New to cycling..Please advise :)

bosra

Hi
I am new to cycling..I am looking to get my first road bike and looking forward to trying some routes around the Dublin mountains. Please could you give any pointers you think relevant that I should look out for when getting a bike and cycling in general. What bikes would you recommend? Would it be better to buy new or second hand? Are any brands more comfortable in terms of positioning than others? Or can they all be adjusted to fit the rider? Anyway, appreciate any contribution u can make..however brief..Cheers

ROK ON

There are loads of threads re bikes - have a search and come up with a few options, then folks maybe able to recommend a bike.

On other advice

Buy a good pair of cycling shorts.

Drink regularly on a spin - plain water or water with a bit of salt/elctrolyte tablet - this helps against dehydration induced cramp on longer spins.

Know how to replace a puncture - carry spares and tyre levers.

Pace yourself on climbs.
Enjoy.

kincsem

I suggest you get a triple = a bike with three chainrings on the front. It gives you more gears, and the extra gears are climbing gears, making it easier to get up the hills.

However, most people on boards are proper cyclists and would not be seen dead on a triple. They ride standard or compact.

Typical chainrings.
Triple has 52, 42, 30 sprockets on the front.
Standard has 52, 39.
Compact has 50, 34.

I would suggest you get a 12/27 on the back. (That is 12,13,14,15,16,17,19,21,24,27). Ten sprockets on the back, three on the front gives 30 gear choices.

This means your biggest gear is 52/12 or 4.33.
And your smallest gear is 30/27 = 1.11 (this is the important number for getting up hills, the smaller the better). A 39 on the front and a 23 on the back gives 39/23 = 1.70 , very hard to push a gear that big up hills.

And get a road bike. That is a bike with drop handlebars (some call it a "racer"). The reason is a flat bar bike gets uncomfortable the greater the distance you go as you are in a fixed position. With drops you can move your hands to different positions, on the hoods, gripping the flat part of the bar, or down on the drops (usually uncomfortable but useful into a breeze).

bosra

Hey..thanks for both replies...very informative...Why wouldn't a cyclist want a triple and just a standard? I thought it would make the bike faster?? any other dos and don'ts on bikes?
I was looking at some specialized road bikes in cycleways on parnell st..I need to do alot of research first..as i dont know what bikes represent value for money...
Again, thanks for any advice ..im sure these questions are asked weekly by newbies..

Raam

a triple is either for touring or for folk who aint strong in the hills.

Lumen

bosra wrote: »

Hey..thanks for both replies...very informative...Why wouldn't a cyclist want a triple and just a standard? I thought it would make the bike faster??

A triple just means you have a wider range of gears to tackle big hills.

If you don't need to go up big hills, or don't mind pedalling up them at low cadence, or are quite fit, a triple is probably overkill.

There are minor objective downsides to a triple - the front shifting isn't quite as good, it's very slightly heavier, and the distance between pedals is a bit wider (although that's not necessarily a bad thing).

blorg

bosra wrote: »

Hey..thanks for both replies...very informative...Why wouldn't a cyclist want a triple and just a standard? I thought it would make the bike faster?

The main issue is the shifting quality which is a lot better with a double chainset. This is only really an issue if you are racing, where a mis-shift could really cost you. Adjustment is more difficult and there is a higher likeihood of a shift not working or throwing a chain under pressure with a triple.

There is a small weight penalty also with a triple but if you are in the situation where you would make use of the lower gears at all it is not significant, e.g. the lower gear is worth a lot more to you than the very small weight penalty. If racing you will simply be going at such a pace that if you needed the lower gears you would not be competitive so why have it if you are not going to use it.

A good alternative now on the market is a compact chainset where there is still only two rings but they are further apart, e.g. 34-50 rather than a standard 39-53 or a triple 52-39-30. With a compact you lose some range and are still one gear off what you would have with the triple at the bottom end. One gear off the bottom can be a lot if you are struggling up a hill.

For your first road bike planning on doing the mountains I would not even entertain the thought of a standard 53-39. You might get away with a compact, it is worth considering. A triple will however be easier to spin up a hill and if you are not racing and do not need razor-sharp front shifts it is a very good choice.

Note it's not the gearing but your legs that make the bike go faster

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

There are minor objective downsides to a triple - the front shifting isn't quite as good

blorg wrote: »

The main issue is the shifting quality which is a lot better with a double chainset.

So there ya have it. That's cyclists in a nutshell, no one agrees about anything!

bosra

Haha..im more confused now than when i started..naw just kidding.. ..I think i'd like the challenge of a compact over a triple..BUT, i think when im trying to climb a mountain for the first time on a 80km spin, ill probably be in bits

blorg

I think we said basically the same thing regarding shifting quality with only slightly different emphasis. We both agree the weight isn't significant.

The shifting on a triple can be a genuine problem racing when you are shifting under pressure. If you don't race (like most people with road bikes) it is not a major issue. To be honest I would not suggest a standard double chainset to anyone who wasn't looking to race.

The other issue if it matters to you however is that a double whether standard or compact looks better

lukester

Raam wrote: »

So there ya have it. That's cyclists in a nutshell, no one agrees about anything!

Erm, but they're agreeing with each other, indirectly.

Raam

lukester wrote: »

Erm, but they're agreeing with each other, indirectly.

They disagree about the degree with which they agree

lukester

Raam wrote: »

They disagree about the degree with which they agree

Ah, of course :pac:

@ the OP

Keep it simple, go for a compact double. Most entry level road bikes come with them as standard anyway.

bosra

thanks all..Very informative stuff..
Is it crucial that u get a bike frame fitted for ur height? Is there a good second hand market for bikes in Ireland?..there seems to be alot for sale in London (GUMTREE) for example..Would most people rather buy new? What would be a ball park figure for a decent first roadbike..1500? 2k?

lukester

bosra wrote: »

Is it crucial that u get a bike frame fitted for ur height?

Is there a good second hand market for bikes in Ireland?..there seems to be alot for sale in London (GUMTREE) for example..

Would most people rather buy new? What would be a ball park figure for a decent first roadbike..1500? 2k?

Fit is very important. Do some research, lots of threads here about it.

Second hand it's hard to find anything decent. You could be lucky, and if someone here is selling a bike it's usually a good option.

1500-2000 will get you a very nice road bike, it's sort of a sweet-spot price-point for decent carbon-framed bikes.

Even 7-800 will get you a decent entry level bike, but if you have the budget, I'd say look at 1000 as a minimum.

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

They disagree about the degree with which they agree

Don't get me wrong, I'd have a standard double in a flash, only my bike is second hand and the original owner was such a wimp he needed a triple.

xz

Once you get the previous advice sorted, the best advice is to just get out there and ride

bosra

Do you guys use ur road bikes to commute to work aswell? I have a mountain bike I use for work commute presently...I have just been reading about the amount of punctures on the road bikes..and i would be concernced about buckling as some of the roads are covered in holes and rocks..

Nietzschean

bosra wrote: »

Do you guys use ur road bikes to commute to work aswell? I have a mountain bike I use for work commute presently...I have just been reading about the amount of punctures on the road bikes..and i would be concernced about buckling as some of the roads are covered in holes and rocks..

you can always get a hybrid as something faster than a mtb for commuting but with thicker tyres than a road bike

But in general we don't get a huge amount of punctures per km(or well most of us anyway). I've had bad enough tyres and even then with going onto pretty crap roads i'm at ~1/500km so not altogether terrible. People just moan(i do it too) when they have a bad run of things...

buckling isn't really much of a risk, more likely to break yourself rather than a road bike in a crash....just maybe a less comfortable ride if you use narrower tyres than a hybrid or anything with bigger tyres..

DirkVoodoo

I commute on a singlespeed road bike, no punctures since November and no major buckles in the wheels, any slight out of true required small maintenance.

Visibility is more of an acquirement, unless you are used to the position. For that reason, I would probably recommend a hybrid to most people for commuting. However, if you aren't hindered by this on the bike, then any arguments to do with lack of comfort or fragility or pretty unfounded and normally just observations from the uninformed (and unconverted).

Ryaner

Generally people seem to get punctures in close enough space to each other. For some people on these boards, that could be a few within 500km of each other and then another few thousand km of puncture few.
I've recently had two, both in the same wheel and both within 200km of each other. The previous 3000km were puncture free. My MTB used to be the same with long runs without punctures then there'd be a bad day when you'd get 2-3

lukester

I've commuted on a road bike for a year, no punctures and no buckling. Road bikes are much tougher than is commonly perceived. Just avoid the most cavernous potholes. Get some puncture resistant tyres, Gatorskins are well liked here.

Personally I'd hate a hybrid for a commute- once you get used to the speed and lightness of a road bike it's hard to go back.

bosra

Ideally, I would like to save a little money and buy a decent road bike..I bought a Giant boulder for commuting to work..which I very much regret now..I find the bike very slow. To think if I had of spent a couple of hundred more I probably could have found a decent hybrid ..anyway, dont want to make the same mistake with buying next bike..so given a 1500 to 2k price point, what brands do u regard as best value in terms of parts or build rather than just paying for a name..I have looked at BeOne (mentioned in another thread), Cube, Specialized and BH..Would I be right in thinking BeOne are v good value? it's kinda like reading the periodic table with some of these bike specs ..any pointers very appreciated..thx

DirkVoodoo

bosra wrote: »

Ideally, I would like to save a little money and buy a decent road bike..I bought a Giant boulder for commuting to work..which I very much regret now..I find the bike very slow. To think if I had of spent a couple of hundred more I probably could have found a decent hybrid ..anyway, dont want to make the same mistake with buying next bike..so given a 1500 to 2k price point, what brands do u regard as best value in terms of parts or build rather than just paying for a name..I have looked at BeOne (mentioned in another thread), Cube, Specialized and BH..Would I be right in thinking BeOne are v good value? it's kinda like reading the periodic table with some of these bike specs ..any pointers very appreciated..thx

BeOne would be like Silicon I guess. You want something like Platinum or Iridium for 1500. BH would be nice.

Gavin

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

BeOne would be like Silicon I guess. You want something like Platinum or Iridium for 1500. BH would be nice.

Bike Snob ! BeOne's are good quality bikes, very popular on de continent apparently. Certainly with the lower end, sub 1000 euro bikes, you get a lot more bang for your buck with BeOne's. Haven't looked too much at the more expensive ones.

Nietzschean

bosra wrote: »

Ideally, I would like to save a little money and buy a decent road bike..I bought a Giant boulder for commuting to work..which I very much regret now..I find the bike very slow. To think if I had of spent a couple of hundred more I probably could have found a decent hybrid ..anyway, dont want to make the same mistake with buying next bike..so given a 1500 to 2k price point, what brands do u regard as best value in terms of parts or build rather than just paying for a name..I have looked at BeOne (mentioned in another thread), Cube, Specialized and BH..Would I be right in thinking BeOne are v good value? it's kinda like reading the periodic table with some of these bike specs ..any pointers very appreciated..thx

For 1500 -> 2k i'd be looking at something along the lines of the cayo ultegra(on wiggle) or one of the planet x bikes as a first place to start looking

(Want a minimum of a full carbon frame + ultegra or equal group set in that price bracket, might be able to get dura ace in a special)

Ryaner

Ribble do a very nice carbon sportive frame with full ultegra. The Boardman Team Carbon is also very nice and both in the price range.

DirkVoodoo

Gavin wrote: »

Bike Snob ! BeOne's are good quality bikes, very popular on de continent apparently. Certainly with the lower end, sub 1000 euro bikes, you get a lot more bang for your buck with BeOne's. Haven't looked too much at the more expensive ones.

Hey, I didn't mean they were bad bikes, just not stellar. I tend to go by pro team usage. If BeOnes start getting picked up there, I will revise my opinion. Solid starter bike, wouldn't be too keen on moving up the more expensive ones if another well known brand was on offer.

Yes, I guess I am a bike snob

Nietzschean

Everyone with a road bike seems to be a bike snob of some sort or another, i'm not sure if its a result of how much this sport costs or we spend lots because we are snobs by birth....

regardless given bosra can get a 'platinum' level brand bike for his budget he's probably better off getting one since once he has the bike he will instantly become a bike snob, so its probably cheaper to get something you can be snobby about from the start than having to buy a new one

blorg

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Hey, I didn't mean they were bad bikes, just not stellar. I tend to go by pro team usage. If BeOnes start getting picked up there, I will revise my opinion. Solid starter bike, wouldn't be too keen on moving up the more expensive ones if another well known brand was on offer.

Yes, I guess I am a bike snob

I don't think pro team usage is a great barometer, Focus are in the pro tour with Milram this year but the bikes are the same as last year... just more expensive Canyon similarly. I would not turn down a Planet X, or indeed a good dentist's bike like a Serotta or Lightspeed, although none of these guys are in the Pro Tour (note: Lotto were on Litespeed in 2002, it is all I have.)

Having said all that I am not 110% sure about BeOne in racing bikes in particular, I think their focus is more MTB. Would probably lean towards solid but not stellar though, exactly like you- just not due to lack of pro usage. Excellent value. Someone has an entry level Sora one in work and it is a tad heavy, certainly seems heavier than someone elses Sora-equipped Allez which even had a U-lock hanging off it (yes I go around lifting other people's bikes.)

AstraMonti has a 105-equipped BeOne so he might offer an opinion if you PMed him. He is in the process of replacing it with a Planet X.

I'd stick Cube above BeOne to take an example from CRC not in the ProTour, but this is just a wooly feeling I have really.