Bike envy - breathe deep!

[ZenSojourner]

Ah, but mine was "off-the-rack." It was pre-built, and it fit me, and it's marvelous.

But I guess what you don't know won't tempt you.

Well then that was just luck. They have one "pre-built" on their site right now and it's way too big for me. Well not "way", but too big. Also too expensive.

I take that back - it is way too big. The top tube is almost an inch and a half longer than my Terry. It's actually longer than my old almost-fit Trek. Plus the stem on it is longer than on my Terry (I know, you can replace a stem)

I'm pretty sure that what I'm feeling here is the OPPOSITE of bike envy!

[Triskeliongirl]

Zen, which terry bike is that? From the pic I would guess one of the newer madeleines, 17.5" (or maybe 19" hard to see headtube length in the tiny picture)? Am I right? Why don't you show us a bigger pic???

[ZenSojourner]

Zen, which terry bike is that? From the pic I would guess one of the newer madeleines, 17.5" (or maybe 19" hard to see headtube length in the tiny picture)? Am I right? Why don't you show us a bigger pic???

It's a 17.5" Terry Madeleine. They've stopped making it.

I guess I shouldn't be too sad since I got one before they quit.

It's a touring bike. I could get a Symmetry or an Isis to fit (actually the fit would be a tad better), but they're not touring bikes. And the new bike they're replacing the Madeleine with is really designed for cyclocross, they have a "tourist-y" version but it won't fit me, top tube's too long. It's called the "Valkyrie".

I am VERY happy with my Terry! I've heard people (many of whom have never even seen a Terry, let alone ridden one) call the steering "squirrely" because of the smaller front wheel (only on the smallest sizes, all the larger Terry's have 2 700c wheels). But it's never been squirrely for me, it handles REALLY well. If you want to talk about squirrely, you should ride something right on the edge of fit like my old Trek was (I think it was a 420, I gave it away). With the Madeleine, I understood for the first time what cyclists mean by "leaning into the curve" to steer more with your body than just by turning the wheel. On my Trek, I'd have fallen over if I tried that, VERY unstable.

I think some of the early Terry's may have had some problems with steering, but she's got the design down pat by now! With the head tube angle and rake on a lot of the WSD bikes (even with 650c wheels), steering is likely to be more sluggish or not as responsive as I would prefer. But it's just fine on my Madeleine. Very stable and about as responsive as you could hope for from a touring bike.

And I can actually reach the brakes! First time I went for the brake levers I almost catapulted myself out of the seat, it stopped so fast! That's the difference between having to stretch and barely reaching your brakes, and having them right there where they belong and being able to really get some torque on them like you should.

And yes, there's a kickstand on there. I don't remember the details anymore, but it took a bit of finagling to get it on there. There's a mounting but there were some clearance issues. The first shop I took it to stuck it on there, handed the bike back to me, and when I hopped on, you couldn't rotate the peddles, LOL! So I took it to a different shop and he figured out how to get it on there right. I think Ms. Terry about had a cow when I e-mailed her about how to get a kickstand on there, she doesn't believe in 'em. Personally *I* won't have a bike without one.

WHEW! I almost launched into a long-winded discussion of bike geometry, aren't we lucky I got distracted!

[Cataboo]

Hrm. I'm not entirely sure a lot of my bike buying has been fueled by bike envy so much as a drive for something that's more comfortable that I can ride on long distances. Saddles I've definitely explored. Handlebars as well. Gel padding under handlebars, different bar tapes. Carbon wheels, whatever to try to dampen out the vibrations. I don't have better than ultegra on any of my bikes and I'm probably never going to invest in something like dura ace. Yeah, it's pretty but I don't see the point. I guess I've got 2 ultegra level bikes & 1 105 level bike. I'm fine with the 105 level bike.

The goal's been to have 2 road bikes that fit - one carbon, one titanium, one a double, one a triple... Basically to have one I leave the boyfriend's, one at my house... and both bikes would have different strengths. Then I have a mountain bike & a commuter/utility bike.

So I pretty much have that goal as of a couple weeks ago when I got my litespeed... so I'll probably end up selling my aluminum road bike once I'm certain about the litespeed and can bear to, 'cause it was my first road bike... and other than maybe wheel upgrades or things like that I don't think I really will be bothering with much else for my bikes.

[Triskeliongirl]

Thanks for the info. Zen. The paint scheme is very similar to my 2005 titanium isis. I also had a 2001 classic that I put drop bars on, and a 2003 isis that I converted to a touring bike w s/s couplers, canti bosses, etc. by a frame builder. Mine are a mix of 17.5" and 19", and all have the small front wheel. There are only subtle differences in frame geometry between the symetry/isis family and the classic/madeleine family, its more about how you set them up that make some models more suitable for touring. The older steel ones are comparatively heavy though.

Until I found my XS cervelo RS, they were the only bikes that fit me, but I think I am a tad taller than you (my cervelo is a 48cm, while my terrys are a mix of 17.5 and 19" the 19s fit better). I still commute on my titanium isis, which I really enjoy. She was my go fast bike until very recently, so its fun to ride her everyday. The cervelo is super light and fast, and handles really well, a real racing bike. The 2003 steel travel isis is soon to be my daughter's college graduation present. The 2001 classics are gone (I had 2 actually, one totalled in a crash and one given to a friend and then stolen).

My problem was when terry changed the geometry on the 19" in 2005 to use 650c wheels, she also steepened the seat tube angle. I realized for me terrys worked not because of the short top tube but the slack seat tube angle (73 degree). That is why I bought the titanium isis in 17.5", to get the slack STA but its really too small for me. The 48cm cevelo RS also has a slack STA like the older/smaller terry's but a longer top tube and 650c wheels so fits me better. SO, now I have a titanium beater..........but she's still really fun for me to commute on.

[ZenSojourner]

Until I found my XS cervelo RS, they were the only bikes that fit me, but I think I am a tad taller than you

Well maybe not. I'm EXTREMELY short waisted for my height. I used to ride with a friend who was about 5 or 6" taller than me, and we had the same length arms and legs. All that height difference was in the torso.

I'm 5'2", 30" inseam, and I actually have the seat fully extended (handlebars as well), but if I went up a frame size, the top tube was going to be too long. It's 19.4" on my 17.5 Madeleine, which is ok but it's right on the edge of trying to be too long. I see the 19" frame was only 19.5", but there's got to be a breakpoint and I think I was already there.

That's why I say the Isis/Symmetry fits me a tad better - the top tube length on that bike is 19" in that frame size (17.5"). But I wanted the touring style bike.

I had not actually realized she had gone to 650c wheels, but as I recall, there was some hubbub around that time about changing criteria for racing. They weren't going to allow different size wheels or something? I don't remember the details anymore. Maybe that's why she switched though.

I see that all the new Fast Woman and Valkyrie models have the seat angle at 74 degrees. Well, it's still under 75 degrees, unlike most of the WSD bikes on the market. Some of them are as steep as 76 degrees.

If I recall correctly, shallower seat tube is better for comfort, more aggressive (under 75 degrees) is better for control? Or Speed or something.

Also, the new theory is that part of the reason women need a shorter top tube is that they are more comfortable sitting further back on the bike than men are, allegedly due to center of gravity issues. Yup, they're now saying that it isn't that women are proportionally shorter-waisted than men (except for me, I'm shorter waisted than about everybody, LOL!) Anyway, if that's the case, a shallower seat tube angle would be preferable for many women.

Aaaah, I'm falling into the pit of trying to figure out the whys of bike geometry. I'd better quit before it pulls me under, LOL!

[Cataboo]

I'm 5'1, 30 inch inseam or whatever. My legs are definitely not long & my torso is not short... I've found what works for me best is a 73 degree seattube angle & 165 mm cranks, top tube about 540 mm. A 73.5-74 seat tube angle ends up with me riding the bike with my bum hanging off the back of the seat in an effort to get comfortable with the location of my knees, even with a setback on the seatpost.

My carbon frame,I pretty much bought because it had a 73 degree seat angle, and it's the most comfortable of my bikes.

The litespeed currently has 170 mm cranks on it, and I've been trying to ride them to see how it works... I can manage, I definitely get more knee fatigue, and that's why I'm eying new cranks for that bike.