Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
well berkeley is by san francisco, so i associated it with steep hills right away... i'm in ok shape but i sweat even in winter just walking around the city, wrong of me to assume though yea i have a singlespeed modded from an old centurion frame, and mountains bikes will definitely be slower on paved roads compared to road / singlespeeds, also singlespeeds are great to train your cadence and i feel you coast less
You live in THE To the poster who said that "singlespeeds aren't really practical." Have you tried it? I used to ride a geared mtn bike and was the slowest guy in our group. I now ride a fully rigid singlespeed and I've really picked up on my skills. I'm faster than several of the guys I used to trail behind back when I would wuss out and drop to the granny gear when I saw a hill coming. I'm not saying that a singlespeed is best for the O.P., but he/she just might dig one. After all the commute in question is just 2.5 miles.
Yes, when I was younger that is how the bikes were made and that is what I learned to ride on. I was recommending a bike for someone in the Bay Area and that is a hilly place. Not are they not good for going up hills also when you go down hills the pedals are directly linked to the rear wheel so whatever speed it is going you're feet (which are attached to the pedals) are going that fast. For other places, the single-speed may be fine and maybe for this persons commute it may be fine but for travelling in the Bay Area I would recommend a multi-speed bike.
Yes, when I was younger that is how the bikes were made and that is what I learned to ride on. I was recommending a bike for someone in the Bay Area and that is a hilly place. Not are they not good for going up hills also when you go down hills the pedals are directly linked to the rear wheel so whatever speed it is going you're feet (which are attached to the pedals) are going that fast. For other places, the single-speed may be fine and maybe for this persons commute it may be fine but for travelling in the Bay Area I would recommend a multi-speed bike.
I don't have to have a hilly commute, but there are hilly ways to get to work, which could be fun to explore, so I'd rather get a multi-speed bike.
Thanks for the tip.
__________________
If you've had half as much fun reading this post as I've had writing it, well then, I've had twice as much fun writing this post as you've had reading it.
To the poster who said that "singlespeeds aren't really practical." Have you tried it? I used to ride a geared mtn bike and was the slowest guy in our group. I now ride a fully rigid singlespeed and I've really picked up on my skills. I'm faster than several of the guys I used to trail behind back when I would wuss out and drop to the granny gear when I saw a hill coming. I'm not saying that a singlespeed is best for the O.P., but he/she just might dig one. After all the commute in question is just 2.5 miles.
It is more efficient to have gears and suspension if you're going to ride in any sort of 'terrain', not to mention that it's more comfortable which seems like it would be a factor to the OP.
__________________ I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world, and fool enough to think thats what Ill find. The Carpenters
I wrote a response earlier that didn't seem to get posted. I'll summarize it. As you can see by my previous posts, I have recommended nothing but multi-speed bikes to the original poster. I think that they're the best for anyone who is just getting back into cycling. They take a little bit to get used to, but as you've mentioned they do help with hills when your legs aren't strong.
As for the whole singlespeed thing, some people dig it, others don't. Maybe it can't be explained, but I am a stronger cyclist because of my singlespeed bike. I'm much faster than I used to be with just a geared bike. I have a geared bike too, so I guess I swing both ways.
Fixed gear bikes on city streets? Now THAT'S crazy.
You don't need all that fancy crap, just put a straight bar on there and call it a day.
That place has the absolute best components gruppo for the buck. I know that for a fact, cause I used to work for the owner of that company. Trust me, there is no better deals out there....
Originally Posted by frozenice
A fixed gear bike for the Bay Area. Have fun pushing it up lots of hills. You need gears buddy - that's one thing for sure.
oicdn - You don't want to kill the poor fellow. Fixed gear, track bikes don't have any brakes (or coasting), but they weigh next to nothing, ~15 pounds for a complete bike. Actual they are the hot set-up in Berkeley, I've seen a bunch with flourescent aero, radial spoked rims, with straight bars. Needless to say track bikes are not for the uninitiated, note the horizonal drop-outs.
frozenice - In the City, track bikes are the weapon of choice among many of the messengers.
nimso96 - agreed, track bikes are excellent training bikes to improve technique, cadence and endurance.
Check out the Bianchi Milano. It has fenders, is light and has an internal gear change mechanism that resides inside the rear hub. No external derailur to worry about. My wife has one and she loves it. Very stylish as well which is big time important with cyclist. It will run you about $600 though. I agree with other posters most bike's under $350 are pretty cheapo. This bike will last you years. If you find out the size you need you can probably pick one up on flea bay or craigslist.
I would strongly suggest getting a used mountain bike from Craigslist and converting it to a commuter bike (rear rack, 26 x 1.5 tires, lights. etc.). I had a Giant Rincon that was stolen at the Bart station and found a Trek 9300 used for $100. I then spent another $100 on tires, rack, cyclometer, locks, and pedals. For about $200, I now have a bike that, if anything, fits me better than the original Rincon (cost about $300 new). There are some amazing bargains on Craigslist. Particularly if you are patient. I would suggest going to the Missing Link in Berkeley, if for nothing else, to find out what size of bike you should be looking for. Treks and Specialized would be good used bikes as they are of decent quality and abundant. Good luck!
Check out the Bianchi Milano. It has fenders, is light and has an internal gear change mechanism that resides inside the rear hub. No external derailur to worry about. My wife has one and she loves it. Very stylish as well which is big time important with cyclist. It will run you about $600 though. I agree with other posters most bike's under $350 are pretty cheapo. This bike will last you years. If you find out the size you need you can probably pick one up on flea bay or craigslist.
Form above function, $650 for that? C'mon. You could get a 6000-series Trek for that money with disc brakes, shocks and all, you can't be serious. I'll race you.
PS. Bikes with unnecessary curves bothers me, but to each his own.
__________________ I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world, and fool enough to think thats what Ill find. The Carpenters
yea i have a singlespeed modded from an old centurion frame, and mountains bikes will definitely be slower on paved roads compared to road / singlespeeds, also singlespeeds are great to train your cadence and i feel you coast less
Linear Mode
