buying a new bike

I need to buy a new bike. My current bike is amazing, but after a bike fit and tight shoulders it's clear that the length between the seat and my handlebars is not long enough. It didn't used to bother me as long as I was riding more upright which for slower rides is actually still very nice.
I'm wondering, how do I figure out the frame size/specs I need?

The other issue is I'm a solid 12 - 14mph rider. I can hold onto 15 on a very flat flat. This pace is fine by me, but as another rider posted, there aren't a lot of riders in the 12 - 15 range. Most are either slower (and beginners) or faster. So I'm thinking about getting a faster bike as well, so that I can ride in the 14 - 17 range.
I really prefer to ride with groups so this is actually a big issue for me. Is this reasonable?

My current bike is an 8 year old OCR1 Giant.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I just purchased a new MTB as my Trek was too small. I have been having knee problems (old injury acting up). I noticed that even after 5 miles on the mtb I was hurting. While the stand over height was correct the distance between the handlebar and saddle was too short. After a tune up bike fitting I was faster on the trek and my peddle stoke was stronger however the bike still felt too small. The gal that did the re-fitting recommended a Specialized Myka if I decide to replace the Trek 4500. Saturday I caught a great deal on the Myka Elite. I am a bit faster, no knee pain, and can even tell in my shoulders and arms that the fit is better. With that all said, I believe that a better fit will make me a slightly faster rider (I am 12 - 13 mph rider).

I have owned two Giant bikes, an FCR 1 that I loved and a Cypres that I never fell in love with. I seem to be getting a better fit with the Specialized brand.

Deany

"A girl can never have too many bicycles"

2005 Giant FCR 1 (re-homed)
2007 Trek 4500 MTB (abandoned)
2008 Specialized Ruby Comp
2012 Specialized Vita Elite
2013 Specialized Myka Elite

I am not sure a new bike is going to give you 3mph of speed, that is on you (the engine). You could drop maybe 2 or 3+ pounds off your bike weight but that is a good poop and a water bottle. Getting a new bike is always a good plan LOL, but don't think there is going to be some miraculous speed increase. So looking at something more aero and lighter with optimal gearing is probably only going to be limited by your budget and comfort in position on a racier bike, the point of fitting, it would seem to me as someone whose DH does the tweaks and has bought bikes online, is not to retrofit a badly sized bike but to ensure the bike you are going to buy fits you and the is the geo you want. So if you are generally clueless you want to find a really reputable bike store to do that before you buy, and speak with the person who fit your old bike for advice, you already paid for that? .

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll have to see how it goes when I'm test riding.

I'm really mystified by why there are so few people who seem to ride around 13mph... that would really solve this whole problem :)

Alright, I'm off to study geometry because the shoulder/back discomforts I'm dealing with are only going to be solved with a new bike.

What's really even more maddening is when people on roller blades outdistancing me!!!

My fitter can and will do a "pre fit" and tell you what size bike you need for the various brands of bikes you're interested.

I actually gained an average of 2 mph after my fitting. I used to average 13.5 and now average 15, 15.5. I think that it was mostly due to the discomfort and pain. Once I got rid of that I was able to go faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rain

I'm really mystified by why there are so few people who seem to ride around 13mph... that would really solve this whole problem :)

---

I've been told I ride like a distracted 3 year old. I'm going along a a decent pace then slow to a crawl to look at things.

TrekDianna

Where do you find space to store so many bikes? :D And all those 2013s . . . you are so lucky!

I inherited $$ when my Dad passed away. Unfortunately, I kind of lost my job (fired) in July and need to use it to live on. If that hadn't happened . . . (unemployment doesn't quite cover everything.)

The reason I have a 2014 is because my Ruby was stolen. I bought the new TREK Domane to replace it. I didn't even take it out of the shop because we went on vacation the day after I bought it. The Ruby was recovered and returned. I couldn't return the newly purchased bike and didn't need two roadies, so I bought the TREK. Most of the LBS here will not let you return a bike for cash but you can return the bike and put the amount against another bike. I was lucky the dealer reimbursed the difference 0f $830. Of course, approximately 1/3 of that was spent on upgrades so I could make the bike work. I think he did that because we bought another $2600 bike to replace my SO's bike which was also stolen, recovered and returned to us. We are in the process of selling his old bicycle.

thanks thekarens. I was wondering if that ever happened.

I did get my bike fitted because of pain, which lessened, but having learned that the top tube was too short I started to ride more upright so I wouldn't aggravate my back. But that affects speed. (The bike didn't bother me for the first 4 years I owned it because I didn't try to lean forward.)

This post has got me thinking... I initially thought I wanted a new bike to "go faster" but I think I really want a new bike that fits my current body and riding style. Which has changed a lot over the last 8 years.

I wouldn't even know how to work out what group to join based on MPHs, on a flat century (say 3000 feet or less of climbing ) I would be at least 16 mphs, but around my area where I am often doing 100ft climb per mile, my MPH is not compatible with group classifications. A hilly near century (over 7k of climb/94 miles, was 13.4 mph. I only group ride with a ladies shop ride and it really depends on who turns up as to how fast we go and they are rarely speedy rides. I would like to have the balls to join the local club but this fear of classification is what paralyzes me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajero

TrekDianna

Where do you find space to store so many bikes? :D And all those 2013s . . . you are so lucky!

---

I have two houses and I hate to haul the bikes back and forth on weekends - the car rack only holds two and we would have to haul 4 to bring both road and MTB. I store two at my other house. The rest have their own place to live on hangers when they aren't being used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekDianna

I have two houses and I hate to haul the bikes back and forth on weekends - the car rack only holds two and we would have to haul 4 to bring both road and MTB. I store two at my other house. The rest have their own place to live on hangers when they aren't being used.

---

I am so indecisive. I would never be able to figure out which one to ride. I only have two bicycles locked up in the garage and I can never decide which one to ride. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajero

I am so indecisive. I would never be able to figure out which one to ride. I only have two bicycles locked up in the garage and I can never decide which one to ride. ;)

---

Easy choice for me - mountain bike or road bike. It depends on where I am headed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrekDianna

I've been told I ride like a distracted 3 year old. I'm going along a a decent pace then slow to a crawl to look at things.

---

I do that too. I can manage a good clip on flat ground, but then I see something cool and...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Owlie

I do that too. I can manage a good clip on flat ground, but then I see something cool and...

---

Yep, this is me as well. I start to enjoy the fresh air and scenery and forget about speed :)

A flat century is not 3,000-4,000 ft. of climbing to me, or most others around here. I ride hills, steep ones, all of the time, but I wouldn't consider a century flat unless it had less than 2,000 feet of climbing. Yesterday, I did a 40 mile ride, with 1,500 feet of climbing. This ride always seems deceptively flat, but the hillier parts come after lunch and it hurts, even though they are not big climbs.
The 2 metrics I did this year had 3,300 and 4,200 ft. of climbing and they both killed me. My average was 13.4 and I was quite happy with that. Who cares? I am happy to be able to climb grades of 10-14%, even if it's at 3-6 mph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crankin

A flat century is not 3,000-4,000 ft. of climbing to me, or most others around here. I ride hills, steep ones, all of the time, but I wouldn't consider a century flat unless it had less than 2,000 feet of climbing.

---

How do you figure out how many feet you are climbing. My SO will go on bicycle ride together. You would think the Garmins would give us the same data, but they are very far from agreeing on the elevations. We have tried to correct for this, but apparently aren't doing it correctly because they still don't agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rain

I'm really mystified by why there are so few people who seem to ride around 13mph... that would really solve this whole problem :)

---

I agree!! I fall right in between the 12mph'ers and 14mph'ers. So frustrating! Happy bike shopping!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajero

How do you figure out how many feet you are climbing. My SO will go on bicycle ride together. You would think the Garmins would give us the same data, but they are very far from agreeing on the elevations. We have tried to correct for this, but apparently aren't doing it correctly because they still don't agree.

---

The garmins with barometrics will be the most accurate (500s, 800s, 910) otherwise set autocorrect in GC and it should correct the ride once it is uploaded, even the barometrics might have slight differences, but not huge ones. I take less notice of grade info on the bike though, that is a bit sketchy on the 500 or the 910.

It is interesting to read that two Garmins on the same ride would be so different from each other regarding elevation. I've considered getting one, but am holding off to see if my body can be encouraged to accept longer rides again....and I get over my current unease over riding in Indianapolis traffic.

As far as average speed, these days I fall just over 13mph and you know what? I am happy with that :) Neither my bike, nor I, am designed to be one of the fast gals. It IS encouraging that I no longer have to work really hard to get it up THAT high, which leads me to assume that if my body would accept a more traditional road bike that I would likely be faster - but that isn't my goal in riding.

Garmins always will be variable a bit. It's all just an approximation. We do look on Topo maps if we are really interested in how steep something is. I do better if I know ahead of time what kind of climb is coming up, if I am on a ride I haven't done before. While I seriously don't like doing the same route over and over again, I am always slightly "off," if I am on a new route, mostly in unfamiliar areas/cities. Not so much if I am just exploring new roads in the general vicinity of where I live. I am really not much of an explorer, though. When I first started riding, DH and I did a lot of the exploring together, and we've just enlarged it.
I had difficulty finding groups to ride with when I started riding, but I found two. I don't ride with groups very often anymore, though. These groups also provided good routes that I shared with other friends. Now they put the routes on Ride With GPS, so even if I don't ride with them, I might download a cue sheet and do the ride with just a couple of friends.

+1 on the barometric altimeters being the most accurate. GPS-only elevation is typically way off just because of the physics of the signals and the geometry of the triangulation from the satellites. Still, you're going to have some variation. They'll be the most accurate if you start from a known elevation that you've programmed into your GPS, and let the signal settle for 20 minutes or so before starting out. If you have a lot of steep grades, then one-second recording will help with elevation accuracy as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kajero

How do you figure out how many feet you are climbing. My SO will go on bicycle ride together. You would think the Garmins would give us the same data, but they are very far from agreeing on the elevations. We have tried to correct for this, but apparently aren't doing it correctly because they still don't agree.

---

Map the ride out in advance using ridewithgps.com - it will give you elevations, Personally I don't get to hung up on comparing. A hill is a hill and if it is off a few feet oh well. Now if the hill didn't show up at all :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sky King

Map the ride out in advance using ridewithgps.com - it will give you elevations, Personally I don't get to hung up on comparing. A hill is a hill and if it is off a few feet oh well. Now if the hill didn't show up at all :)

---

This is interesting, I've found in some places the hill doesn't show up at all on the online services. I've only noticed this a couple of times and in both cases the situation was the same. A very short and steep hill that wasn't graded at all when they built the road. It looks very much like a "bump"... an insanely steep bump (or at least they feel that way to me), and aren't long at all.

At least historically, ridewithgps used much more detailed topo maps than mapmyride. I'm not sure whether that's still the case. So very often, short steep hills like we have in the eastern US wouldn't show up on mapmyride, and a longer climb would register as a long shallow climb, instead of the reality of a series of 20% climbs and slightly shorter descents. A century with about 10,000 feet of climbing, that tracked fairly accurately on ridewithgps, would show up as about 2,500 feet on mapmyride, hardly "off a few feet."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sky King

Map the ride out in advance using ridewithgps.com - it will give you elevations, Personally I don't get to hung up on comparing. A hill is a hill and if it is off a few feet oh well. Now if the hill didn't show up at all :)

---

I am all about the hill stats LOL, when I am climbing a 3K canyon I want to know real time ascent stats more than distance. Distance isn't my worry LOL.

Another thing occurred to me on my run today: GPS is pretty sensitive to EMF interference. Riding under poorly shielded electric lines will send it wacky (you won't notice it if your wheel sensor is working); we had a car once that DH's standalone GPS wouldn't work when the CD player was running, even that little electric motor was enough to obliterate the signal. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if your DH's e-assist is interfering with at least his GPS and possibly yours as well. Besides the "usual" minor inaccuracies and occasional days when the government turns the GPS accuracy down (yep, they do that), that everyone has mentioned here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

+1 on the barometric altimeters being the most accurate. GPS-only elevation is typically way off just because of the physics of the signals and the geometry of the triangulation from the satellites. Still, you're going to have some variation. They'll be the most accurate if you start from a known elevation that you've programmed into your GPS, and let the signal settle for 20 minutes or so before starting out. If you have a lot of steep grades, then one-second recording will help with elevation accuracy as well.

---

I guess I have to figure out even MORE things with my Garmin Edge 500.