something different.

Something like the Surly Pacer, I don't need but can't stop lusting after. :rolleyes: bikerHen :D

bikerHen: because I want one as it is, with slick race-lite tires for touring and another I'm going to customize a lil' bit with maybe cyclo-cross style brake levers, knobbier tires, etc (studded tires for winter) what-ever tickles my fancy. I just like the geometry of the 520. Out of all of the bikes I've owned - is really perfect for me. *for me being the operative words* I know some might say - get a race bike - etc. I am short-legged but long torsoed. Touring bikes work for me because of this. Most bikes I can stand over - but the top tube is too short. If the top-tube length is correct, then I can't stand over it. So, some might say - wow - go custom, well - I don't have that kind of cash. I would love to have a bike built to my specs. Love it - but alas - I don't make that kind of scratch. I know a few people who own two of a bike they love. I've had one bike in the shop before -and had to ride a back-up bike: I usually prefer one over the other - so why not the same bike? I don't want them to be twins so a different model year would be good. It works for me, but everybody is different. The other bike I was debating was the LHT - I like my bikes - sturdy, durable, and fast enough to be fun. ;D We're all different. Celebrate the difference. I used to own a mountain bike and I hated it. Weird, huh? I'm a loveable weird, I promise. :)

Well when you explain, it makes sense. Same frame, two different bikes. I was thinking more like two identical bikes. Couldn't quite wrap my mind around that. :rolleyes: bikerHen