Is this good?

[snorri]

By lighten up man!

Bonj, it shows you just how bad your attitude is when someone with the nickname of SADjack tells you to lighten up

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'm still waiting to hear what his longest ever ride is.

A couple of minutes at most...





































Oh sorry, you meant on a bike?

 

[bonj2]

still, back to the topic in hand. I presume Kathy didn't win it, or she'd have posted about it by now. Either that, or she's busy fixing it/still riding back home on it/trying to find the jacking point.

 

[Abitrary]

sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?

I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.

 

[vernon]

A couple of minutes at most...

And three times at that!

Oh sorry, you meant on a bike?

No, you were right first time

 

[bonj2]

sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?

I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.

I don't know about IS, because i haven't still 'got' it or am still doing it*, but it was probably about 40 miles. I don't know why it matters, though, I don't go in for length. I don't consider 'longest ride' a particularly great accolade.


*in the same way that I haven't 'got' [post count] posts, I've made them.

 

[bonj2]

sorry to bring it up bonj, but what *is* your longest ride?

I've done 99.8k, I could have gone around the block a couple of times to do 100, but I honestly couldn't lift my leg back over the bike I was that destroyed.

you should have just held bike in the air by the stem and spun the wheel with your hand a few times so that the computer ticked over. You wouldn't be alone, I'm sure lots of people on here who claim to have done 'centuries' do that.

 

[Chuffy]

Ah. Now it gets more interesting.
Bonj, 40 miles is a fairly short ride. Maybe two and a half hours in the saddle max? You might appreciate things like frame comfort and mudguards if you rode for longer. A century is probably going to keep you in the saddle for 6-8 hours and then you really care about such things. Kathy is going to be in the saddle a lot on her 800-900 mile ride (admittedly over the course of several weeks) so I imagine that she might care too. As for the types who do 300/400/600k rides (not to mention 1000k rides like PBP and LEL) I'd suggest that they might be fairly well informed on the subject.

I'm not pointing at you and mocking, everyone starts somewhere and not everyone is bothered about bagging big rides. Quality not quantity, and all that jazz. However, now I have a baseline to measure your advice against when it comes to long distance riding.

 

[User482]

I've ridden a steel bike, and it was VERY uncomfy. Largely because it had a plastic saddle, the bottom bracket was ****ed, and probably several other reasons. I didn't think 'oh, it doesn't matter about the crap saddle, 'cos the steel frame is soaking up all the bumps', 'cos that didn't/doesn't happen. I fail to see how frame material is anything to do with comfort.

Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu. Do some reading.

Again, I fail to see why this is necessary. If your answer is 'well eventually it'll break', then I would say I don't really want to lug around the extra weight for 10 years just so when/if it breaks it can be welded back together. When i've had a bike long enough for it to break, i'll probably be glad of an excuse to get a new one.
I'm pretty sure it will only be a temporary fix anyway as even a steel weld needs to be heat-treated for a good, long lasting join.

My steel frame weighs around 0.5lbs more than an equivalent alu frame. My bike when loaded up for touring weighs over 40lbs. So that extra 0.5lbs is a huge deal. Not.

I think you're far, far overestimating the likeliness of a metal part actually snapping or bending on a ride or tour. Or maybe you're just pretending that it's likely in order to lend some credence to your theory that the advantages of steel are significant...

It's happened to me, and plenty of others. Have you never crashed a bike?

Possibly worth slightly more, but not the only worth, i.e. advice from people who haven't done it but are still experienced cyclists is still worth something.

Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.

see Mark F's post. Confirms all my suspicions about mudguards

.
I didn't have mudguards on my old bike. I got fed up with water trickling down my backside every time it rained, or I went through a puddle.

 

[Abitrary]

Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu. Do some reading.

I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.

I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.

If steel is indeed more comfortable than alu, then I think I can live without it, as long as I've got some chunky tyres to support the weight in the first place.

I might rethink this if I ever I do 'extreme touring' in a country where bikes and bike shops don't exist, only welders.

Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.

I doubt whether most people average more than 40 miles a day touring. You'd get knackered, and you don't want that on holiday. I think a more useful indicator to how much someone can know about bike feel and robustness is whether they commute every day rain or shine.

 

[vernon]

I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.

I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.

If steel is indeed more comfortable than alu, then I think I can live without it, as long as I've got some chunky tyres to support the weight in the first place.

I might rethink this if I ever I do 'extreme touring' in a country where bikes and bike shops don't exist, only welders.



I doubt whether most people average more than 40 miles a day touring. You'd get knackered, and you don't want that on holiday. I think a more useful indicator to how much someone can know about bike feel and robustness is whether they commute every day rain or shine.

You are Bonj and I claim my five pounds

 

[User482]

I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.

I've only done a couple of tours in europe, but it's been on aluminium non-touring type bikes. The most surprising thing is when you do get to countries with a much greater cycling / cycle touring culture, they also ride whatever they've got! Usually hybrid type things with chunky tyres, carrying family sized tents and kids inserted whereever.

If steel is indeed more comfortable than alu, then I think I can live without it, as long as I've got some chunky tyres to support the weight in the first place.

I might rethink this if I ever I do 'extreme touring' in a country where bikes and bike shops don't exist, only welders.



I doubt whether most people average more than 40 miles a day touring. You'd get knackered, and you don't want that on holiday. I think a more useful indicator to how much someone can know about bike feel and robustness is whether they commute every day rain or shine.

I've toured on alu, steel & carbon fibre. Road, tourer, and MTB. I've done LEJOG. Do you suppose it's just possible that I am better placed to answer the OP than Bonj?

Now, if you like your alu bike that's fine, but I maintain that for long distances, a good steel bike wins out on comfort grounds. Ease of repair is an advantage but a secondary issue. The disadvantage is weight but there's not a huge difference.

 

[vernon]

I've toured on alu, steel & carbon fibre. Road, tourer, and MTB. I've done LEJOG. Do you suppose it's just possible that I am better placed to answer the OP than Bonj?

Now, if you like your alu bike that's fine, but I maintain that for long distances, a good steel bike wins out on comfort grounds. Ease of repair is an advantage but a secondary issue. The disadvantage is weight but there's not a huge difference.

Give up User482. You'll not convert Bonj and Arbitrary. I think that there's enough information in this thread for the original poster and anyone else for that matter to make an informed decision and buy a steel framed bike

 

[bonj2]

Right, so you rode a knackered old bike and on the basis that it had a crap saddle, all steel bikes are rubbish? Brilliant analysis as ever. There are good physical reasons why steel is more comfortable than alu....

...but YOU don't seem to know what they are.
Can you explain in simple terms exactly WHY steel bikes are "more comfortable" as you would have us believe?
If a certain type of car was made exactly the same in any other way but had an aluminium chassis, would it be any comfier?

My steel frame weighs around 0.5lbs more than an equivalent alu frame. My bike when loaded up for touring weighs over 40lbs. So that extra 0.5lbs is a huge deal. Not.

"An" equivalent alu frame. Which one though? One you've chosen based on its weight, no doubt.

It's happened to me, and plenty of others. Have you never crashed a bike?

only a mtb, not a road bike, and before you ask, yes it was aluminium, no it wasn't hard enough to break anything on it (apart from the brake lever master cylinder, which i don't think frame material would have affected).

Advice on touring from someone whose longest ever ride is 40 miles, is worth precisely zero.

well that's where I beg to differ, so I will continue to give it. If you want to carry on giving contradicting advice about steel frames and arse-mud then feel free.

 

[Brock]

I think Bonj playing devil's advocate in the 'steel touring bike' debate is quite useful, because I for one think that there is a certain amount of received wisdom / brainwashing with this one.

I tend to agree.
bonj's bombastic questioning of generally accepted wisdom is useful in that he demands demonstrable reasoning instead of 'because it is, everyone knows that' responses.

I have a steel framed touring bike which I use to commute daily, have toured on, and intend to tour on for some months come April. I have no inclination to buy an alu bike because my steel bike fits me beautifully. It is designed to carry panniers so has a longish wheelbase, giving my huge feet clearance of the rear panniers, and I believe it also affords a feeling of more stability when loaded.
I'm pretty sure frame geometry is the key with comfort though, rather than frame material.

I still think the ebay bike was vastly more likely to be a good buy for the OP than that nasty cheap decathlon roadie thing you suggested bonj.