# Best general bike advice for average beginner?



## Andy in Sig (18 Nov 2008)

I thought about this after looking a Bonj's thread on hybrids in P & L. A lot of beginners come on here asking what sort of bike they should get and a common recommendation is indeed a hybrid which, as far as I can see, is a racing bike with flat handle bars.

It seems to me that a racing bike (irrespective of handle bar type) is at one extreme end of the design spectrum much as a fully suspended heavy duty downhill bike is at the other. Therefore what sort of bike should be recommended to the _average_ beginner or somebody returning to cycling, assuming that they specifically don't want to take up racing?

My default setting is always a tourer as they are fast, are designed to carry paniers or loads (makes them perfect for shopping/utility) are comfortable (especially steel framed ones) and can happily be driven on woodland paths, canal towpaths etc. Then there are other "town" bikes (for want of a better term) which also come with mudguards racks etc.

Does this seem a reasonable point of view, i.e. that tourers are most likely to please most beginners, most of the time?


----------



## jimboalee (18 Nov 2008)

Yes. Very reasonable.

I have been through this many times with works colleagues and friends.

Road race bikes and tourers differ in one important aspect.
Although one can convert a race bike to a 'sports tourer' as many Audax riders do, one would look damned silly converting a tourer into a race bike. 

Reasons - Head angle, seat angle, chainstay length and fork rake.

Tourers have a shallower head and seat angle, and therefore require a longer chainstay. The head tube is generally parallel with the seat tube; and coupled with a greater fork rake, provides more stable steering.

Some race frames have 75 deg head angle and less than 40mm rake. Twitchy and not what the beginner wants. Requires experience to ride with phone in one hand and can of coke in the other, ala Claudio Chiapucci.

A tourer will have more like 73 or 72 deg head with 40mm rake, providing a much more stable roll and predictable steering.

I'm not sure about Hybrids. When they first apeared, they were frowned upon as a bike for those who couldn't make up their minds whether they were a MTB or a 'fuddy' tourist.


----------



## mickle (18 Nov 2008)

Hybrids (oh how I hate that name) are _touring bikes_ with flat or riser bars and always have been. Touring bike geometry, clearance for 32+mm tyres & mudguards and eyelets prove this. The _flat bar road bike_ is a relatively new sub-genre.

I agree that a touring bike may be the optimum beginners bike but you try finding an entry level touring bike in an actual bike shop. I haven't seen one for twenty years. The nearest thing is a touring bike with flat bars.


----------



## Andy in Sig (18 Nov 2008)

That explains a lot as the bikes which seem to be sold as hybrids in Germany look more like racers with flat bars (maybe I haven't looked closely enough). Don't Edinburgh Cycles do something resembling an entry level touring bike?


----------



## mickle (18 Nov 2008)

It's a shame that inexpensive touring bikes are not more common (don't know about the Edinburgh one). At one point a decade or so ago I think only Dawes had one in their range, the Horizon. 

I think most bike shops have lost the ability to size drop bar bikes properly.
Flat bars do give more control in traffic so a 'flat bar tourer' or hibreed makes more sense to more people. A city bike.


----------



## Andy in Sig (18 Nov 2008)

I've just had a look at the Edinburch Bicycles website and they do their own brand Revolution County Traveller for 450 quid, which I seem to remember got a good review somewhere. That however is perhaps a bit more than a lot of people are willing to spend on a first bike.


----------



## wafflycat (18 Nov 2008)

My first bit of general advice would be to get a bike that fits. 

Second - yes, I think tourers are a good all-rounder. In my 'stable' I've got a tourer (Bianchi San Remo), a hybrid (Raleigh Pioneer Trail c.1989), a 'race' road bike (Bianchi Via Nirone) and a recumbent trike (IceT). The bike I use most often and do the most miles on is the tourer. It's just so versatile. It takes me into town to do a spot of shopping, it takes me on day rides for leisure, it takes me on cycle tour holidays. This bike I love so much (and it was bought second-hand) that now it's quite a few years old and looking a bit shabby, rather than ditch it, it's been refurbished (Mercian respray jobbie on frame & forks) and with a bit of luck & TLC from MrW (who is an excellent bike mechanic), it'll last me a lifetime.


----------



## Sittingduck (18 Nov 2008)

I had been looking at the Dawes Horizon and managed to find one brand new on eBay for £350. Has anyone had much experience of them?


----------



## jimboalee (18 Nov 2008)

Dawes Horizon are a fine 'Beginners' bike. Steady and sturdy. 

AND, it makes you look like you've been cycling for years.


----------



## Sittingduck (18 Nov 2008)

Yeah they seem nice... if a tad suited to the older style riders! 

Cheers jimboalee


----------



## Randochap (18 Nov 2008)

There seems to be a bit of confusion about what constitutes a "hybrid" as well as a "sport tourer."

I own two sport tourers that I use for Audax, or randonneurring, as we prefer, so I'll start there. 

The sport tourer has much different geometry to either the racer or full on tourer.

The sport tourer has extra clearance under the brake bridges, permitting the use of mudguards and marginally larger tyres, while still using caliper brakes. It has longer stays and eyelets and braze ons for rack and mudguard stays.

Here are two examples: #1 -- #2

You can see (and read) that #2 has even greater clearance, using 57mm long-reach brakes. I had it built specifically to fit 28mm and up tyres w/ mudguards. 

The so-called hybrid -- what is really just a city bike -- is another animal altogether. Unless it is (just to confuse things) a "sport hybrid", the vast majority come with tyres in the realm of 32-35mm and low gearing akin to the MTB. Most are mass-produced aluminum frames, made in Taiwan or Vietnam. They will be spec'd with the usual Shimano groups, starting at Acera, or Alivio MTB components.

It is not a simple thing to throw drop bars on a hybrid, because, of course, one would need to switch out shifters/gear levers.

This is not to say that people don't press inappropriate bicycles into service for jobs they weren't intended to do. Indeed, I've seen racing bikes at brevets (especially in Europe), but it doesn't mean their owners wouldn't be more comfortable and just as fast on machines designed for the job.


----------



## jimboalee (18 Nov 2008)

To quote Evans Cycles

"Hybrids combine all the sexy bits of mountain bike construction with a more practical road set-up for easier cycling. Hybrid bikes have really come to the forefront with the recent increase in urban and commuter cycling. Were sure to have the bike to match your needs."


----------



## Willow (18 Nov 2008)

What we need is a flow chart which leads us newbies to the right bike for our needs. All these words are just too much.


----------



## Sittingduck (18 Nov 2008)

But that's all part of the fun Willow


----------



## louise (18 Nov 2008)

I wouldn't stretch it that far I have been trying to choose a bike for weeks I keep picking a bike then I see another bike and think hmmmm what about that one.

For example I was set on a giant city 3.0 but now i have seen the Trek T30 aarrgghh


----------



## Fab Foodie (18 Nov 2008)

Willow said:


> What we need is a flow chart which leads us newbies to the right bike for our needs. All these words are just too much.



CTC did this last year and published it in their "Cycle" magazine. The issue is that Hybrid covers almost everything from a non-sus MTB with big fat tyres to Flat-barred road-bikes. There's an awful lot of subtleties in-between, wheel size, tyre widths, brake-type, clearances etc. City bikes, are they a sub-set of hybrid or are they a seperate genus? Maybe City bikes are related to the good old Dutch "Station-bike" or Dutch "Tourer".

I agree that tourers make very good everyday bikes for everyday people, but there are so few about, however, the City bike is a damn good second choice sharing many of the tourers virtues. Such bikes do everything in Holland/N. Europe.


----------



## Baggy (18 Nov 2008)

Sittingduck said:


> Yeah they seem nice... if a tad suited to the older style riders!


How dare you, I've had mine since I was relatively young  
I bought one as my getting back into cycling after a 15 year break bike and it's a go anywhere do anything kind of ride that I still love after 5 years.

So another vote for a touring bike as a good beginners' bike.

I don't get on with flat bars - but a lot of beginners seem to be put off by drops.


----------



## scook94 (18 Nov 2008)

As an average beginner, yet to buy his new bike this thread has lead me away from a Kona cyclocross I'd been watching on that auction site and back to a tourer! (As previously advised by Andy) A timely post indeed...


----------



## mickle (18 Nov 2008)

Hybrid is a misleading term and utterly meaningless marketingspeak.

The mountain bike breathed new life into the bicycle industry which had until then survived by selling..

*Road bikes*. Double chainring, close ratio five or six speed freewheel, drop bars, short wheelbase, lightweight with caliper brakes and skinny tyres. 700c or 27" diameter wheels.
*Tourers*. Double or triple chainring, wide ratio frewheel, drop bars but with clearances for larger tyres and mudguards and frame eyelets for pannier racks, longer wheel base and cantilever brakes. 700c or 27" diameter wheels.
*City bike*. 3 speed internal gears, rack, basket, flat bars. 26" (British Imperial) wheels.

'*Racers*', cheap, 5 speed road bike wannabes.

So the mountain bike rears it's head, the first ones retailed for £800, using the cantilever brakes and wide gears from touring bikes. It didn't take long for prices to tumble and within four years you could buy one for £300. The old roadies stuck to their road-bikes and the old tourists stuck to their tourers but the cool new exciting mountain bike was attractive to newbies and attracted people into cycling which the old bikes couldn't have. Strong brakes, loads of gears controlled from the flat handle-bars, mountain bikes were surefooted and confidence inspiring compared to the skinny tyred alternatives. 

Roll on a few more years and the mountain bike sales boom started to plateau. The manufacturers freaked out, they remembered the BMX crash of the early eighties when demand dried up overnight leaving them with warehouses full of dead stock. So what did they do? They were aware that many people were riding their mountain bikes on the streets so between them they launched the _Hybrid_. The fact that they had warehouses full of 700c rims and tyres may have influenced the shift but the fact is they were running scared and needed a new 'trend' as they saw it.

In fact all they needed to do to update the City bike was invent skinny tyres to fit mountain bike rims. 

Although the edges between niches becomes more and more blurred every year a hybrid is, historically and specifically a touring bike with flat handlebars.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Nov 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> I thought about this after looking a Bonj's thread on hybrids in P & L. A lot of beginners come on here asking what sort of bike they should get and a common recommendation is indeed *a hybrid which, as far as I can see, is a racing bike with flat handle bars.*



Well you see wrong then don't you. A hybrid isn't synonymous with a flat bar road bike. A hybrid is a bike with limited off road capabilities, while still being a lot less expensive and sometimes maybe a bit lighter than a proper mountain bike.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Nov 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> I thought about this after looking a Bonj's thread on hybrids in P & L. A lot of beginners come on here asking what sort of bike they should get and a common recommendation is indeed a hybrid which, as far as I can see, is a racing bike with flat handle bars.


Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with recommending hybrids _if that's what would be most appropriate_, given what the poster describes their requirement are. But to recommend a hybrid when they have specifically said they want a road bike is a little crass to say the least.



Andy in Sig said:


> It seems to me that a racing bike (irrespective of handle bar type) is at one extreme end of the design spectrum much as a fully suspended heavy duty downhill bike is at the other. *Therefore what sort of bike should be recommended to the average beginner or somebody returning to cycling, assuming that they specifically don't want to take up racing?*
> 
> My default setting is always a tourer as they are fast, are designed to carry paniers or loads (makes them perfect for shopping/utility) are comfortable (especially steel framed ones) and can happily be driven on woodland paths, canal towpaths etc. Then there are other "town" bikes (for want of a better term) which also come with mudguards racks etc.


Why not READ their post and find out what their requirements are??!
If generic advice that's the same for everyone is good enough then they wouldn't come on here and post a question - THEY'VE ALREADY READ THAT It's on the front page of bikeradar or whatever.
They're coming on here because they want _specific_ answers!



Andy in Sig said:


> *Does this seem a reasonable point of view*, i.e. that tourers are most likely to please most beginners, most of the time?



No. Don't mean to be rude, but you are being quite dumb. I can't stand people trying to give advice that don't know that much themselves. I've had it up to here with a fella doing it on the squash court, so sorry if i seem a bit angry, but it pisses me off equally in the cycling world.


----------



## bonj2 (18 Nov 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> Hybrid covers almost everything from a* non-sus* MTB with big fat tyres to Flat-barred road-bikes



nope - wrong again. hybrid can have suspension.


----------



## Sittingduck (19 Nov 2008)

Baggy said:


> How dare you, I've had mine since I was relatively young
> I bought one as my getting back into cycling after a 15 year break bike and it's a go anywhere do anything kind of ride that I still love after 5 years.
> 
> So another vote for a touring bike as a good beginners' bike.
> ...



Be calm youngster, I was only teasing 
I have been thinking about a tourer and really like the idea of going on tour etc. A bit worried that drops might cause me back ache, as per your response this is probably a common thought amongst us newbies. 

Ta


----------



## Andy in Sig (19 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with recommending hybrids _if that's what would be most appropriate_, given what the poster describes their requirement are. But to recommend a hybrid when they have specifically said they want a road bike is a little crass to say the least.
> 
> 
> Why not READ their post and find out what their requirements are??!
> ...



It's a good job I don't get easily offended isn't it? Anyway I can understand how your squash experience could have sensitised you a bit. When it comes to advice about tourers I do know what I'm on about as I own my second upright tourer and a recumbent tourer. The reason I started this thread, apart from being stimulated to do so by your post, was that it seems to me that many people decide to take up a hobby or sport having been inspired by e.g. top flight international competitions and so in all innocence take that as their starting point. Clearly somebody will state if they definitely want to take up road racing but it struck me, reading between the lines on a lot of beginners' posts that a tourer would be the best deal for most folk, if only because people don't realise how fast you can go on them. Add to that the fact that simply going off tarmac does not mean that you have to have a mountain bike and I hope that you can see where I'm coming from.

In any event, interested people will read your, mine and everybody's thoughts on the subjects and will quite rightly make their own choices. Interestingly enough so far, everybody who has posted who owns a tourer seems to agree that they are probably ideal all round bikes. The only rider I would add to that is that if you are going to cycle _only_ in a (flat) city a city bike with a more upright sitting position might be a more suitable and cheaper option.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Nov 2008)

To me, it's fairly simple. You're either riding off road for fun, in which case you're riding trails, and you want a mountain bike. OR, you're riding on the road for fun/fitness, in which case you want a road bike, or you're riding to get somewhere - in which case it's easier AND faster to stick to the roads, so you want a road bike. I don't know why it can't be that simple for everybody. Nowhere does a need for a hybrid come into the equation.
About tourers, some tourers may make ideal bikes, but to me there's absolutely no advantage of a tourer over my own road bike - even if I wanted to do some touring. The cynic in me says they're just the design team's/marketing team's excuse for the finished product not being that light.


----------



## Andy in Sig (19 Nov 2008)

Well the first bit depends on what you mean by off road. You do real mountain biking don't you? But I get the impression from this website that a lot of beginners think that if you go along a canal towpath or on a woodland track that that counts as off road (strictly speaking it does of course) and therefore a mountain bike is instantly called for, which is most definitely not true.

Your last sentence is one of your wind ups isn't it? But just for the record, the tourer is a highly evolved genre of bike with a long pedigree. But you knew that ...


----------



## bonj2 (19 Nov 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> Well the first bit depends on what you mean by off road. You do real mountain biking don't you? But I get the impression from this website that a lot of beginners think that if you go along a canal towpath or on a woodland track that that counts as off road (strictly speaking it does of course) and therefore a mountain bike is instantly called for, which is most definitely not true.


Well, an XC bike is going to be just as good for it as a hybrid is, only more expensive. What's more it's going to give them the option of doing real mountain biking if they then want to, which a hybrid probably isn't.
You shouldn't see yourself as the guardian of people's wallet. Has it not occurred to you that some people come on here and _want_ us to tell them to spend more than a couple of hundred - that they're looking for justification to do so/ or perhaps more pertinently, ammo to justify it to the mrs?

Maybe I'm fighting a losing battle trying to get people to represent a cycling forum with advice based on a passion for cycling rather than a desire to dumb down the proles.



Andy in Sig said:


> Your last sentence is one of your wind ups isn't it? But just for the record, the tourer is a highly evolved genre of bike with a long pedigree. But you knew that ...


Well i don't see the advantages of a touring bike, personally - but that's another debate.




The point is Andy that there _is no_ "average beginner". Beginners don't all conform to a specific mould.


----------



## Andy in Sig (19 Nov 2008)

I don't think anybody has an attituded of "dumbing down to the proles": they are simply trying to be helpful. What's more I'd be very surprised if people asking for advice here didn't use it as more than a springboard for further researches. For instance I pointed out on page one that you can get a new, fully specced tourer for 350 quid. It might be that somebody thinks, "nice in principle but I can afford a customised two grand one" and so buys the posher one. The same character might think, "I'll get the 350 quid one to see how I get on with that kind of bike and then I've always got the option of getting a super duper one".

Nobody's being dogmatic about this. While I agree that all beginners aren't out of the same mould, the requests for info which I've read on here certainly convince me that there is such a thing as an average beginner, a tag which would have happily fitted me when I first had an interest in cycling.


----------



## rich p (19 Nov 2008)

Excuse me for intruding but you can buy a half reasonable hybrid/flat-barred road bike for £200 (see below) but you can't buy a tourer for much less than £400. Which is the point for many beginners, right or wrong.

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/road/product/subway-1-8831


----------



## Andy in Sig (19 Nov 2008)

You've got something there. I suppose the justification is that tourers come fully specced and will last a lifetime but so will a hybrid it it is looked after, I suppose.


----------



## Chris James (19 Nov 2008)

Andy in Sig, I salute your efforts not to rise to Bonj’s comedy aggressive posting style.

It is funny that Bonj insists upon listening to other’s opinions, but then dogmatically clings to his own prejudices (eg mudguards and now touring bikes).

As regards your assertion that there is nothing that a touring bike could do that your ‘road’ bike couldn’t, well that is clearly a nonsense. For a start you probably can’t fit full mudguards to your road bike

Bought your Dura Ace wheels yet? How do you think they’ll get on carrying a tent, sleeping bag, spare clothes, stove etc on a two week tour? That is if you can get a rack to stay on your frame using P clips etc.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Nov 2008)

I'll throw in my tuppencewth.

In the old days, there were Touring bikes, road race bikes and Dutch uprights.
My Mum's first 'New' bike was a Hurcules Ladies 531 Mixte with a Sturmey Archer AW3 hub. 'Touring bends', full mudguards and a big saddlebag. That was a Tourer.
My first 'Road bike' (still got it) was a Peugeot 531 Recorde du Monde PX10LE. Incidentally, this frame was the 'off the peg' version of the PY. The PY was made to measure and Team issue. The Pug PY full 531 Team frame, as ridden by Eddy, had MUDGUARD EYES and clearances to fit mudguards. It was a Road race bike????

Times have changed since the sixties, and IMHO, manufacturers are giving it large on 'sales hype' most of the time, attempting to rake in more profit on cheap-to-build, 'Trendy' bikes like the 'Flat bar roadbike'. 

As I said, Evans Cycles have piccies and spec's on most bikes available in the country. Look, choose, haggle, deal.

Rant over.


----------



## snorri (19 Nov 2008)

The main problem with newbies coming along to ask "which bike?" is that they often do not really know what they will use the bike for.
The best advice to complete newbies could be to buy a second hand hybrid and use it for a few months until a pattern of use develops. Then they could come back with some actual cycling experience and get more information from our more experienced posters before buying a machine to better match their requirements.


----------



## jimboalee (19 Nov 2008)

+1 snorri. Well said.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Nov 2008)

Chris James said:


> Andy in Sig, I salute your efforts not to rise to Bonj’s comedy aggressive posting style.
> 
> *It is funny that Bonj insists upon listening to other’s opinions*, but then dogmatically clings to his own prejudices (eg mudguards and now touring bikes).


do I?  when?



Chris James said:


> As regards your assertion that there is nothing that a touring bike could do that your ‘road’ bike couldn’t, well that is clearly a nonsense. For a start you probably can’t fit full mudguards to your road bike


Not being able to fit full mudguards to it doesn't prevent it from doing anything that a touring bike could.
Neither does it make it an any worse bike.



Chris James said:


> Bought your Dura Ace wheels yet? How do you think they’ll get on carrying a tent, sleeping bag, spare clothes, stove etc on a two week tour?


Well I am going to keep my old wheels, so I'd just whack them on, duh! 



Chris James said:


> That is if you can get a rack to stay on your frame using P clips etc.


Yes you can fit a rack to it, as i have done before.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Nov 2008)

snorri said:


> The main problem with newbies coming along to ask "which bike?" is that they often do not really know what they will use the bike for.


exactly and that's where I come in. They need to be taught why cycling is fun, and thrashing along down a bumpy duck path isn't as fun as going fast down a nice smooth road, or mountain biking down some nice technical singletrack. IT's _easy_, yes, but it's quite a thankless task.


----------



## Chris James (19 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> do I?  when?



In the other thread when you said that people were asking for advice on buying road bikes but that people kept advising them to buy hybrids.


----------



## palinurus (19 Nov 2008)

Bikes do tend to lead you in unexpected directions.

Bought an Airnimal Joey. Found it was pretty fast, entered a TT, joined a club and bought a road bike, sold Airnimal, got faster, bought TT bike, got faster still, wanted to race but too rubbish to enter a crit, built 'cross bike instead.

All because I wanted to take a bike on the train.

it's a similar story with my commute bikes.

I do think that if- for some reason- I had to have one bike, it would be the sportiest tourer I could find that'd take canti or v-brakes. With a spare set of wheels I could do a lot with something like that.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> nope - wrong again. hybrid can have suspension.


nope bonj, wrong again, I never said hybrids couldn't have suspension...


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Nov 2008)

Andy in Sig said:


> Nobody's being dogmatic about this.



Apart from bonj


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> exactly and that's where I come in. They need to be taught why cycling is fun, and thrashing along down a bumpy duck path isn't as fun as going fast down a nice smooth road, or mountain biking down some nice technical singletrack. IT's _easy_, yes, but it's quite a thankless task.



Why do they need to be taught cycling is fun?
Why isn't thrashing along a bumpy duck path as fun as a smooth downhill?
Where is the fun of a nice bumpy single-track?

You aren't half a funny arse bonj, but good value it has to be said.

As it happens, I like 1 and 2 but singletrack has no appeal, I'd take the duck path. Am I wrong?


----------



## bonj2 (19 Nov 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> *Why do they need to be taught cycling is fun?*
> Why isn't thrashing along a bumpy duck path as fun as a smooth downhill?
> Where is the fun of a nice bumpy single-track?
> 
> ...



because if they follow your advice and all they do is bumble along a trekking path then they wont' see it for themselves. If they knew that there is more to cycling than twatting along a maroon path then they might be more inspired.


----------



## Abitrary (19 Nov 2008)

Well said bonj. I always get a frisson when I see you've made the last post in the beginner's section BTW.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> because if they follow your advice and all they do is bumble along a trekking path then they wont' see it for themselves. If they knew that there is more to cycling than twatting along a maroon path then they might be more inspired.



Cycling Nirvana the bonj way...

Chapter 1 
Unicycling up Kilimanjaro on slicks.

There's nothing wrong with bumbling along a trekking path bonj, your style is more likely to put people off rather than inspire. It doesn't matter what, why or how people ride as long as they get out there and do it. Some will strive for more, others will enjoy the maroon path.


----------



## Andy in Sig (20 Nov 2008)

You're making sense and being reasonable, FF which means leading him into uncharted territory.

Lest we forget, I started this thread with the suggestion that the tourer is perhaps the best default bike for a beginner who doesn't have very specific wishes. It's only a suggestion and I'm not claiming it's 100% correct. Contenders are emerging in the form of audax style bikes and, for city use, Dutch style bikes.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Nov 2008)

it doesn't alter the fact that the general aim is to steer everybody towards a hybrid or a tourer, which is wrong. It doesn't seem to particularly matter to you lot whether someone gets the right bike, itwould seem the only criteria that the bike a beginner gets has to have are that it has to be be a fairly heavy bike, costing £200-£300, with mudguards, and with no front suspension. The only bikes that seem to fit that description are hybrids and tourers. I've even seen threads where advice on mudguards is posted even before anything to do with the bike itself, when the person hasn't even asked about mudguards.
The uptake of cycling at the moment is growing exponentially, and there appears to be a conspiracy by existing cyclists of whatever kind to prevent new cyclists from considering really fast road bikes and really capable mountain bikes, presumably because these are the bikes that will enable people to become really good at cycling, I can only assume it's because there's a lot of people that think the only point of cycling forums is to hold back the clamouring hourdes of people that might become as good at or god forbid better, at cycling than they are. And I'm determined to shatter that conspiracy, and there doesn't seem to be much intellectual stimulation going on elsewhere on the forum, so I think it's time I started playing a more active role in the beginners forum, on a constructive and helpful way, but hepful as in pertaining to help people become serious cyclists rather than just being content with buying a bike at all.


----------



## Danny (20 Nov 2008)

Bonj - I think the issue is that some beginners don't really know what kind of cycling they want to do when they first start, or even if they are ever going to want to cycle more than a few miles at a time.

So the risk with your approach is that they end up getting a really expensive bike that doesn't suit their need. I am sure even you would agreed that there is no point buying a £1500 road bike for a mile trip to the shops.

Obviously if someone comes along and says that what they want to do is to start riding in sportives regularly, people would steer them towards getting the best road bike they afford within their budget, but that doesn't apply to lots of the beginners who come on here. I still think for many of them a hybrid is a good first choice.

While I agree that a lot of cheap bikes are going to be so heavy and rubbish that they could put people off cycling, this probably doesn't apply to all cheap bikes. There are plenty of fans of Halfords Carreras on this forum for example.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Nov 2008)

Dannyg said:


> Bonj - I think the issue is that *some beginners don't really know what kind of cycling they want to do...*




Why do you think that's the case?


----------



## bonj2 (20 Nov 2008)

Dannyg said:


> I am sure even you would agreed that there is no point buying a £1500 road bike for a mile trip to the shops.



Yes I would agree with that, but I dispute that there is anyone that is _sure_ they are only ever going to want to do a mile trip to the shops, yet feels strongly enough about cycling to want to come on a cycling forum. 

There _are_ lots of people that only ever go on a mile trip to the shops, but these are not the sort to be serious/inspired/passionate/interested enough about it to go on a cycling forum and ask questions about it, they're probably the sort that don't even _think_ about the cycling aspect of it, they just use their bike to get from a to b.


----------



## Chris James (20 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> new cyclists from considering really fast road bikes and really capable mountain bikes, presumably because these are the bikes that will *enable people to become really good at cycling*



How did people become good at cycling before mountain bikes were invented? How did Eddy Merckx become good at cycling riding some old clinker steel frame with wheels with loads of spokes?

Cycling lots, and a degree of natural aptitude, makes people become good at cycling. Not what kit they buy.

Likewise your comments about fun above. I had loads of fun as a kid doing off roading on a 5 speed Raleigh Winner and descending World's End into Llangollen on the same bike at about 40mph with no hope of stopping on steel wheel rims in the wet were a car to come the opposite way up the lane.

You make fun yourself, you don't buy it.


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> There _are_ lots of people that only ever go on a mile trip to the shops, but these are not the sort to be serious/inspired/passionate/interested enough about it to go on a cycling forum and ask questions about it, they're probably the sort that don't even _think_ about the cycling aspect of it, they just use their bike to get from a to b.


You make some rather odd assumptions there bonj.
Don't we all just use our bikes to get from a to b? Some want to cover the distance as fast as possible, some want to carry enough luggage to last a month, others just want to get there, and some want to get there with a streak of mud up their backs.
I think it is just as important that the person who wants to do the one mile trip to the shops gets as good advice as the would be Olympian. It's wonderful that such a wide range of experience and knowledge is available to the newbie here on CycleTalk.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Nov 2008)

snorri said:


> You make some rather odd assumptions there bonj.
> Don't we all just use our bikes to get from a to b?


er... no
sometimes it's a loop


----------



## tyred (20 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> er... no
> sometimes it's a loop



Surely if you leave your house and cycle somewhere then at some point you will have to go home again, then it's always a loop.


----------



## Danny (20 Nov 2008)

bonj said:


> Yes I would agree with that, but I dispute that there is anyone that is _sure_ they are only ever going to want to do a mile trip to the shops, yet feels strongly enough about cycling to want to come on a cycling forum.
> 
> There _are_ lots of people that only ever go on a mile trip to the shops, but these are not the sort to be serious/inspired/passionate/interested enough about it to go on a cycling forum and ask questions about it, they're probably the sort that don't even _think_ about the cycling aspect of it, they just use their bike to get from a to b.


For someone who has never cycled before a two mile trip to the shops may feel ambitious, while a 50 mile day ride would be simply unimaginable. 

However plenty of people get the cycling bug once they've found how much they enjoy riding small distances and then gradually build up from there.


----------



## yello (20 Nov 2008)

I know what bonj is saying. I was one such person once upon a time. I just used to ride a bike because it was quicker than walking to work, I didn't like public transport (actually, come think of it, it was quicker than public transport too!) and it was cheaper than the public transport. I didn't think of myself as a cyclist, I just had a bicycle. I've ridden bicycles since, blimey dunno.... as long as, so it was an obvious solution at the time. 

It was my younger brother than opened my mind to the possibilities (touring particularly) and I only really became a cyclist because of him.


----------



## jimboalee (20 Nov 2008)

To Chris James

Here's a picture of The Man, The Cannibal on his old clinker steel with loads of spokes 





And here's one of the same in my back yard.




This is what makes cyclists out of men. 

Please note the Chainset and freewheel teeth on Eddy's bike....
There's nowt like a bit of hard work..


----------



## jimboalee (20 Nov 2008)

Yup, a 45 - 21 'Granny gear'.
But I'm not as good as Eddy, so mine's a 38 - 23.


----------

