# Component Envy?



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

I'm fairly new to road biking and am educating myself. I've read many threads about "buying a new bike," and appreciate all the good advice I'm getting.

I am an engineer and understand the "trickle down" theory of bike parts. And it appears even entry-level bikes ($700-$800) are getting better and better, every couple of years, right?

But much of the advice ends with a sort of a caveat, like "...but if were me, I'd try to find at least a 105-equipped bike..." or something along those lines. I have read all I can about durability, lightness, feel, and quality, and how it improves up the ladder of components.

So how can a newbie really decide if it's "worth it" to throw a couple hundred dollars more toward the SAME bike but with a rung higher component group? Forgive my ignorance, but how different can they be?

Thanks.


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

Oversteer said:


> I'm fairly new to road biking and am educating myself. I've read many threads about "buying a new bike," and appreciate all the good advice I'm getting.
> 
> I am an engineer and understand the "trickle down" theory of bike parts. And it appears even entry-level bikes ($700-$800) are getting better and better, every couple of years, right?
> 
> ...


I think there a multiple answers to the question--some folks take a conservative approach, and buy what's affordable--thinking that they may not like cycling over the long run, so they hedge a little, or they simply lack the means to splash out.

Others are gear-driven, and buy the best they can afford (with seemingly no second thoughts about their commitment)--and these are the used bikes we like to find for sale.

Buy a bike that fits--and if that takes a professional fitting it is worth it--of good enough quality to get you started. Entry level Shimano is fine--but I would avoid department store/Wal-Mart bikes. If you want to save a little, buy last season's model (about now they should be clearing some bikes).

Put on some miles, find out if is your new passion. Put on some more miles. By then you will have a much better idea of your "dream" or even just your "upgrade" bike. You may even have got it wrong with your first bike.... 

Start planning how you will finance said new bike--do you keep the first one for a bad-weather bike or sell used? Are two bikes even enough? Then you are well and truly on your way.

You are right, though--the components are not much different and they will have some warranty if bought new if they break.


----------



## Teo (Aug 10, 2004)

Many will try to convince you that there is a significant difference in component levels. The truth is that the difference between one group to another is basically unnoticeable now adays.

Most road cyclist ride on the best gear because that is what herd mentality tells us to do. If everyone in your local club is riding Dura-Ace, at some point you’re going to want to do the same. 

The worth question is dependent on how deep your pockets are, you will justify things using that as a measure. If you have money to burn of course it will be worth it to get RED instead of Rival components.

I suggest you buy your first bike just based on your actual budget and what looks good to you at that budget. You will be more apt to ride your bike if you like what it looks like. I know it’s not the standard answer but I believe it to be true. If you decide you like biking I’m sure you will upgrade your bike down the line.


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

Sometimes there are real differences between the lines. Some of them are performance related (X weighs 200 grams less than Y--and really a 200 g difference would hardly be noticed by most if not all new riders), others are maintenance related--which are only relevant if you are going to wrench yourself (need a specific $150 tool to pull the cranks off, etc)--but when it comes to riding, i think even experienced riders would be hard pressed to tell the real world difference between 4600 tiagra and 6700 ultegra (especially in shimano's case).

that being said, "105 as a minimum" has become a mantra that everyone bandies about for whatever reason--whether there is a real difference or not at that price point/equipment level, i think the main justification for it has become psychological. Even without empirical evidence showing that Tiagra is just as capable, there may be a mental effect of not taking your own bike seriously if it doesn't meet a minimum spec. This is, of course, ridiculous--but it's also real for many riders.

As was mentioned before, the most important part of buying your first bike is always the fit. Now it's more complicated than just comparing your height to a "size chart" or going guns blazing and spending $250 on a pro-fitting because both have some caveats attached to them. The frame size needs to accomodate a range of riding positions--because as you get more experienced, your form will change. spending $250 to fit you to a bike before you even know how to ride is pointless, and buying something off a size chart may get you onto a bike that you'll need to radically alter to get the fit you want.


----------



## Porschefan (Nov 12, 2011)

Someone over in the mountain bike forums has a great tag line that applies. A quote attributed to Eddie Merckx:

"Don't buy upgrades; ride up grades."

Of course it's advice I have a hard time following...


----------



## Schlitzer (Jun 21, 2012)

Like most pursuits, the capabilities of the individual are more the limiting factor than the equipment available with modern and ever evolving technologies. The 105 bits will serve any casual rider well, and most people that take themselves more seriously than they should as well. 

That said, if you want it and you'll use it, it's money we'll spent. Lord knows we waste money on less productive things. I do, anyway. 

Find a ride with bits n such that work for you, within your budget, and ride your value out of it, and into it.


----------



## djcastagna (Jul 29, 2012)

i am new to cycling. i got a walmart bike for christmas to test it out. i really enjoyed the excercise. so i called a friend up that is really into cycling. he lets me use his spare bike, jamis ventura sport. it has sora components. i made some adjustments to help me feel more comfortable on the bike. but i really enjoy riding the jamis. i noticed a huge difference btw the walmart bike and the jamis. 

another friend wanted me to buy his old bike, a novara strada with 105 components. i rode it a couple of times, but i didnt notice anything different from the jamis. again, i am a new rider so maybe im missing something. but i actually like the jamis better...so why would i buy that bike when i can use the jamis whenever i want? my friend has basically given me the bike. 

so i guess if you can find 105 components within your budget, go ahead, but dont worry about it you get sora components. they work fine for me...no issues.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Porschefan said:


> Someone over in the mountain bike forums has a great tag line that applies. A quote attributed to Eddie Merckx:
> 
> "Don't buy upgrades; ride up grades."
> 
> Of course it's advice I have a hard time following...


LOL, that's me.

FWIW, the quote is a misattribution. But I like it better that way. 

OP, in answer to your question - going from what's on a $700 bike to what's on a Sora bike, you get shifters that will tend to stay tuned better and have more robust function in crappy weather and over time.

From Sora to Tiagra, you move from a shifter with a thumb button that I find awkward to one that has the same paddle design as the rest of Shimano's mechanical shifters. FWIW, I race a bike with a blend of Tiagra and Tiagra-equivalent parts. Often, this is also the price point where bikes will switch from a steel or aluminum fork to a carbon fork. While a lot of people think carbon forks are the best thing since sliced bread, I don't see it as that big a deal. Get nice tires, learn to find "your" pressure.

From Tiagra to 105 and above, things get a little lighter and have a more refined appearance. There may be some slight functional improvements, especially (IMO) in the chain rings and cassette. Shifter throws get a little shorter. My nicer road bike has a blend of older 105, newer 105, and last-generation Ultegra. I think that it's more reliable, but I also don't take the bike off-road.

In retail bikes, often you're still getting hosed on the wheels. Wheels on retail bikes are frequently pretty crappy. The bike industry bows to fashion as much as the auto industry. Most any retail bike will have wheels that will give you a few seasons before you're backed into replacing them, however, and everything else is still a much better deal when one buys a complete bike. Often, the cranksets on retail bikes are garbage lately too. Again, these are good for a couple seasons, usually.

The other parts on the bike generally are a little nicer working up in pricepoint. I don't think it has much of an impact on function.

Since you've got the background, consider where the energy losses on a bicycle are. Consider the degree to which component selection can effect them.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

I've ridden the "best" components in the Shimano (Dura Ace, Ultegra) and Sram (Red) lines and the "worst" in both (Sora and Apex).

I really like high end gear, but only recently, after 40 years going as budget as possible, have purchased the stuff... because I can afford it. It's fun to ride.

But whenever I rent a bike, it's almost always Sora or more recently Sram Apex. Those bikes, assuming they fit, do not bother me at all, and do absolutely nothing to discourage me from riding the he!! out of them when I have them. They are totally fun.

So my advice is: set an upper limit to what you want to spend on the bike, and then just buy whatever bike calls to you within that price range. Don't think about "if I only spent $150 more, I'd get $225 of additional value". That could be said whatever you spend.

Stick to your budget, buy what you think is the best bike for you within that budget, and then splurge a little on things like shoes, saddle, shorts/bibs. Don't be afraid to spend a little extra money on those things as they will increase your comfort and enjoyment greatly.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

The way I see it, if you're riding and enjoying the heck out of your bike, you've made a good investment, no matter how much money you've spent or what level of hardware you're running. In any case, never worry about being unworthy of the equipment.

I might also mention that when I'm slogging up that 13% grade, it's comforting to be secure in the knowledge that it's only my miserable corpus that's holding me back.


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Since you've got the background, consider where the energy losses on a bicycle are. Consider the degree to which component selection can effect them.


Thanks for the responses, folks. This is helpful.

RE: Engineering and Energy Losses:
I think it's pretty easy. Aero drag comes first. I won't be buying a time-trials bike nor aero bars, so let's call that a wash between all the bikes I'm considering.

Next is rolling resistance and drive-train friction. Friction of the chain bending around the chain rings and rear cogs would be top for this little category, but I'd bet a cheapish chain that was clean and properly lubed would be a $500 chain that was dirty. So, again, differences between Sora and Dura-Ace are nil, overshadowed by maintenance practices.

The brakes are supposed to consume energy, so they are not involved in the discussion. Likewise, the front derailleur should not be touching the chain as I ride, so it's out as well.

In back, the chain does route through the little pulley wheels in the rear derailleur, so they contribute to drive-train friction, but, again, if a Dura-Ace really requires less force to pull a chain through it than a Sora, I'd be shocked. (You'd be measuring it in pico-Newtons!)

I think I'll find a local shop that will LET ME RIDE some demo bikes and will try to formulate my own opinion about the differences. Until then, less is more, and I won't be aiming too high on the price scale, just based on component group.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Oversteer said:


> RE: Engineering and Energy Losses:
> I think it's pretty easy. Aero drag comes first.
> 
> Next is rolling resistance and drive-train friction.
> ...


IMO you've drawn some very wise conclusions on the energy loss from the areas listed. It's (literally) minute and matters only to pros (and those otherwise obsessed). 

You're more apt to suffer energy loss (thus, loss in efficiency) from an ill fitting bike than from any aero/ friction/ bike related resistance encountered. Something to keep in mind during your visits to LBS's and during your test rides.

Bottom line, fit matters most.


----------



## Blackbeerthepirate (Apr 26, 2011)

I'm helping someone purchase an "entry level bike", so I've been able to compare the different groups. 

There seems to be a small difference between the Sora and the Tiagra. The Tiagra shifting was noticeably better. Between Tiagra and 105, I think you would be hard pressed to tell a difference.

With the Sram, the Apex and Rival seemed identical, with the Force being noticeably nicer.

The Shimano shifting was smoother. The Sram shifting was crisper. 

Remember this; All the above observations are coming from someone whose newest groupset is barely of this century (Campagnolo Daytona) and loves his 30 something year old group (Shimano 600).

Everything, group wise, seemed incredibily close in performance. The large differences seemed to be in wheels and carbon bits. Try to look at the bike as a whole. What geometry is going to work best for you? What are your cycling goals? Get a bike that will fit those needs, and then, ride the crap out of it.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

^^^
Spot on on losses.

If any of the bikes is shifting badly, bring it up with the mechanic. Most of the ones I know take pride in their work and would rather know if one of the floor bikes isn't working as well as it should. That should help you make a more realistic comparison between different groups. Otherwise you're really just comparing how well different individual bikes have been tuned.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Since you've got the background, consider where the energy losses on a bicycle are. Consider the degree to which component selection can effect them.


Good advice.

On top of that, consider marketing ploys. For example, take a $1,200 bike with a Tiagra rear derailleur sitting on the sales floor for months. It probably would have sold quicker at $1,400 if it had an Ultegra rear derailleur on it. The ride peformance difference would have been zero, but the sales performance difference would have been noticeable. From that perspective, Shimano 105 being the minimum acceptable is basically marketing nonsense that has penetrated into the mind of your average first-time buyer to an amazing degree.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

wim said:


> ... 105 being the minimum acceptable is basically marketing nonsense that has penetrated into the mind of your average first-time buyer to an amazing degree.


We need a billboard for this! :thumbsup:


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

Blackbeerthepirate said:


> ...All the above observations are coming from someone whose newest groupset is barely of this century (Campagnolo Daytona) and loves his 30 something year old group (Shimano 600).


Very interesting comment. I have a 1987 Cannondale "Team Comp" that I found at a garage sale. It was upgraded at some point to Shimano 600 stuff (cranks, both derailleurs). The frame's a bit too big for me, so it's not "the bike," but I've ridden it quite a bit, so the component comparison is interesting for me.

The Shimano 600 stuff seems to shift well, quickly, with a nice "thunk" into the next gear. But it's got friction shifters on the down-tubes, which is really foreign to me. But other than the shift method, how does Shimano 600 compare to, say, new Sora? New Tiagra?


----------



## Blackbeerthepirate (Apr 26, 2011)

Oversteer said:


> Very interesting comment. I have a 1987 Cannondale "Team Comp" that I found at a garage sale. It was upgraded at some point to Shimano 600 stuff (cranks, both derailleurs). The frame's a bit too big for me, so it's not "the bike," but I've ridden it quite a bit, so the component comparison is interesting for me.
> 
> The Shimano 600 stuff seems to shift well, quickly, with a nice "thunk" into the next gear. But it's got friction shifters on the down-tubes, which is really foreign to me. But other than the shift method, how does Shimano 600 compare to, say, new Sora? New Tiagra?


Friction shifters are a little bit tricky, but if you like the old 600 stuff, you'll love the new Shimano. Riding primarily on the hoods is easier and safer in my opinion. 

Mechanically, the newer stuff will shift with less effort. Very smooth compared to the 600. The Tiagra, to me, was noticeably easier to shift, than the Sora. That could just be an adjustment though. If you are looking for that positive "thunk" into gear, check out the Sram. The technology seems to "trickle down" a little more in their less expensive lines.

Be sure to compare the cranksets when deciding on a group. Some of those lower end Shimano cranks looked a little on the cheap side to me.

At the level of bike you are looking at, you will most likely see some with a mixed group. Decide what is important to you, and evaluate the parts that way. :thumbsup:


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Oversteer said:


> Thanks for the responses, folks. This is helpful.
> 
> RE: Engineering and Energy Losses:....
> 
> I think I'll find a local shop that will LET ME RIDE some demo bikes and will try to formulate my own opinion about the differences. Until then, less is more, and I won't be aiming too high on the price scale, just based on component group.


You've hit the nail on the head on the theoretical areas of energy loss, but also that the differences from "worst" to "best" are miniscule, and really, irrelevant. The stereotype of engineers that I've made based on internet forums is that they can tend to way over think the technical design aspect of things (why? because they can! Most of us can't). Don't do that. Color and shop service is more important than any technical analysis of this stuff.

The only things I'll reiterate (annd have already, so now I'm harping!) is (1) to select your component family based on how they actually feel to your hands. For example, I have Shimano and Sram. The Sram is hugely more comfortable in terms of ergonomics and shifting method. Both work well, I have a strong personal preference, but it doesn't generalize to anyone.

and (2) be sure to budget decent money for good saddle (if needed), shorts/bibs (a couple pair), helmet (that fits, not necessarily expensive), and shoes (really important to select on fit and construction, not low price). Yes, we all have budgets, that's fine. But don't cheap out on them any more than you really have to. They will contribute to your enjoyment of the bike more than any upspending on compnent group will.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Blackbeerthepirate said:


> Friction shifters are a little bit tricky, but if you like the old 600 stuff, you'll love the new Shimano. Riding primarily on the hoods is easier and safer in my opinion.
> 
> Mechanically, the newer stuff will shift with less effort. Very smooth compared to the 600. The Tiagra, to me, was noticeably easier to shift, than the Sora. That could just be an adjustment though. If you are looking for that positive "thunk" into gear, check out the Sram. The technology seems to "trickle down" a little more in their less expensive lines.
> 
> ...


Good info here, IMO. The comparison between Shimano's 600 groupset and their more current (lower level) groups pretty much mirrors my experiences with them, although FWIW mine was Ultegra 600 - so the next iteration.

Re: the bold statement, in the interest of balance, I'll offer that SRAM's lower end cranksets (specifically their S150) mates to a powerspline BB - similar to Shimano's Octalink's. So both have their trade-offs to meet a price point.

That said, I think either would prove more durable than (as an example) FSA's.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I really like Shimano's low-end cranks all the way down to plain Deore and Sora. I think they got it nailed on how to build a crankset for an external bottom bracket that I don't need to worry about until I trash the bearings.

I'll take a moment to be a retrogrouch and say I think I did better on bearing longevity with the old cartridge standards. Square taper can be a pain, but Octalink was always trouble-free for me.

As far as older 600 vs. newer groups - I think that 600 is already an indexed right-hand shifter, which I find a big step up from a friction right-hand shifter. You may just need to turn it on. But, that's before my time; I could easily be wrong. Integrated shifting is very convenient and I like it a lot on my competition bikes. I found I don't like it enough to pay for it on a commuter, and de-evolved that bike to downtube shifters when the SRAM shifter died. Between my bikes with integrated shifting and those without, I can shift off-road much more safely and shift when I'm out of the saddle to climb or sprint on the ones with integrated shifters. I know that some people can shift while out of the saddle with downtube shifters, but I never acquired that skill. I also find it doesn't take anywhere near as much attention to shift with integrated shifters. I'm sure I'd be better with downtube shifters if I used them more, but there you go. I'd prefer to train with others and compete on a bike with integrated shifters. For rides on my own - like I said, I didn't feel that integrated shifting was worth the cost of replacement when the last one on my commuter bike died. The others, I often ride with other people.


----------



## drmayer (Mar 24, 2009)

in my local sport-paced group ride (21-22mph avg) i am the only rider with components below force or ultegra. I use apex, and have built/ridden bikes with rival/force/red and there's no advantage to me to spend the extra money. 

Also - i say don't ride what you can't afford to replace. this may be more true in the mtb world, but still is good advice.


----------



## Ruslan124 (Jul 30, 2012)

Well I will add a slightly different tack and hope I do not sound conceited. Cycling is a lifestyle similar to that of the Harley Davidson crowd or in my case, Ducati. Many of us who are privileged enough to be able to afford it, enjoy the fact that we can buy nice stuff and talk about it. I cant ride well compared to most. Starting riding at 49 with health issues meant a slow start but I am getting better. My bike seriously outperforms me. But I do enjoy how I feel riding a nice bike with all the nice upgrades. Its not for the performance it is for the feelings that it generates. So although all of the advice given on this post has been excellent, I would say if you can afford (not struggle but really afford) to buy a higher level of components, you can benefit at an emotional level. A few extra dollars to avoid that feeling in a few weeks that you wish you had bought the next level up is worth it. Yes I know it is superficial in my case but riding is about fun, enjoyment etc and that element of having good kit cannot be overlooked. Please do not read into this that I believe if you don't have the best kit, you should not feel like a second class citizen if you do not have the best. This forum proves that cycling is a community for all types of people and all levels of equipment. I do not look down on anyone on a bike, I just honestly love how it makes me feel.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

In terms of road bikes, I have 3 - all different component sets and frame materials. I have other bikes (MTB, classic cruiser, hybrid) as well and also taken yet many others on long test rides. I have experience with several component brands (Shimano, SRAM, Campy) and their levels. From all of this I have derived your answer:

I can unequivocally say that the most important thing to know about a bike is that the red ones are faster.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Oversteer has an excellent point. A Timex Iron Man watch will keep at least as accurate time as a Rolex. Given the choice I'd probably take the Rolex, even if it doesn't work better.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Ruslan124 said:


> Well I will add a slightly different tack and hope I do not sound conceited. Cycling is a lifestyle similar to that of the Harley Davidson crowd or in my case, Ducati. Many of us who are privileged enough to be able to afford it, enjoy the fact that we can buy nice stuff and talk about it. I cant ride well compared to most. Starting riding at 49 with health issues meant a slow start but I am getting better. My bike seriously outperforms me. But I do enjoy how I feel riding a nice bike with all the nice upgrades. Its not for the performance it is for the feelings that it generates. So although all of the advice given on this post has been excellent, I would say if you can afford (not struggle but really afford) to buy a higher level of components, you can benefit at an emotional level. A few extra dollars to avoid that feeling in a few weeks that you wish you had bought the next level up is worth it. Yes I know it is superficial in my case but riding is about fun, enjoyment etc and that element of having good kit cannot be overlooked. Please do not read into this that I believe if you don't have the best kit, you should not feel like a second class citizen if you do not have the best. This forum proves that cycling is a community for all types of people and all levels of equipment. I do not look down on anyone on a bike, I just honestly love how it makes me feel.


I wonder if this is why I fit in better with racers.


----------



## CheapSkate (Feb 26, 2012)

You can see the component vendors are running up against "range compression" - they can't make the expensive stuff significantly better than the cheaper. There simply isn't that much engineering left to exploit.

I know Campy better than the others. Campy felt the need to cripple its lower ranges by removing the "Ultra-Shift" (shift to 5 cogs smaller with one motion) feature which afficionados loved. I doubt it saved them much money, perhaps it cost them money in tooling and keeping two sets of inventory. But it needed to prevent the lower end stealing high end sales. I think that means the low end stuff was just too good.

When I look at groupsets over the last 10+ years, I don't see much change. I don't see much innovation, just a shift to new materials. Steel -> Al -> carbon fibre. Now you'll see new materials in amazing places (eg Al axles & chainring bolts, all carbon rear mechs, carbon axles if you want to go mad). 

For a while the weight saving allowed them to squeeze more cogs in. Great, they could upsell you to the high end with an extra cog. Trouble is, there's no substitute for steel in the chain, and it looks like the limit of a steel chain is ~5.5 mm (Campag and Shimano 11s). Hmmm, so carbon's gone about everywhere it can, ditto Al. Can't fit any more cogs in. So unless they can squeeze in some boron nitride, nanotubes or beryllium (seems unlikely), where do they go next? Electronic shifting! In future the only way to add value is through software, the hardware is at its limits. The same problem, and the same solution, as the automotive industry.

I tried to convince myself to spend $$$$ on a high end groupset. Then I road my CheapSkate bike 1000 miles. The shifting and braking is _amazing_ as it stands. Even on the low (ish) end stuff.

I think there's never been a better time to buy a low end groupset. You might sacrifice the 11th cog, but you'll get a huge bang for your buck.

Apologies if off topic, I've been thinking about this for a while, watching the rain. Just my random CheapSkate opinion.


----------



## ParadigmDawg (Aug 2, 2012)

I have all top notch gear on my MTB (Chris King, XTR, Thompson) but told myself I really don't care on a road bike (new roadie). Now I notice that I am already having some upgraditis on the road bike...


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

One thing that is a bit overlooked... cheaper bikes tend to come with cheaper cables on the brakes and shifters. Simply changing out the cables and housings to higher quality stuff can transform low end gear to perform MUCH better. A lot of the difference is from compressing the housings! 

The only gear ive had trouble with is really bottom barrel low end stuff, and any chainring below ultegra/xt level.


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

from low end components, if you are to upgrade, go for the highest level, don't settle for middle. you will notice the difference.


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

Ruslan124 said:


> ...Cycling is a lifestyle similar to that of the Harley Davidson crowd or in my case, Ducati. Many of us who are privileged enough to be able to afford it, enjoy the fact that we can buy nice stuff and talk about it.


Okay, now we're getting somewhere! At first read, the "it's a lifestyle" and the reference to HD was appalling. It conotated poseurs with equipment well beyond their skill levels.

But I read further, and I don't think you're a snob. I understand what you're saying about enjoying the great feel of great machinery, if you can afford it. I drive a BMW 3-series because I'm a driving purist, while many could point out that it has no more interior space than a Honda Civic, which is a fine compact car as well. While tangible, it's difficult to justify the benefits of rear-wheel drive and the virtues of the feel and sound of an inline-6 engine in terms of A-to-B transport.

That said, I've looked at some new bikes since opening this thread. I could be a gear-geek, and the $1,250 bikes soon caught my eye. Side-by-side with a $750 bike, the more expensive ones really look great.

But wait. I want the rider to be as good as his equipment. I don't I can justify the performance and capabilities of a $1,250 bike. I have enough ego to NOT want to be "that guy" on the local green-way.

I think I'll go tune up my garage-sale 1987 Cannondale and learn to use those friction-shifters better. Maybe by next year, my own performance will be up to the level that justifies better equipment.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

If you've got a good fit on the Cannondale, ride it and be happy.  If the fit's poor, a new bike that does fit will make cycling more comfortable and may actually boost your power output a bit.

Even if you've got a good fit, don't dismiss the idea of a new bike. I think that the sweet spot on components is probably at Tiagra or 105 lately. The usability of Tiagra is a big step up over Sora, or is for me. And it's a huge step up over friction shifters. It's going to be a lot easier to maintain a bike that's in line with current standards. While pretty much any mechanical problem, short of breaking the frame, that you'll run into on a late-'80s name-brand road bike is going to be something you can solve, a lot of them will have an extra element of irritation. Things that don't attach the same way, things that changed size, things that are hard to find. So if you damage something big-ticket, it's probably a good time to move on. It doesn't sound like being able to pay for a bike is a big issue for you. So, don't lowball on a new bike if the Cannondale backs you into it. "That guy" has a $3000+ bike. Nobody's going to judge you for a $1300 bike. My experience of cheap components is that they often back you into more expensive ones after a while anyway - they work for as long as they work, but it's often not as long as with the nicer stuff.


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> If you've got a good fit on the Cannondale, ride it and be happy....
> 
> Even if you've got a good fit, don't dismiss the idea of a new bike.


Thanks for the feedback. I'm not sure of the fit. It feels big from a basic "stand over the top tube" perspective - it's all up in my business. I'm 6'2", but wear a 32" in seam, so I'm not "all legs," and probably have a longer torso than most my height. The bike appears to be a 60cm size.

That said, I do feel good ON the bike, for the most part. My rides are typically one-hour or a bit less. The only fit issue I have is that I'm uncomfortable in the drops (due mostly to the fact that my gut is too large!). On a side note, I've lost 52 pounds this year, and am continuing to lose, so I'm not too worried about the gut issue, and don't want to fit a bike to my dwindling gut.

So, as with other things in my life, I've decided to apply the good advice I've gotten from you all in this thread, and JUST RIDE THE THING for several months and formulate my own opinions and knowledge from that experience. I WILL get comfortable with the down-tube shifters. I WILL learn to fine-tune and set up everything myself (I'm pretty good with tools). And I WILL RIDE as much as I can.

So next year at this time, I think I'll know what to do. I will have lots of miles on the old bike, and will know what I like and don't like. I will also feel like I've earned myself a new bike, due to my demonstrated commitment to riding.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Bikes are for riding, not for standing over. For someone with a short inseam (is this your pants inseam, or did you do the ritual with the book? Often the results are quite different, and it's the thing with the book that's used for cycling by some. Not me, I can't be bothered and think it's a useless number. But YMMV) relative to his height, getting a bike with a long enough reach for good fit may result in a bit less clearance than would be ideal.

Fit's a pretty big deal, and either dialing in the fit or finding it to be impossible is one of the best things you can do for yourself in terms of enjoying riding this bike, and also in terms of really nailing the size and geometry of any future bike. There are two ways you can approach this. One is to pay someone to fit you to the bike. I did this a while ago and it's some of the best money I've ever spent on cycling. You need to ask around your local roadie community and find out who people like. Some shops will just apply a set of formulae to some measurements taken off your body and set up the bike. I have a pretty low opinion of this approach. I think rider fitness and flexibility are really important in bike setup. The other is to figure it out yourself. Here's a web site I like for that.
https://www.peterwhitecycles.com/fitting.htm

You'll notice it's all qualitative. I think that quantitative models of how a human fits on a bike are really bad, and the goal is to get a setup that qualitatively feels right.

Your fit will drift, especially with weight loss and increasing fitness. Give the Peter White article a read and see if it gives you some insight. I think that the best time to actually pay for a fit is probably when you've settled into a bit of a routine with your riding. If how you sit the bike is still a rapidly moving target, you're likely to have to do another fit later, IMO. On the other hand, once you've stabilized some, the small changes you'll continue to make should be fairly easy for you to do yourself without taking things too far sideways.

Any time you start monkeying with your setup, record the way you had the bike before you started changing things, and then keep a record of the changes you make. Here's an article and form that make that easier.
https://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/road-postioning-chart

If the Cannondale is a good size for you, you can also use this chart to transfer the same setup over to any future bike. I finally got around to using the chart myself in order to rough in a new bike earlier this year. I found it very helpful.

EDIT: If you want to change stem length, I highly recommend using one of these









and a threadless stem. It's a little more complicated than using a quill stem, but threadless stems are a lot easier to swap in and out. So if it takes you a couple of stems to get it right, you'll mess around less. I finally ended up putting one on the '99 road bike that's my main on-road ride, and kicked myself for waiting so long. I'd been limiting myself to handlebars that would fit a quill stem, and that prevented me from trying the bars that are now my favorite because they require a larger clamp. If you stick with quill stems, at least go to an open-faced design instead of the pinch bolt design if you have to change anyway.


----------



## CheapSkate (Feb 26, 2012)

Do this ^^^

Bike fit is so personal, I would try to find a comfortable fit on your current bike. It might change a bit as you get more flexible. When you've found something REALLY comfortable for a decent length right, maybe think about buying a new bike. 

You can do a lot to make an unsuitable bike suitable, though the purists will moan and groan about your stem length or saddle setback etc. But stuff 'em. Get a position that works well for you, then decide whether you need to buy a new bike to satisfy the purists.

The alternative is to jump blind into a new bike, spend $1000 and find out you should have got the size up, or down, or whatever. Happens surprisingly often.


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

The fact that I don't have any pains after a one-hour ride tells me I'm not too far off of optimal. I've got a few thousand miles on my old greenway bike (rigid steel mountain bike with skinny 100 psi tires), and I recently stood the Cannondale up next to it and was surprise to find the seat height and handlebar height identical between the two bikes. This further tells me as I've fine-tuned the Cannondale by feel, I was zeroing in on MY preferred setup.

...Now the reach to the drops, that's another issue. The biggest fit/comfort issue on the Cannondale is that I really like riding on the brake hoods, but this bike has skimpy hoods that I'm not sure were ever really designed to be a hand-position.

I found some new hood covers on Amazon that appear to be a fit, so I might update those and see if I can find better comfort. I do not want to spend any money on a new handlebar, new brake levers, etc. right now.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

CheapSkate said:


> You can do a lot to make an unsuitable bike suitable, though *the purists will moan and groan about your stem length or saddle setback etc. But stuff 'em.* Get a position that works well for you, then decide whether you need to buy a new bike to satisfy the purists.


I consider myself a purist, but rather than "stuff 'em", I'll 'argue' my point. :wink5:

I'm not saying this applies to the OP, but you really can't make an unsuitable bike suitable. You can 'make it work' and the degree of success will roughly correspond with just how far off sizing/ geo is, but it's arguable the end result will be 'suitable'. 



CheapSkate said:


> The alternative is to jump blind into a new bike, spend $1000 and find out you should have got the size up, or down, or whatever. *Happens surprisingly often*.


It shouldn't. If a first time buyer patronizes a reputable LBS, the onus is on the shop to get sizing right, not the buyer. I'd think the blind jump would be more apt to occur when the uninitiated buy online. 

OP: re: your remark that you can ride an hour without discomfort, try one and a half, then two. At some point, you'll experience discomfort and at that point you'll have identified the weak link in your fit. 

Again, I'm not suggesting the sizing/ fit is off on your current bike - I actually think that's not the case. More, simply offering a comment/ observation.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Oversteer said:


> I found some new hood covers on Amazon that appear to be a fit, so I might update those and see if I can find better comfort. I do not want to spend any money on a new handlebar, new brake levers, etc. right now.


I'd be a little wary of ordering a hood cover online. While the ones for older bikes are supposed to fit a lot of older brake levers, this is something that I really like to be able to see in person. I swapped hood covers on my previous commuter, and it ended up working out okay. But I bought them from my shop.

The shape of the brake hood under the cover has changed over time too. Brake levers are about a $20 item if they're not also shifters. (Tektro RL340.) You're likely to need to do the bar tape and brake cables and housings too, so there's a bit of extra cost there.


----------



## thebludoc (Aug 21, 2012)

Oversteer said:


> I'm fairly new to road biking and am educating myself. I've read many threads about "buying a new bike," and appreciate all the good advice I'm getting.
> 
> I am an engineer and understand the "trickle down" theory of bike parts. And it appears even entry-level bikes ($700-$800) are getting better and better, every couple of years, right?
> 
> ...


I work at a bike shop, and though I am quite new - I find that after 105 components, the payoff in performance over $$$ diminishes significantly

105s are the plateau in cost efficiency in my novice opinion.


----------



## CheapSkate (Feb 26, 2012)

@PJ352

All I meant to suggest was, don't get seduced by the type often found on Weight Weenies who diss you if you're running a 90 mm stem on a 62 frame, or 40 mm of spacer, or whatever. I was just trying to say fit is primarily about what works for you, not what the "slam that stem" crowd say.

Also a good fit is helpful, but the fittee needs to tell the fitter what he/she wants, particular re handlebar height/reach. More comfort vs more aero? Only the fittee really knows the answer to this. Even with a good fit you could end up on a frame with a much too long/low front end, as I know to my cost.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

CheapSkate said:


> @PJ352
> 
> All I meant to suggest was, don't get seduced by the type often found on Weight Weenies who diss you if you're running a 90 mm stem on a 62 frame, or 40 mm of spacer, or whatever. I was just trying to say fit is primarily about what works for you, not what the "slam that stem" crowd say.


Ah, gotcha. That clarifies things. FWIW, I agree with your 'spacer/ slam the stem' examples, but re: running a 90mm stem on a 62 cm frame, the possibility does exist that the need to do so may indicate the bike is ill sized for that rider.

Remember, as size increases proportionally, so does stem size, so while running a 90 may be no biggie on smaller sizes, it is short for a 62. It may 'fix' excessive reach, but because rider f/r weight distribution won't be quite right, the bikes handling may suffer. 



CheapSkate said:


> Also a good fit is helpful, but the fittee needs to tell the fitter what he/she wants, particular re handlebar height/reach. More comfort vs more aero? Only the fittee really knows the answer to this. Even with a good fit you could end up on a frame with a much too long/low front end, as I know to my cost.


Good point that the cyclist needs to take a pro-active approach and the fitter be responsive to his/ her needs/ preferences. Ideally, it's a cooperative effort, where the cyclist communicates pertinent info and the fitter applies it to their fit, getting feedback along the way. On balance, the fitter does need to know which questions to ask to get that info. 

At face value, I'd question that a good fit would result in the excessive reach or drop you cite, because IMO/E getting those two parameters right is fundamental to a good fit.

Where your scenario does apply is with two different bikes/ geo. Sizing can be right on both, but one bikes geo is better suited for that riders fitness/ flexibility, style and preferences. Something that more experienced/ knowledgeable fitters will recognize.


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

thebludoc said:


> I work at a bike shop, and though I am quite new - I find that after 105 components, the payoff in performance over $$$ diminishes significantly
> 
> 105s are the plateau in cost efficiency in my novice opinion.


thebludoc,

I really appreciate your comment. It's fitting, because this comment is at the heart of my original question (and confusion over levels of components). If I may generalize, I will lump your comment into a bucket called "everybody says get at least 105."

My question is: why? It's better, but how is it better? How would I measure it? Is there less friction on the chain, as it zig-zags through the rear-derailleur cage? Does it have metal parts where a Sora or Tiagra has plastic? The mass is available spec, so I imagine it's lighter...

To be blunt, if I cannot quantify the differences, how can I know good advice from heard-mentality hype?


----------



## paredown (Oct 18, 2006)

Oversteer said:


> The fact that I don't have any pains after a one-hour ride tells me I'm not too far off of optimal. I've got a few thousand miles on my old greenway bike (rigid steel mountain bike with skinny 100 psi tires), and I recently stood the Cannondale up next to it and was surprise to find the seat height and handlebar height identical between the two bikes. This further tells me as I've fine-tuned the Cannondale by feel, I was zeroing in on MY preferred setup.
> 
> ...Now the reach to the drops, that's another issue. The biggest fit/comfort issue on the Cannondale is that I really like riding on the brake hoods, but this bike has skimpy hoods that I'm not sure were ever really designed to be a hand-position.
> 
> I found some new hood covers on Amazon that appear to be a fit, so I might update those and see if I can find better comfort. I do not want to spend any money on a new handlebar, new brake levers, etc. right now.


I did a blind search on "beefier brake hoods" and found these Cane Creeks:

$38/pair--but you may have to swap inner cables (ends may differ) and you would need to retape bars after swap.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

Component envy? Its ok, we've all felt it....


----------



## Oversteer (Aug 11, 2012)

paredown said:


> I did a blind search on "beefier brake hoods" and found these Cane Creeks:
> 
> $38/pair--but you may have to swap inner cables (ends may differ) and you would need to retape bars after swap.


Great suggestion. I did some searching myself and just ordered some very similar brake levers, with big "ergo" hoods. I ordered new bar tape, too. I'll tear into it and may well change out the handlebar, too, while I'm at it.

Cheers,
Oversteer


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Wait a little while to rewrap your handlebars. Try some different positions of the brakes.

There has been an attitude shift in use and shape of handlebars. So you might find one of the new ones more comfortable. Although this strikes me as an item that you may do better waiting on for a little longer. Get used to riding drop bars and figure out how you like to use them. That's going to inform what you want (and if) in a new handlebar.


----------



## CycleFiend17 (Aug 27, 2012)

Newbie here but I went with 105's only because they turned out to be cheaper than tiagara but I did not like the Sora shifters at all due to the thumb switch which I could not reach in the drops at all.

I tried out a few bikes ranging from Sora to 105 and even some with a few ultegra pieces and could not tell the difference except that the Sora shifter thing as mentioned above. 

Also, i did meet with the comment that "adults get atleast a 105" at the LBS. Have to appreciate the directness of sales people here in Germany.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I wonder if this is why I fit in better with racers.


I know a racer who doesn't like to hang out with other racers. The reason given is that he doesn't want to hear all the "how I do, how I do that..." that most racers (especially the crit guys) love to talk (or brag) about.


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

Bike fit seems to be the consensous for what's most important


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

Amazing! i'm glad i'm not the only one that asked questions like this as there are some GREAT responses here. The comment about cycling being a lifestyle is interesting. people buy things because it makes them feel better sometimes. some poeople, maybe feel like that if they have a better piece of equipment they will perform up to it. or maybe its the reward to themselves for doing something, or getting through something. 

guess the conclusion to draw from this is what i'm hearing from many people on this forum. most important thing is the fit of the bike. sure better components could be helpful but will it really be a detriment to your performance? I still havent made my purchase as i'm trying to clear some budget to do so. But at this point, I think I'd be better off with the lower end components and saving that money to use for shoes and pedals. that would more likely improve my experience more than upgraded components. I'm only planning on riding 1-2 times per week..... so like with a car, why upgrade to a car with better top end speed if I dont drive on the highway much? 

i've been to a few LBS now and i'm hearing the same thing.... they barely show the cheapest bikes. why even carry them if they're junk? they all tell me that i can get in a bike for $750 but would be much happier if i went to $1200. that's a lot of cash. and its quite obvious. but it comes down to the other things we need to buy also. getting a comfortable saddle, one of those little computer thingies, jersey or two, the aforementioned clipless pedals and shoes. will those make my ride more enjoyable? 

one interesting thing i came across was a LBS offereing free tune-ups for the life of the bike. That's probably a nice little bonus and since its very convenient for me, i'm leaning to them. they only have trek in house now but have stores near by that carry raleigh, cannondale and bianchi, among others. its the service and passion of the store that seems to sway me. a trek is a trek no matter who i buy it from.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

CycoBob said:


> I wish manufacturers would go to a different model, where they'd offer a particular range of frames, and then let the customer choose exactly which components and wheels they would like to use with the frame they select (Within reason, of course- just offer some choice).


Actually, a variation of what you describe is common practice. For example, several models of Specialized Allez, Tarmac and Roubaix (among others) share the same (or similar) frameset, but offer variations in other specs. At certain price points, some offer Sora, others Apex and still others, 105 or Rival. As the price climbs, so do the specs, with minor upgrades in wheelsets, saddles, etc. 

A variation of this would be to buy a frame (or frameset), then set out to round up other parts from various sources. Many more experienced cyclists use this method exclusively, because (over the years) they've come to have preferences of bars, stems, saddles, etc. 

Because manufacturers buy parts in bulk, they have more buying power, so it's almost always cheaper to buy a complete bike, so there are trade-offs with either option - or maybe more accurately, with _any_ option.


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

The lifestyle thing is the group of people that feel that they are defined as cyclists by what they ride. I'm really new to this, but i can almost tell who these people are when the walk into a LBS in all their gear. but i've seen it in other sports. I've seen golfers come to the 1st tee box with form fitting attire and $1500 clubs who, are not good. Some people I play hockey with use high end carbon fiber sticks and cant play at all. then you get guys that zip around the ice with wicked shots, using a wood stick from the 80's. the user is more important than the gear. sure my tune may change at some point. but for me, i'm not giong to spend hundreds more to save a pound or two in bike weight. i'll lose that pound or two myself, get stronger, get in better shape.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I'd have said about the opposite about the lifestyle thing.

It's multiple rides per week and supporting life decisions that define it. Not that a lot of people who are very committed to cycling as a sport don't change out their gear regularly, but IMO that's secondary. Taking fewer or stranger hours, sticking with a cheaper car, getting significant others into it to (hopefully) stave off a battle between them and cycling.

Some of the strongest cyclists just ride bikes as something fun they do. With some organization, it's possible to do quite a lot with twelve hours a week. Think about how much time a lot of people spend watching TV and this doesn't seem so unattainable for an adult with a full-time job and a life. But a lot of visible and strong cyclists have built a good chunk of their lives around cycling, something that's easy to glorify and use to sell product. Which I think is the tension between the way cycling is sold and the ways it's practiced. Think of any other sport that has some dependence on its environment - skiing and snowboarding, surfing, rock climbing, anything I'm forgetting. They all have some participants who've made some sacrifices to be able to do more.

It's a little harder to sell the idea of someone who just gave up watching TV and is good at cycling by getting home from work at the regular time, pulling on the lycra, and doing an hour and a half or two hours before dinner, or gets up early and knocks it out, than someone who's made some sacrifices. For those of us who aren't disciplined enough to hit good amounts of hours or miss the free time to ride that we (okay, me) had in college, the lifestyle cyclist is really a much less threatening figure. He may ride more than I do, but the rest of his life blows.


----------



## CheapSkate (Feb 26, 2012)

Another two things about going cheap

1. you don't care so much if you crunch something. If you drop the bike on your lovely $$$$ carbon rear mech.... ouch. On a Tiagra mech, you either polish it out or buy a new one for peanuts. It would break my heart to damage some of the gorgeous carbon stuff out there

2. you can have spares. I have an arsenal of spares. Bike not shifting properly? You can swap in a spare, known good, rear mech in 5 minutes. Is that click the pedal bearings? Again, 5 minutes to swap in a brand new pair off the shelf. Really helps with diagnostics, which you WILL have to do some times.


----------



## gskalt (Aug 13, 2012)

CycoBob said:


> On my ride today, I saw a guy on a Harley go by- made me think of how some people say "Harleys aren't just motorcycles, they're a lifestyle".
> 
> I don't care if one is talking about bicycles or motorcycles or any sport or activity- I think it's pretty sad when people define their lifestyle by the products they own; or because they devote a disproportionate amount of time and energy to one rather insignificant hobby/sport/activity.
> 
> ...


i'm new to this whole thing, but having seen it before in other aspects of life, i agree, its sad. as a kid, there were people that had better BMX bikes or people that like to drive nicer cars. its makes them feel important. like people also that like to boast about what they do for a living and waht their rank is. I work in an investment bank and feel that school principals are more honorable than senior bankers. 

what defines you should be up to you, but for me.... nothing is more important than family and health. if i choose to do an ironman triathlon with a pink schwinn and a banana seat, then that's up to me right?


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

Certain manufacturers have a fit calculator as well, would be advised for you to check them out to find your effective top tube length. Canyon is a good example. I did not want to pay for a professional fit, when I decided to build my own road bike and so just went into a couple of these to check my ETT.

As for components, well, just look for what each level of components offer. Eg Sora to 105 for shifters has differences. 9 spd or 10 spd. Cable locations. Beyond that I think they are the same.

Go to yr LBS and test a few bikes over a different range to see if you can feel the differences.


----------



## AythanNyah09 (Jul 14, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> It's a little harder to sell the idea of someone who just gave up watching TV and is good at cycling by getting home from work at the regular time, pulling on the lycra, and doing an hour and a half or two hours before dinner, or gets up early and knocks it out, than someone who's made some sacrifices. For those of us who aren't disciplined enough to hit good amounts of hours or miss the free time to ride that we (okay, me) had in college, the lifestyle cyclist is really a much less threatening figure. He may ride more than I do, but the rest of his life blows.


+1 for this quote. This so called lifestyle is just the alternative lifestyle of going to the gym with out a ceiling. I wake up at crack of dawn to get my 1.5 or 2 hours in just for the exercise. Im 40+ years old, two kids and a full time job!

But if money is tight.. I would recommend buying a lot of the things ahead of time. If you want clipless shoes/pedals... buy them now while the labor day sales are happening. Jerseys, bibs, wick socks, helmet, and maybe some water bottles. I actually purchased a "so called better bike" then realized how much 2 jerseys and 2 bibs were plus everything else... I went over my budget by a good $500 easily! You dont really need the cycling computer... (its nice) but Strava will give you the same stuff. And then whats left... thats how you can price your bike. Unless, you haggle with the LBS and say "if I buy a bike here... you will give me 25% off of accessories." Thats what worked for me.


----------



## SFTifoso (Aug 17, 2011)

gskalt said:


> The lifestyle thing is the group of people that feel that they are defined as cyclists by what they ride. I'm really new to this, but i can almost tell who these people are when the walk into a LBS in all their gear. but i've seen it in other sports. I've seen golfers come to the 1st tee box with form fitting attire and $1500 clubs who, are not good. Some people I play hockey with use high end carbon fiber sticks and cant play at all. then you get guys that zip around the ice with wicked shots, using a wood stick from the 80's. the user is more important than the gear. sure my tune may change at some point. but for me, i'm not giong to spend hundreds more to save a pound or two in bike weight. i'll lose that pound or two myself, get stronger, get in better shape.


I've noticed that a lot too. You look at a guy and you think "man this guy must be really good", only to find out he's weaker than you WITH better gear. Other times I'm not able to keep up with a guy in a mountain bike with a back-back. Better to be the part than to look the part IMO.


----------



## Porschefan (Nov 12, 2011)

All this talk about various components is great, but aren't we overlooking the overriding importance of Rule # 8?

_*Rule #8

Saddles, bars, and tires shall be carefully matched.

Valid options are:

Match the saddle to the bars and the tires to black; or
Match the bars to the color of the frame at the top of the head tube and the saddle to the color of the frame at the top of the seat tube and the tires to the color where they come closest to the frame; or
Match the saddle and the bars to the frame decals; or
Black, black, black*_

Of course as a complete newb, I'm probably not eligible to be quoting The Rules at all...:blush2:


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

LOL, my road bike has a white saddle right now because it's a douchey color to put on a bicycle and they're ending up on closeout. Nice saddle, though. (And the only other white on my bike is the paneling behind the brand names on the down and seat tubes.)

I had mismatched tire colors for a while. Wore out the red one, though.

Some of my teammates pretty much build their lives around cycling. I don't see how that's any sadder than building one's life around a job. They have fun, they're happy. I tried being a ski bum on for size a while ago and while I'm glad that I hit a 90-day season once and got to be a much stronger skier, ultimately it was a bit empty for me. I'd rather invent things and live in the city, and all life is compromise. Anyway, I don't see that the lifestyle is built around a product. At least, not in a specific way. Most of my cycling friends have at least a few bikes, and their level of care about them varies. It's really more about the activity - road cycling? Mountain biking? Something a little more unusual? All of the above? The bike itself is just a tool to accomplish that activity. Although I do feel a little sentimental about my '99 LeMond.


----------

