Old road bike vs New road bike (brand, MTB, Diamondback)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought you just got the Raleigh. Or were you just looking at it. If the Lemond is local and you can try it out, it might be worth it. I had a couple of friends that had the Reno, they liked it a lot. I did not like the design of the drop outs, which contributed a lot to be being able to work the hub out of the dropout. The drop out is stamped steel, and only deep enough to accommodate the 4mm skewer rod, so when you clamp down the skewer, it doesn't have a lot to hold on to. This design might have only become a problem with my height and weight being the mitigating factors. the 59cm frame would not be as susceptible to the torsioning (is that even a word?) as the 61mm. But I am a beast, and a heavy one at that, of an out-of-the-saddle climber. I've snapped a chain before. If I could just lose 60 pounds
I did just get the Raleigh, maybe I will just keep working at the shifting. So far I just don't see me really liking it, so I end up just finding a "do everything gear" which and leave it there. The only time I really switched was when I was climbing the monster hills to get back to my house or when I saw another cyclist and I wanted to see if I could keep up with them. So far most of my riding has been on relatively flat terrain with very little stops, but I know not shifting will really become a pain when I start climbing more and do more stopping and starting.
I think your weight is right on for your height. I think if you lost 60lbs you would be extremely thin. I am the one that needs to drop some lbs. My height to weight ratio isn't good, but hopefully with lots of riding and an improved diet I can drop 20-40 pounds.
I did just get the Raleigh, maybe I will just keep working at the shifting. So far I just don't see me really liking it, so I end up just finding a "do everything gear" which and leave it there. The only time I really switched was when I was climbing the monster hills to get back to my house or when I saw another cyclist and I wanted to see if I could keep up with them. So far most of my riding has been on relatively flat terrain with very little stops, but I know not shifting will really become a pain when I start climbing more and do more stopping and starting.
I think your weight is right on for your height. I think if you lost 60lbs you would be extremely thin. I am the one that needs to drop some lbs. My height to weight ratio isn't good, but hopefully with lots of riding and an improved diet I can drop 20-40 pounds.
Oh I would not be extremely thin, but thanks anyway. Now, if I was to go by Greg LeMond's chart from a few decades ago, I should be at 185. I would be so happy at 220. 200 was my Tri weight in the 80s but I didn't have near the muscle mass in my legs back then as I do now.
They're definitely not for everyone. I should also mention that I don't care for indexed downtube shifters; only friction. I have no idea why, but they just work better for me. You'll probably get a lot more used to them the more you ride, but that doesn't mean you'll like them. Most people seem to prefer STIs, of course.
On my bike the rear is indexed and the front is friction. The rear has an option to switch between index and friction. Is that all common?
I did just get the Raleigh, maybe I will just keep working at the shifting. So far I just don't see me really liking it, so I end up just finding a "do everything gear" which and leave it there. The only time I really switched was when I was climbing the monster hills to get back to my house or when I saw another cyclist and I wanted to see if I could keep up with them. So far most of my riding has been on relatively flat terrain with very little stops, but I know not shifting will really become a pain when I start climbing more and do more stopping and starting.
The theory behind the Down-tube shifters being where they are, is the assumption that you are riding in your drops a lot - racing old school. You don't have to change your body position to move your hand from the drop to the shifter. Your hand motion makes a nice arc going from the drop to the shifter with your shoulder as the pivot point with your torso not having to move. However, if you are riding with your hands on the hoods or on top of the bars, you have to reach down to shift, which gets old pretty quickly.
If you look at bikes from the sixties especially of recreational riders, you will notice that the saddle is only a little higher than the handlbars or actually the same level, so riding in the drops was more easily accommodated. On later bikes you will notice that the saddle is a quite a bit higher than the handlebars making riding on the hoods almost as aero as riding in the drops of the older bikes. STI shifters were a natural development. When I moved to STI, it was great! I was shifting so much more and riding became so much more efficient.
The theory behind the Down-tube shifters being where they are, is the assumption that you are riding in your drops a lot - racing old school. You don't have to change your body position to move your hand from the drop to the shifter. Your hand motion makes a nice arc going from the drop to the shifter with your shoulder as the pivot point with your torso not having to move. However, if you are riding with your hands on the hoods or on top of the bars, you have to reach down to shift, which gets old pretty quickly.
If you look at bikes from the sixties especially of recreational riders, you will notice that the saddle is only a little higher than the handlbars or actually the same level, so riding in the drops was more easily accommodated. On later bikes you will notice that the saddle is a quite a bit higher than the handlebars making riding on the hoods almost as aero as riding in the drops of the older bikes. STI shifters were a natural development. When I moved to STI, it was great! I was shifting so much more and riding became so much more efficient.
Yeah that makes sense. I am always riding on the hoods. I have noticed that about the seats on the newer bikes. Is that why they are smaller also? When I was looking for a bike I noticed how all the newer bikes had 54cm for my size as oppose to the 58 for the older ones.
I rode about 19 miles yesterday and it was okay for the most part. I am still not shifting much at all. Also, I noticed that sometimes I get a pain after I stop. It occurs around the area of my upper ribs and my lower back gets kind of sore. It only last for a couple of minutes and it happens after a distance. I am thinking that I don't have the bike set up right.
Yeah that makes sense. I am always riding on the hoods. I have noticed that about the seats on the newer bikes. Is that why they are smaller also? When I was looking for a bike I noticed how all the newer bikes had 54cm for my size as oppose to the 58 for the older ones.
Sounds like you were looking at a bike with a sloping top tube. The older frames were built with non-sloping top tubes and measured from the center of the bottom bracket to either the center of where the seat tube joined the top tube or clear to the top of the seat tube - all depending on the manufacturer's own measuring protocols. You would see the measurement differentiate if it was even included at all, as either c-c (center to cent)or c-t (center to top). So a 57 c-c would be the same size as 59 c-t. That's confusing enough, then manufactures started integrating sloping top tubes which either gave sizes in either actual measurements c-c or c-t, or virtual measurements (the measurement to the top as if there was not a sloping top tube (a virtual c-c or c-t). So it just depends on how the manufacturers measured it. You would have do do your own measuring to make it apples to apples, and measure it to the same point. Most bike measurements I now see are c-t and are the actual measurement, so that's why the one you were looking at was listed as 54, yet still fit you like your old 58 bike.
If I do upgrade my bike, how do I find out what size cassette can fit on my bike? Should I take my rear wheel off and measure? My bike currently is a 6 speed, would it be possible to fit a 8 or 9 on there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. So far most of my riding has been on relatively flat terrain with very little stops, but I know not shifting will really become a pain when I start climbing more and do more stopping and starting. 
. I would be so happy at 220. 200 was my Tri weight in the 80s but I didn't have near the muscle mass in my legs back then as I do now.
