I got myself a Giant TCR1.
It seems to have composite forks, and the gear changer is integrated into the brakes.
I took it for a 110km ride yesterday, and my butt is not really sore. Neither is my back, so it must fit me, even though it’s an M.
[quote=“Mr He”]I got myself a Giant TCR1.
It seems to have composite forks, and the gear changer is integrated into the brakes.
I took it for a 110km ride yesterday, and my butt is not really sore. Neither is my back, so it must fit me, even though it’s an M.[/quote]
should be just the ticket…wait a couple months and then get a clipless pedal system…next stop Mount Ventoux!
What’s a clipless pedal system? They have them with clips, where they click into the shoes, however mine is without, as I have heard enough stories about ppl falling on the bike, with the bike, or whatever.
Clips go over the top of the shoe - you can just stick a regular shoe into a toe clip. A clipless pedal requires a cycling shoe with a cleat in the sole. Clipless pedals are not dangerous to anyone with normal balance and coordination; you just swing your ankle away from the frame (well, the ones I use operate like this) and the shoe snaps out of the pedal. In the beginning you may feel nervous using them but you can always simply snap one foot off its pedal well before the bike comes to a stop. Actually, before your first ride with them, sit on your bike and lean against a wall (or something you can hold onto so as not to fall over sideways) and practice clicking the shoes in and out.
A clipless system allows you to pull one foot up while pressing down with the other, which is great for hillclimbing, and you can just forget about foot placement altogether, which is great when you’re tired. 
Clips go over the top of the shoe - you can just stick a regular shoe into a toe clip. A clipless pedal requires a cycling shoe with a cleat in the sole. Clipless pedals are not dangerous to anyone with normal balance and coordination; you just swing your ankle away from the frame (well, the ones I use operate like this) and the shoe snaps out of the pedal. In the beginning you may feel nervous using them but you can always simply snap one foot off its pedal well before the bike comes to a stop. Actually, before your first ride with them, sit on your bike and lean against a wall (or something you can hold onto so as not to fall over sideways) and practice clicking the shoes in and out.
A clipless system allows you to pull one foot up while pressing down with the other, which is great for hillclimbing, and you can just forget about foot placement altogether, which is great when you’re tired. [/quote]
its almost obligatory however to have one epic fail event where you forget you’re clipped in and hit the dirt slo-mo…
When I first started using this kind of a system I was warned that I would definitely fall over once in the near future. Sure enough, I did: stopped in a hurry for some reason, forgot I didn’t have a leg free, and plonk. A minor scrape on the leg and a deeper one to my pride. However, presumably you’re only going to slow down enough to fall in a situation where it wouldn’t be a big deal anyway.
That being said, I don’t snap my foot in when I’m dealing with traffic.
Clipless = clipped in by cleats rather than clipped in by a harness. What a silly nonintuitive name.
EDIT for added question: New detour/ hijack, apropos of another issue up above: what do you all do for fenders? I don’t have any normally attached, but I’ve got a couple of plastic stick-on ones that seemed like a good idea in a shop years ago. I’ve never used them, mainly because if it’s raining I just don’t go out. If I embark on a small touring trip (east coast), what would you recommend?
When we fitted clippless pedals for a first timer, we always adjusted them to very slack so to be sure of the easiest exit should a panic ensue at the beginning. After a few times around the block they would come back and we would tighten them up again.
I like this quote, so I thought I’d share it with you:
[quote]Everyone talks about bicycle weight. It consumes our discussions. Magazine reviews make it clear that if the very lightest parts are not chosen, if it is not as light as possible, the bicycle being examined is suspect. Light weight has become the sine qua non of a good bicycle. A light bicycle is a good bicycle, without any further discussion of its other merits or qualities.
Can we step back for a moment?
Let’s get some numbers. Let us see if, as I believe, the handy availability of a single number has led people to make poor decisions in their choice of bicycle.
First of all, weight is important. If it weren’t, we would all be enjoying pleasant 75-mile rides on 42-pound Schwinn Varsity bikes. The road bikes offered today are a far cry from those mild-steel tanks. We’re not talking about riding heavy bikes. I want to limit the discussion to modern, well-made, well equipped bikes.
My personal favorite bike is a 55-centimeter all Columbus Foco Steel Torelli bike with a steel fork, generously chromed, built up with a Campagnolo Record 10-speed group. It weighs about 19 pounds. Beyond aluminum spoke nipples and double-butted spokes, there is nothing heroic about the equipment to make it lighter. The Squadra HDP saddle is heavy by the usual standards.
UCI regulations limit a racing bike to about 15 pounds. What we are discussing, from a normal all-steel bike to a super-light, barely legal bike is about 4 pounds. This is what we’re going crazy about, 4 pounds. Maybe a bit more with a less expensive groups. In any case, given the usual rider-bike package of at least 180 pounds or more, the difference is obviously very small indeed.
But how does this weight difference affect performance? Does removing these few pounds make the bike fly? Is a lighter bike the fountain of youth? The September 2003 Bicycling Magazine has a chart that makes it easy to quantify the performance gains from light weight. James C. Martin, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of exercise and sport science at the University of Utah provided some interesting calculations that make the cost of weight very clear.
He posited a 5 kilometer, 7% grade. That’s a good, stiff climb. The legendary Stelvio climb averages 7.5%. He further assumed a rider who can kick out 250 watts. A 160 pound rider will take 19 minutes and 21 seconds to get up the hill. Every 5 pounds added make the trip up the hill take 30 seconds longer.
That means each added pound adds 6 seconds to the time it takes to get up this hill. That is only 6 seconds on a stiff, 20 minute climb.
So, given our roughly 4-pound range from a full steel bike to a super-light carbon or aluminum bike, the time difference up this hill would be 24 seconds from best to worst.
But, most weight conscious people aren’t bringing their bikes down to 15 pounds because down at that weight, the handling gets very sketchy. 17 - 17.5 pounds is the normal range. The real discussion is about 1.5 to 2 pounds.
The performance advantage of a lighter bike is greatest when the hill is steepest. What happens as things flatten out? Then, as the speed of the bike increases, the resistance comes from the wind, tire rolling resistance, bearing drag, etc. Those 6 seconds/pound grow ever smaller.
The variations in body weight, however, being so much greater, make large difference. If that same 160 pound-250 watt rider were to be 220 pounds, he would come in 6 minutes, 10 seconds later.
So what do we do with this information?
There are two basic groups of riders to whom this is important.
The first is the serious athlete. A few seconds advantage is not something he can give up. No matter what the quality of the ride of the bike in question, he must seek every attainable performance gain in his equipment or his body.
Then there is the large body of dedicated cyclists who enjoy the sport at various levels, but do not compete in the higher racing categories. I think this is almost everyone reading this essay. For these riders, the choice of bike and equipment should involve a more complex, qualitative study. Weight is one consideration. But there are others. How does the bike feel? Is it stable? Does it fit? Does it have the snappy, clean, vibrant feel that should be the soul of a great bike?
These basically sensuous questions that are beyond simple quantification. It’s not a matter of a 73 degree head tube or 18 pounds or 9 sprockets in the rear. It is the whole bike, taken as a whole that must be considered. One should not pick a bike as if he were one of the 7 blind men describing the elephant.
The fact that these 1.5 - 2 pounds are so unimportant in choosing a bike should be looked upon a truly liberating. Now we can to back to judging bikes on their real merits.
Before leaving this discussion, let’s look at the most common “upgrade”.
A full carbon fork is considered an upgrade that will add greatly to the competitive advantage of the bike. A full carbon fork replacing a steel fork can take off a little less than a pound. Remember, that’s our 6 seconds. Clearly, we have all been oversold on the carbon fork as the easy performance upgrade. There is some improvement, but it is minuscule. And it is not without its costs in quality of road feel. For more about carbon, please see my essay on materials.
Or in other words, Scarpelli, you can’t buy a bike light enough to keep up me with on a climb.
Bill McGann
Torelli Bicycles[/quote]
very true, that quote!
better all round to lose five pounds off the belly than off the bike.
In my ‘epic fail event’ I didn’t forget about being clipped in, I was riding super slowly in tight circles at a set of red lights - being an arse, basically - when another cyclist pulled up and stopped in front of my turn. I imagine my dismount must have appeared somewhat unladylike, so it’s quite a good thing I’m not a lady.
In other words, I could have bought a giant Defy and been just as happy?
Oh well, I like it because it feels like it fits me.
It also means that as you ‘tone up’ more, you’ll get faster and faster. Considering you’re already scooting along at a decent speed, you’ll be like Indurain by late-Summer. 
Please help Kage buy a bike.
They say if a decision is that hard, then both options must be good. However, I am still pulling my hair out.
Ideas, opinions?
Giant Aimez 1 - carbon frame
livgiant.jp/bike/performance/aimez1.html
Louis Garneau Cen -Aluminum frame (cables are inside top tube for ease of carrying up four flights of stairs every day)
louisgarneausports.com/bike/bike-cen-w.html
Upgrade the components to this:
shimano105 break+shifter level+crankset+front derailleur(for three
pieces)+rear derailleur(long leg)+10 speed cassette+10speed chain (30
speed)
Other things I am considering
Aster - carbon frame (10mm larger size) (however it is hideously pink and might need those damn Hello Kitty tyres - ugh!)
Primavera Sabinna
Has anyone noticed much for women’s bikes down in Taijong at Warehouse 187 (9?) ?
Thanks heaps!