# Some Motobecane road models appear to have identical geometry to Trek 1.1 series!



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

*Some Motobecane road models appear to have identical geometry to Trek 1.2 series!*

The other day I was at the Trek bike store shopping their 75% of bargain bin. There was an $89 saddle that was marked down, so I asked one of the employees if I could test ride a bike with a similar saddle. 

He looked around and found pretty much the same saddle on a bike really similar to the Trek 2.1 Apex (it might have been the Apex - didn't get the model, but the price was about the same). So I give it a test ride and WOW! What a dream to ride! Didn't like the saddle, but that pretty much told me that I want to buy a road bike!

The only problem is, I can't really afford a $1400 bike. I might be able to squeeze in $900 for one of last year's Trek 1.2s on clearance, if I sell one of my mountain bikes, which I'm leaning on doing. Or, I can buy a road bike from Bikes Direct.

I was over at Bikes Direct and checking out their road bikes. I have a very basic Motobecane Fantom cross with Sora/Tiagra components, which I'm still trying to adjust to - still trying to make the switch from riding mountain bikes or hybrids over the last couple of years. The Moto cross bike I have is an ok bike and all, but after two 30+ mile mostly gravel road rides, I'm not sure if I want to use it for long distance road rides of 60+ miles per day. While the geometry is similar to a road bike, there are some differences, and my main thought is that while I could put slicks on the cyclocross, it might be better to get a road bike, especially considering I'm planning to do a week long, 400+ mile road bike ride in June.

While I was on their site and looking at frame geometry of Motobecanes road bikes and comparing the specs to the Trek 1.2, I noticed something that kind of surprized me: The specs were identical! 

For example, take a look at the "New" 2012 Motobecane Record selling for $549. Look at the geometry of the 54cm and compare it to the geometry you find for the 54cm Trek 1.2. Now, I could be mistaken, but they look identical to me!

Someone else please post the links as I can't do this yet since I only have 5 posts. If I do end up getting a Motobecane road bike I'd probably get something with better components than the Record, but I'm really curious to know if these are the same frames or if its just the geometry that is similar. Does anyone have a Moto they can compare with a friend's Trek?

Please note, I'm familiar with most of the Pros vs Cons of going with a Motobecane vs a local bike store bike, as I own a Motobecane, so its really not necessary to go there (doing your own adjustments with a Moto vs having the bike store do them for you for free, getting better parts on the Moto for a lower price, etc.). I'm just curious to know how similar the frames are.


----------



## PhotoJoe (Mar 8, 2011)

Trek 1.2

Moto Record


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

getagrip said:


> The other day I was at the Trek bike store shopping their 75% of bargain bin. There was an $89 saddle that was marked down, so I asked one of the employees if I could test ride a bike with a similar saddle.
> 
> He looked around and found pretty much the same saddle on a bike really similar to the Trek 2.1 Apex (it might have been the Apex - didn't get the model, but the price was about the same). So I give it a test ride and WOW! What a dream to ride! Didn't like the saddle, but that pretty much told me that I want to buy a road bike!
> 
> ...



It's entirely possible that they're the same frame. Trek has been using generic crap for years, as has BD. Many BD bikes are actually Fuji models, but Ideal owns Fuji, and Ideal makes frames for lots of brands. Ergo, it's possible (likely) that Ideal makes the Trek frame.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

It certainly looks the same.

Did you decide the Motobecane is too big?

Unless it's simply the wrong size, you're going to have just as much trouble fitting a new road bike as the road bike you already have.

There's also no magic road bike that will make as big an increase in ride length as you've made easy or comfortable. Sooner or later, everybody gets uncomfortable on the bike. Actively bad fit makes it happen in fifteen minutes or a half hour, and good bike fit can add a fair amount of time for a rider who's already in good shape, but eventually, everyone has a limiter. To put it another way, to be comfortable on a bike, you need an energetic position supported by muscles. When your muscles get tired, you get uncomfortable. Bike fit can effect how long that takes, but it won't effect whether or not it happens eventually.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> It certainly looks the same.
> 
> Did you decide the Motobecane is too big?
> 
> ...


I'm still undecided if the Moto Cross is too big or not. I took it for a 35 mile mostly gravel road ride yesterday and even though that ride went better than last week's ride, once again, it didn't feel that comfortable. It was a stark contrast to the Trek I test rode. I still haven't ridden the 1.2 or 1.1 yet, but if the Moto geometry is EXACTLY the same as the Trek, then it would be hard not to get a Moto, given the better components...


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

However (continuing from where I left off)...I want to stop bugging my friend for derailleur adjustments - still haven't come close to mastering that skill, so I may go with a bike shop this time around. I also want to get the "fit" right this time. The Trek shop I mentioned previously is going to have a sale soon, and I think some bikes are going to be priced down about 30%. So, a $900 road bike becomes a $630 bike, which is quite do-able for me.

There is another bike shop run by two "cranky" old farts that sells Raleigh and Bianchi bikes - these guys are pretty old school. As far as I can tell, they are not a high volume shop - they actually sell out of an old house that was converted into a bike store. I think they have some 2009 models laying around so I might be able to talk them into selling me an older model road bike at a reduced priced just so they can get it out the door.

So, still trying to decide what to do. I like the idea of going local so I can get serviced by the bike store, but sometimes, when I look at how much better the component are on the Motos, I kind of cringe. Getting a Moto would be a lot easier decision if I was a better bike mechanic and if I could test ride it ahead of time. If the geometry matches the Trek frame, however, that part of the problem is solved...


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I still don't see where you necessarily need a new bike in all this.

Pay someone to fit you to the one you have, if you can't get it dialed yourself. I paid for a fit several years ago. It's some of the best money I've spent on cycling. I do my own now, but a lot of what I see myself as having paid for is the learning experience.

Sora and Tiagra don't necessarily have the wear life of, say, 105. But it should take you a couple years to wear out a Tiagra rear derailleur, and even longer for the shifters and front derailleur.

You probably don't need a new bike. It's fine to want a new bike, (n+1 is the correct number...) but I think if you don't slow down and figure out wtf you're doing with the ones you already have, your next ones are going to be a series of disappointments until if you're lucky, you get it right by accident. For now, commit to this one. If you figure out that you can't make it fit, after really trying and maybe getting some help from someone who knows what he's doing and is local, and you can point to something specific - frame reach is too great, for example - that makes it not fit, get a new bike. (Or just the frame.) You'll actually know how to make an intelligent choice that has good odds of improving your situation.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

Over the last couple of days, I've gotten some differing opinions about what to do, particularely for the road ride - these opinions were people I had face to face interractions with. One bike store owner (from the old school bike shop) recommended a road bike. Another guy at another bike store recommended to ride the cyclocross instead of picking up a road bike, but also recommended a bike fit. He said he thought the cross bike would do better on the long road ride because of the longer wheelbase, and it would be better to mount a rack on. Another person recommended just getting a lighter wheelset for the cyclocross, which I'm leaning on doing because I now have a good "excuse" to pick another set of wheels...other than just wanting a lighter wheelset.

Andrew, remember that extra impulse purchase I made? I sold it for the full asking price, and actually made a nickel profit on the sale!  That brought me back down to 3 bikes. Only problem is two days after I sold it, the hybrid frame I ordered online came in! :mad2: 

I've got some extra bike parts laying around, so I decided to turn it into a single speed. Only problem is my extra 26 wheels won't work on a hybrid frame...but my "heavy" wheels on my cyclocross will, and I now also have something to do with the old cyclocross tires when I put slicks on the cross.

So for now, the plan is to get a bike fit, purchase a lighter wheelset, and see if I can get the cross to work for me. May use the single speed as a commuter or sell it to get a return on the investment. I may still pick up a road bike at some point, but for now, I'm going to hold off. Not sure if it will be a Motobecane or an in store purchase, but when looking at in store road bikes, I was less than impressed with seeing Shimano 2200/2300 parts on bikes selling for $700+.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Oops, I thought I posted here the other day.

Getting a professional fit sounds like a good plan. From your posts, you sound like you're fumbling around for an improvement in fit, and making two steps forward and one step back. The pro may not necessarily get you the best fit for you, but I bet he gets you very, very close. Make sure to talk to some of your cycling friends and find out who's got a good reputation (or check your regional forum here if you don't have knowledgeable friends) because they're not all good.

There are some subtle things I like better about my road bike than my 'cross bike. Mostly, I think what I'm feeling is the lower bottom bracket, although I think it's got a steeper head tube too. Anyway, it feels a little more stable to me when I'm putting together turns, like on a fast descent, and the handling feels a little quicker. So I think the shop that says you should get a real road bike is on to something, I just don't think you need to (or would even benefit that much) do it now. Get the 'cross bike dialed in. Ride it for a season, so it's really and truly dialed and you can get an idea of what you like about road riding. Then get a road bike when they go on sale in the Fall, or get a new 2013 if nothing you want shows up.

Unless the Motobecane is pretty off, you should be able to get your own best fit on it. Then you just need to find the bike that will permit that fit and also handle the way you want. Maybe you'll decide you don't want a pavement-only bike at all; that would be fine too. Some of my favorite fast riders have only mountain and 'cross bikes.

Make sure your hybrid doesn't require a 135mm wheel before you buy things to swap around. Bear in mind that the only improvements from lighter wheels are marginally better climbing, slightly quicker handling and accelerations, and greater ease of loading your bike in and out of your car. They won't change your cruising speed, and you probably wouldn't be able to measure a difference in your average speed around a known course, even one with lots of hills and complicated corners. Not that they're not kinda fun.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Oops, I thought I posted here the other day.
> 
> Getting a professional fit sounds like a good plan. From your posts, you sound like you're fumbling around for an improvement in fit, and making two steps forward and one step back. The pro may not necessarily get you the best fit for you, but I bet he gets you very, very close.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your reply. Since I last posted, a couple of things have happened:

I went to the other Trek store and test rode a 2011 52cm Trek 1.2 and a 2012 54cm Trek 1.1. Overall, the 52 cm Trek 1.2 felt a lot better and was just a much better all around bike to ride. I'm actually kind of amazed at how little bike you get for $730, which is what the Trek 1.1 is priced at. I was not impressed at all with the Shimano 2300 components on the Trek 1.1 at all, and would never want to go that route, which means the old school shop that suggested I buy a bike is out, since that is all they have in the $700 price range. The Tiagra/Sora components on the Trek 1.2 were much better in comparison, which is what my cyclocross is currently set up with, but I do think that the Trek 1.1 needed a few adjustments...unless Shimano 2300 is really THAT bad!  

So, overall, the 52 cm seemed to fit better than the 54 cm, but that was just a short test ride INSIDE the store. I did notice the same upper back tension I get from riding the cross when on the 52cm Trek, so that got me thinking a bit. Seems like the 52 cm is a hair small though, and made me wonder if perhaps my ideal size is a 53. 

That particular shop had bike fits priced as low as $100, and offered a free fit if I purchased a bike from them. It was really a nice offer, but I'm not sure if I want to shell out $800 for a bike, which is what I'd be looking at after tax for the 2011 Trek 1.2. Turns out that it is going to cost me $240 just to ride in BRAN, which includes a bus ticket out to the start of the ride.

I did do a personalized bike fit at the Competitive Cyclist and got some idea of what kind of fit I needed, but I took my own measurements and did it very quickly. Turns out the Motobecane is actually pretty close to the fit I need, but I'm going to get together with a cycling friend of mine to do more scientific and precise measurements. Andrew, you may have shared this link with me at mtbr.com, but if you didn't or have not seen it, here is the link below - its actually pretty cool because if gives video instruction for each measurement:

Fit Calculator - Competitive Cyclist

Anyway, before I pay a bike store for a professional fit, I'm going to see how I do with the online fit calculator works with adjusting the Motobecane the way I need to, at least when I can get a friend to do the measurements for me, since doing my own measurements is probably not accurate. 

As far as the hybrid is concerned, I'm working on getting a refund for that. Its actually kind of an odd hybrid in that it takes 26 wheels! I won't say anything more about it, other than to say I wish to be done with it! :mad2: Truthfully, though, I'm getting the idea that I'd probably like my cross with a flatbar compared to a hybrid, because it would be faster and have much more of an edge to it. Was planning on doing the flat bar test tonight, but its FREAKING COLD OUTSIDE, so I may let it wait a day or two. 

I used to be kind of a "fat tired roadie" like yourself, but my cross bike has started to get me thinking that I may not like riding a mountain bike on pavement as much as a used to because of the "speed" factor. That's part of the reason I didn't like the other Motobecane hybridish bike I purchased and subsequently sold - it was just kind of wierd riding a suspension fork on pavement. I guess your riding preferences change as you get riding experience on different kinds of bikes! :thumbsup:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

"Fat-tired roadie" is a joke about riding my mountain bike like a roadie - as in, I'm happier in lycra, sometimes even matchy-matchy lycra, use water bottles, and don't stop for breaks every five minutes. Or every thirty, but I have to confess to the occasional stop if I'm riding for multiple hours.

I actually have more road bikes, and probably spend more time on the road. The first kind of riding I did for fun was mountain biking, which I discovered in college. Where I live now, it's a lot less convenient to get off-road, and that's been true for me since 2003. I even had a period of not owning a mountain bike. So while I still think of myself as a mountain biker first, by proportion of bikes owned and (I think, records for last year aren't that specific) ride time, I'm really more of a roadie now.

I think online fit calculators are stupid. There are not very many measurements on a bike that matter. Really, just saddle position relative to bottom bracket and handlebar position relative to saddle. Some people might also include crank arm length and handlebar width but that's it. If it helps you rough in your fit or narrow down your possibilities to 2-3 possible sizes, great. But you already have a bike in hand.

Have you ready through any of the links I've posted at different times about how to fit your own bike? You already have a bike, so IMO if you're buying anything at this point, it should be stems. And since you already have a few of those, you're probably one or two stems and correct setup away from having the best possible fit from that bike.

If between Peter White, Sheldon Brown, and these forums you can't figure out your own fit, you can't figure out your own fit right now period. I don't think Competitive Cyclist will change that, although I guess since they're free it won't harm anything. Pay someone to figure it out for you. Record how they set up your bike so if you screw it up experimenting later on, you can restore it.

Shimano 2300 components work great when correctly installed and tuned. I think I found the cheapest bike sold in shops and with a good value the other day when I rode the Torker Interurban. It's built with 2300, but everything worked fine.

Torker InterUrban First Impressions « Urban Velo

I might have bought one if my friend hadn't offered to sell me his Trek Portland for a better price. (Kickass bike, btw.)

I wouldn't want to ride for seven days and 455 miles on-road on flat handlebars. It would be too much for my current (and probably maximum for the year) level of fitness off-road too. When you've got drop bars actually working for you, they're massively better for road riding.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

A couple things I forgot to mention:

For now I'm going to pass on the new wheelset. I got another opinion from the "first" Trek shop I mentioned in this thread, and the sales person there said that it makes a miniscule difference. He'd recommend it for racing and that kind of a thing, but said it probably won't make that much of a difference for the ride I'd be going on. He also mentioned that cyclocross rims tend to be more durable than road style rims for the ride I'm doing. In my own research, I determined that I'd only be able to cut about 300 grams off of my current wheelset anyway considering my budget, so it doesn't seem to be the best decision to go out and get a new pair just yet.

Having said all of that, I still may get a road bike for the ride, but it probably wouldn't be until at least April. In Nebraska, there is still lots of dirt, mud, and salt on the roads because of the winter, and cyclocross tires are much better to train on roads in that condition - seems like it would be much less likely to get flats with beefier tires. Plus, I wouldn't want my "delicate" new road bike to get pelted with gravel on the road or get dirty. Much more comfortable doing that with my "rugged" cyclocross!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Either get a road bike now or don't do it until after the ride. I still don't think you've figured out what you need from a road bike to have a good chance that it'll be an improvement.

Riding through the winter will wear the parts on your bike faster than not riding it. But not riding it defeats the purpose of owning it. Just give it a tuneup when things get nicer. Or don't.

I can kinda see it for people who race on a bike with a more expensive grade of components. But unless you're hanging a bunch of Dura-Ace on your road bike, IMO the cost difference in wear parts doesn't really justify having a better bike but not riding.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I think online fit calculators are stupid. There are not very many measurements on a bike that matter. Really, just saddle position relative to bottom bracket and handlebar position relative to saddle. Some people might also include crank arm length and handlebar width but that's it. If it helps you rough in your fit or narrow down your possibilities to 2-3 possible sizes, great. But you already have a bike in hand.
> 
> Have you ready through any of the links I've posted at different times about how to fit your own bike? You already have a bike, so IMO if you're buying anything at this point, it should be stems. And since you already have a few of those, you're probably one or two stems and correct setup away from having the best possible fit from that bike.
> 
> I wouldn't want to ride for seven days and 455 miles on-road on flat handlebars. It would be too much for my current (and probably maximum for the year) level of fitness off-road too. When you've got drop bars actually working for you, they're massively better for road riding.


I disagree with your statement that online fit calculators are "stupid". From the brief time I spent using the fit calculator, I was able to get an idea of where to place the saddle on the rails, how high to place it, and how far of a reach the handlebars should be. In fact, after doing the "unscientific" fit, I DID come to the conclusion that the only investment I would need to make to get the bike to fit correctly would be a stem. 

Above and beyond that, wouldn't a bike store employee doing the fit be taking the same measurements that online fit calculators recommend? No question that a professional fit would be more comprehensive, but I like the idea of not shelling out $100 to $170 (the going rates in my area) for a comparable fit I could get with a free online fit calculator. 

I do agree with the idea that flat bars wouldn't be ideal on a long bike ride. I'm starting to come to the conclusion that drop bars would definately be better. Honestly, after the last couple of rides I've been on, my number one concern now is pain in my palms (previously mentioned on the mtbr forum), which I'm now thinking is a medical condition of some sort because I get it from other things than just biking. If I did end up doing flat bars (which I probably won't), I still have my aerobars and could use bar end for additional hand positions...but again, you are right in that it is probably a bad idea. 

I'm starting to get more comfortable riding with the drop bars as I now have over 100 miles riding with them over the last couple of weeks. Would like to ride more miles, but the weather just plain sucks around here. Thankfully, Spring is just two weeks away! :thumbsup:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

getagrip said:


> I disagree with your statement that online fit calculators are "stupid". From the brief time I spent using the fit calculator, I was able to get an idea of where to place the saddle on the rails, how high to place it, and how far of a reach the handlebars should be. In fact, after doing the "unscientific" fit, I DID come to the conclusion that the only investment I would need to make to get the bike to fit correctly would be a stem.
> 
> Above and beyond that, wouldn't a bike store employee doing the fit be taking the same measurements that online fit calculators recommend? No question that a professional fit would be more comprehensive, but I like the idea of not shelling out $100 to $170 (the going rates in my area) for a comparable fit I could get with a free online fit calculator.


Well, you're free to disagree. And I can see it being useful for roughing in some positions. There are other ways to guesstimate that stuff, which aren't really any more or less valid.

When I got my bike fit several years ago, I went to the shop with my existing bike and the fitter set it up on a stationary trainer. I don't think he even made initial adjustments from measurements, but then I already had the bike set up for me. Really badly, but it's a starting point.

The fitter adjusted my saddle height and fore/aft position to facilitate my pedaling stroke being right. It's actually really easy to see if someone has the wrong saddle height. He'll have a lot of movement in his hips and lower back. Either because he's dipping them to reach the bottom of the pedal stroke (you should still be exerting a lot of force, with stable, square hips at that point) or because his saddle is way low. Those ranges are far enough apart that it'll be obvious to a relatively knowledgeable person which is which. There's some debate about where in the good range a person ought to be placed, but with feedback from you and maybe a power meter, it should be relatively easy to figure out. And you may find you tweak it later.

Next, he adjusted my handlebar height and fore/aft position. There are some telltale signs someone can see that this is wrong too. I like to have as little tension in my arms as possible. This doesn't just mean not having weight on them. It means they're not too extended or too bent, too close to my hips or too far away. Between you and a human fitter, you can probably get this right too.

I don't think measurements are a very good substitute because they don't account for how big or small your feet are, whether you pedal with pointed or flat feet, what your cadence is (there's some correlation with saddle height here,) how much power you're developing, or where in your torso your center of mass is. This stuff all goes into placing your saddle correctly. As a dynamics problem, it would be a real pain, and involve a fair amount of simplification and some guesswork. But you can tell if you're balanced well, and your body will react in ways that a knowledgeable person can recognize.

Measurements aren't going to locate your handlebars very well either. If you're fairly flexible and you develop a lot of power, you're going to want your bars lower and further than if you're stiffer and pumping out fewer watts. As a rider with the flexibility and core strength to get lower develops more wattage, he'll tend to take a lower position over the handlebars to stay balanced in the right spot and counteract the force he's putting into the pedals. At the extreme, he'll even haul upward on the handlebars to maintain stability. On the other hand, someone who's not developing a lot of watts and doesn't want his hands (for me, elbows first, then shoulder) to start to hurt is going to sit more upright, and put more weight on the saddle.

Competitive Cyclist sort-of addresses this by giving three different fits. That alone should show you that it's more of a starting point than anything else.

Peter White and Sheldon Brown both give qualitative ways you can fit your bicycle without getting into measuring parts of your body. I like Peter White's discussion a little better because it's written in a procedural way. You can start at the beginning and by the end of his article, you should have a pretty good fit.

I'm reposting it, because I have no problem being "that guy."

How to Fit a Bicycle

And here's a particularly important passage from his section on methodology.



Peter White said:


> Notice that in most of this there is no mention of measuring body parts. And nowhere do I have you dropping plumb lines from knees, positioning handlebars so they block views of front hubs, comparing the length of your forearm to the distance between the front of your saddle to your handlebar, etc. My methodology is quite different from what most people are doing in bike shops. The Fit Kit and other marketed fitting systems are based on the measurements of lots of different riders and their bikes. It assumes that the averages of those measurements are somehow going to result in a good fit for you.


I hadn't run into that article when I got my bike fit, and I was so sure that I wanted the highest saddle position that wouldn't make my knees actually lock that I refused to try lowering it. In some ways, I think the biggest value I got from paying for the fit was that since I'd paid for it, I felt committed to at least trying the fitter's advice about where to put my saddle. That freed me to reevaluate a lot of aspects of my fit. While I'd say it's evolved from the fit that I paid for, I've also done some messing around and tweaking. I neglected to record the setup I ended up with that day. It's too bad, because I'd be curious to compare how I now set up my bike. I'd speculate that my saddle position is a lot closer to what my fitter suggested than how I rode the bike immediately afterwards, which was a bit of a compromise. I'd speculate that my handlebars have gotten lower as I've improved my fitness.

I think I was lucky to see the fitter I did, although I somewhat made my own luck by asking around and finding someone well regarded by experienced cyclists in the area, because while he had a starting point in mind, I do think the fit I ended up with was reflective of what I needed at the time. Not just my height and my inseam length and femur length, but the leg extension and foot position I actually use, in real life, and the balance over the bottom bracket that actually works for me, in real life.


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

That's some pretty good information there. Thanks for posting it. No question a professional bike fit is more comprehensive, and covers a lot more ground than taking measurements alone. I hope to be able to pay for one at some point before the ride. Only drawback is, it aint free!


----------



## getagrip (Feb 16, 2012)

Just got back from a 16 mile ride out to and around the lake and back. It was pretty fun, partly due to the nicer weather (finished in about 54 degree weather with little to no wind). Riding on the hoods felt very natural - in fact, more natural than my hands on the flat portion of the handlebar. I'd say I spent about 75% of the ride on the hoods, with 15% on the corners (assuming I actually know what a corner is), with 10% of the ride in the flat bar position. Didn't get into the crouched position at all. 

So, I'm now thinking that maybe it was just a matter of getting used to riding with road style handlebars. Not really sure how much core muscle I've developed since a few weeks ago when I started riding the cross, but today's ride made me question whether I want a road bike at all, and I'm starting to think that perhaps the 52cm Motobecane cyclocross is a good fit after all! 

My odometer is at about 116 miles since I started training on the cyclocross a few weeks ago. I'm thinking I will try the original stem it came with after I pass 200 to 300 miles. I figure if it took 100 miles for me to get used to the road style geometry of the cross bike, my body should be ready for a more aggressive riding position at that time.

Outside of a rear derailleur barrel adjustment last weekend and fumbling around with the brakes, haven't made any adjustments to the cyclocross since it arrived in early November, when a bike mechanic did some initial adjustments (and did a crappy job on the brakes while he was at it since he didn't have all the tools he needed). In addition to the road miles I've recently put on it, I'd say I put a combined 30-70 mostly off road miles on it in the Winter months.

One question: the main thing I kept thinking about on the ride is how much I wish I was a better mechanic, and how I hate the fact that I'll probably have to take the Moto to the bike shop and pay $30 for some minor adjustments, which I still can't do on my own. Do the higher end components such as a Shimano 105 or Sram Apex require as much adjusting as the Tiagra/Sora group? Also, typically, how often is it necessary to make adjustments on a road bike? I think I need a tune up.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Ab work is your friend. For all the riding disciplines. And, things take some time to get used to. For me, it was the handling with a narrower hand position more than the change in riding position.

If you want to be a better mechanic, take your time and really look at what you're doing. There are also great instructions on parktool.com. So far, about the only thing I haven't found there is brand-specific stuff, like how to rebuild a suspension fork or how to rebuild sealed bearing hubs. Most literate people can do all the maintenance tasks on a bike fine with the help of parktool. A good mechanic can also do them fast, and probably doesn't need to (but may anyway, for less common things) look up the procedure. And there are some things that require a little more finesse - adjusting bearings and truing wheels. Not that you can't do either of these things. Just be ready to spend more time on it the first few times.

Tiagra and 105 don't require a lot of futzing around once they're working. Sora, I haven't owned. I'd expect that it would be pretty much the same for most of its useful life, though. I haven't owned Apex, but I have a bike with several-year-old Rival, and after a little tuning when I bought it, it's been working fine too, again with no fussing.

If you're having trouble finding the sweet spot for your shifter index adjustment, it can be for a few reasons.
-You're overdoing it on the adjustments. Just go one click at a time, and check the shifting each time.
-You have crap all over your cables. If you have the top tube routing in the picture, there's not much you can do about this.
-You have crappy or worn out cables. Unfortunately this is relatively likely. Fortunately, recabling is cheap and can make a huge difference. I'd consider this option last, since it requires spending money and would be silly if one of the other problems is what's going on.
-If you really screwed up your limit screws, have your indexing adjustment off by an entire "click" or have a bent derailleur hanger, these can also cause shifting problems.

I'd expect a new road bike to need the indexing adjusted a little as soon as I was actually riding it, rather than tuning it on a stand. And I'd expect to need to put in a little work on it in the first 100 miles or so. At this point, if you have adjustable bearings in your hubs, you should also adjust those. And check on the headset and bottom bracket, although they often don't need to be messed with for a lot longer. After the initial hundred miles or so on a new bike or after installing anything new, I expect pretty trouble-free function until something starts to wear out. I'm probably not very conscious of adjusting indexing though, because I have barrel adjusters somewhere near my hands on all my bikes.

Hub adjustments come up relatively infrequently, so if you don't feel like learning to do it yourself it's not a big deal. It also requires a specialized (but very cheap) tool. Everything else, you should learn to do yourself. Especially on bikes taken off-road - on a ride with a lot of stuff getting sprayed onto my bottom bracket shell, where my cables are routed, I sometimes need to mess with the indexing a little mid-ride to keep things working. They still don't work great, but it's easier to compensate for cables that are a little too loose, once friction becomes a big issue.


----------

