Need a bike for my first cross country

[Blueberry]

I think I may end up ignoring the tour organizer's recommendation on tires. When I first tried the Giant OCR1W I thought it felt great. I tried it again today, went about 10-12 miles, and it wasn't so great. My hands were hurting a bit. Could it be that I am just not used to drops?

So I'm back to thinking about the Surly LHT. It was one of the first bikes I tried and I think it has been the most comfortable. The specs say "Crankarms:Sugino XD600:48-36-26t, silver." Others on this forum are recommending "50-40-30" I think. Is it better have smaller numbers or larger?

The tires on the LHT are supposed to be 26" by 1.5". How does the 1.5" translate into the 28c terminology? I know it's not just converting mm to inches.

The other bike I'm considering is the Specialized Sequoia Elite. I haven't ridden one yet but there is a LBS that has one in my size. Any opinions?

Thanks for all the feedback. It's been invaluable.

You really have to go with what's comfy for you - don't be shy about lots of test rides

Smaller numbers on the front = lower (easier) gearing which is better for climbing. At a 48 big ring, you won't be able to do as much pedaling down hill (but do you really want to?).

Good luck!

CA

[whateveronfire]

I saw your query about this on the Surly LHT/CC mailing list. I think steel is going to be more comfortable for you than aluminum. If a LHT doesn't suit, why not something like a Gunnar Sport? It's a more relaxed geometry with the comfort advantages of steel.

I'll second (third) the Salsa recommendation and add Soma to the list of bikes to look at. The Smoothie might suit in the same way the Gunnar does. It may be hard to find a built up Soma or Gunnar, so that may dissuade you a bit.

You could certainly also look at a carbon bike. It's not going to do a rack very well, but with an alloy seatpost, you could use a seatpost mounted rack. Here again, I might go with a more relaxed geometry bike like a Roubaix, a Pilot, or a Synapse.

Good luck!

[Beane]

I think I may end up ignoring the tour organizer's recommendation on tires. When I first tried the Giant OCR1W I thought it felt great. I tried it again today, went about 10-12 miles, and it wasn't so great. My hands were hurting a bit. Could it be that I am just not used to drops?

It wouldn't be the drops per se. It would most likely be that the way you are positioned on the bike causes you to put more weight on your hands, which would cause pain. You could fix this by changing the stem, but you will should be able to find a bike that fits better. And like everyone else has been saying, fit it what's most important.

Also, I don't know if the OCR is aluminum or carbon, but aluminum bikes transmit a lot of high frequency vibration ("chatter") which can get to your hands after a while.

[boy in a kilt]

I think I may end up ignoring the tour organizer's recommendation on tires. When I first tried the Giant OCR1W I thought it felt great. I tried it again today, went about 10-12 miles, and it wasn't so great. My hands were hurting a bit. Could it be that I am just not used to drops?

So I'm back to thinking about the Surly LHT. It was one of the first bikes I tried and I think it has been the most comfortable. The specs say "Crankarms:Sugino XD600:48-36-26t, silver." Others on this forum are recommending "50-40-30" I think. Is it better have smaller numbers or larger?

The tires on the LHT are supposed to be 26" by 1.5". How does the 1.5" translate into the 28c terminology? I know it's not just converting mm to inches.

The other bike I'm considering is the Specialized Sequoia Elite. I haven't ridden one yet but there is a LBS that has one in my size. Any opinions?

Thanks for all the feedback. It's been invaluable.

If you are going with 26 inch wheels, the 48-36-26 combination will be just dandy. That's a nice mix for that size of a wheel. As mentioned, you won't have much for going downhill, but, well, 30, 40 and 60 all basically feel the same anyway.

On the tire sizing mystery, I can't say anymore about comparing sizes because the whole system is a bloody mess. I know what sizes I like and buy those.

The Right Honorable Sheldon Brown has this page on the topic

The DW's bike has 26x1.5 and they seem to work pretty well. Wide enough to be comfy but not so wide that it feels like a tractor tire.

The sequoia elite. I'd say this bike would be ok for doing centuries, but not much more.

It doesn't have any way to attach fenders. Not highly recommended on a touring bike. Clip on fenders like the race blades are known to wear grooves in carbon fiber forks and seat stays. Plus, they aren't really secure and will probably drive you batty.

No way to attach racks other than the seat post. If the seat post weren't carbon fiber, that wouldn't be a show stopper.

The gearing is basically ok.

The tires are too narrow and I'm not sure you could get anything larger than a 700x25 on those rims. 700x25 are probably not the best option for touring.

I have other issues with the bike, but it's basically my personal biases against gel seats, carbon fiber and my dislike for the way the front wheel is built.

[Starfish]

The sequoia elite. I'd say this bike would be ok for doing centuries, but not much more.

It doesn't have any way to attach fenders. Not highly recommended on a touring bike. Clip on fenders like the race blades are known to wear grooves in carbon fiber forks and seat stays. Plus, they aren't really secure and will probably drive you batty.

No way to attach racks other than the seat post. If the seat post weren't carbon fiber, that wouldn't be a show stopper.

True about the fenders. I only use a seat-mounted one to keep the rooster tail off. I do get dirty when it rains.

Maybe something has changed in recent years...mine is a 2004. It will take racks...I don't know all the right names of parts, but there is definitely a place down by the hubs that you attach racks to, and then somewhere other than the seatpost up above. At least a full rear rack. The bike is classified as a "sport tourer." Made for very light sport touring.

The gearing is basically ok.

The tires are too narrow and I'm not sure you could get anything larger than a 700x25 on those rims. 700x25 are probably not the best option for touring.

The gearing was just fine for my supported tour...about 24,000 feet over 6 actual days of riding between 55-80 miles/day.

I had the impression that this was a supported tour, and the 700x25s are just fine for that. Don't know about if you did more self-supported stuff.

I have other issues with the bike, but it's basically my personal biases against gel seats, carbon fiber and my dislike for the way the front wheel is built.

I can't speak to how the front wheel is built...mine's taken a lot of abuse in 4 years and still doing fine. I don't have a gel seat...I tend to think that we almost always end up putting a new saddle on every bike we buy...I sure do.

One other thing about the Sequoia. Something I am actually looking to trade up out of, but that really does help on a long, tiring, multi-day ride, is that it has a long wheelbase and is very stable. You can get tired, and keep on truckin'.

Just my .02

[Torrilin]

Sheldon Brown has a gearing calculator that I find really helpful for comparing bikes. If you're not sure how to use it, start by telling it about your current bike. After all, you already *know* how those gears feel. Then you can enter the gearing for bikes you're interested in, and see how well it fits with what you already know works. I've looked at a lot of bikes that I thought were very pretty and shiny... and then the gear calculator told me that compared to my current bike, they were built for Tour de France winners. I'm not a TdF winner, I'm a 30 year old who bikes to get groceries.

A bike tour is also not the TdF .

I'm also not a fan of carbon (or any other composite used inappropriately). I've used it a lot for model airplanes, and when it fails, it's pretty spectacular. I'm also not used to carbon failing in airplane applications... the stuff is pretty well indestructible if it was engineered right and is used within spec. The "carbon" used for bikes seems to be much more failure prone than the carbon fiber I'm used to for airplanes. This leads me to believe the typical bike "carbon" is a poorly engineered material, and I like *good* engineering. Note that there are lots of people having lots of fun on carbon bikes. So it can be done well, I just don't trust my ability to judge it in a bike application.

[captenaj]

About the Sequoia Elite, I was reading reviews at http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/la...1_5668crx.aspx. Folks pointed out a number of problems they have had with it. It makes me a little hesitant to even try it.

Carbon bike? I think those are a little out of my price range. But I'm hearing that a rear rack can be attached to a non-carbon seat post? I didn't know it couldn't be carbon. But if you attach a rack to a seat post, it can't handle the weight it otherwise is designed for, right?

In terms of width of tires, I was getting confused with the diameter conundrum (where mm and inches cannot be converted). In terms of the width, there is a mm to inch conversion, isn't there? So a 28c tire is 28mm wide, is the same width as a 1.1 inch tire and a 1.5" tire is the same as a 38c.... Have I got it right?

About fenders, doesn't a rear rack prevent a soaking? I rode a Trek Portland today that had front and rear fenders. The my toe kept hitting the front fender - very annoying.

I can't see ever doing an unsupported tour. Is the Surly LHT overkill?

[boy in a kilt]

Yeah, now I see the rack eyelets. Had to look at the red picture to see it.

My bias against using 25C wheels for long rides is probably related to weighing 185 pounds, on a 24 pound bike (unloaded). A lighter rider might not get as annoyed by it.

My issue with radial spoke pattern is they can be a bit harder to keep true because the nipples can turn more freely. Also, there is less metal in the direction of spoke pull so the it's a little easier for the spoke to pull through the flange.

The advantage of radial patterns is lighter spokes and the wheels are laterally stiffer which means they corner much more precisely. That also means more of the lateral load is transferred to the flange which, after lots of long, bumpy riding, can play hell on your hubs.

From a comfort perspective, the semi-tangential lacing patterns (like the normal three-cross) are more comfortable because the wheel as a whole will flex more under loads. The energy your spokes absorb is energy that your hands and butt never hear about.

Yes, most of my touring is self-supported. In fact, I've never even done a supported tour so I'm probably thinking in terms of "if this thing fails, it's me and my tools or a very long walk with a heavy, broken bike."

And I dislike carbon fiber for exactly the reasons described above: it can fail in spectacular (and unfortunate) ways with little warning.

Plus, I'm a retro grouch. Ride steel, sit on leather and wear wool.

[Starfish]

About the Sequoia Elite, I was reading reviews at http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/la...1_5668crx.aspx. Folks pointed out a number of problems they have had with it. It makes me a little hesitant to even try it.

Seems like most of the complaints had to do with the brakes and shifting. Mine came with all 105, and my bike seems to run OK.

Don't get me wrong, it isn't my dream bike now, but it has been a great bike for me. I am dreaming of a lighter, faster bike. But, I really can't complain about this bike. In fact, despite it not taking fenders, when I get my new bike, I will be keeping this one for my second bike...its stability makes it a pretty good crummy weather bike.

And, for instance, I got in 46 miles the other day...a big loop. Smack in the middle of the loop, I hit a 10 mile section of oily, greasy, stubbly, brand-new chip & seal. I was out there, so just kept going. I was grateful for the stability on the downhills of newly oiled, gravelly chip & seal!

And, at least for me, it has been comfortable on my neck, back, shoulders, hands, etc for rides up to 12 hours.

[captenaj]

I finally decided on the Ruby Comp. When I road it, I knew it was the one. Light, fast, nimble and oh-so comfortable. Although I only road one for about 10 miles (I tried to convince the LBS to let me take it for 40 but that didn't go over - something about how they sell new bikes), those 10 were a dream. I ordered one as they didn't have the triple in stock. Now I have to wait for two weeks for it to arrive.

[rij73]

Congrats! It will be a long 2 weeks of waiting (spoken by someone who knows!)

Is it a 2008 Ruby?

[Starfish]

Oooooh!!! Yay! I demand to see pictures when you get it!!