Need a bike for my first cross country

[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!!