S Rider

Which bike will make my commuting of 7.5 miles each way easy.

I will be attaching fenders and a rear rack. I’m looking for a bike which won’t cause any problems and will be most importantly easy to handle and fast.

First 2 choices:

Kona dew deluxe
https://www.konabikes.co.uk/2k7bikes/dew_deluxe_2k7.php


The 1 & only Trek 7.3 FX
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/bikes..._path/fx/73fx/


Other choices include:

GT legato 3.0 cinnamon
https://www.leisurewheels.co.uk/produ...20p2760&z=2539


Scott Sub 20 Classic 2007
https://www.evanscycles.com/product.jsp?style=70538

nashcommguy

Tons of threads/posts re this subject. Try the search mode in the commuting section. Any of the bikes you posted would be great. If you want fast w/this configuration maybe a flat-bar road bike would be better? There is no such thing as a completely maintenance-free bike, but some are less touchy than others. Depending on terrain you may want to investigate internally geared hubs such as a Sram Spectro or Shimano Nexus. They're gaining in popularity for commuter/utility applications. Me included. I've been using single chainring/cassette/derailleur combos for years w/great satisfaction, but I'm going internally geared for my next commuter. Maybe even a shaft drive, too!... w/airless tires?!

HoustonGal

Any of them will work just fine - it really comes down to which one fits you the best. At 7.5 miles each way, you're going to want a good fit or the ride is going to get really old, really fast.

Some other things to consider:
-you need eyelets to attach your rack and fenders. I can see that the Kona and the Trek have them, I can't tell on the GT or the Scott.
-Do you need the disk brakes on the Kona? If you're dealing with monster hills and wet conditions, then they might be an advantage, otherwise, maybe not
-I personally hate the stiff ride of an aluminum frame and fork - if you can find a carbon fork or a steel fork it might smooth out the ride (but that's just me)
-and finally, you might want to consider some bikes with drop bars, since you've stated that "going fast" is a priority. You'd be surprised at the difference in a headwind. Plus some folks like the multiple hand positions. They might not be available in the UK, but something like a Bianchi Volpe is in the same general price range.

S Rider

I guess I will have to test ride the kona before I decide between the kona and the FX 7.3.

I wish they would put the Trek 7.5 FX on special offer so it would be within my budget. https://www.evanscycles.com/product.jsp?style=70821

ColorChange

Sorry, but the fastest and lightest commuter I know if is the Trek 5.2 Pilot.

P.S.

I love mine.

Tim

porq

I've got the Dr Dew and I love it. It's fast, durable and it has discs. I live in a rainforest and I go up/down some pretty big hills so I love the disc brakes.

Another bike you should look at is the Brodie Ocho. It has all the good stuff of the Dew line, with internal gears on the back ... nice.

I also wanted to comment on 2 of the previous posts:

1) the Dew comes with an aluminum frame and a steel fork. I haven't found the ride to be any rougher than my old 100% chromoly commuter
2) I totally agree that you should ride them. I rode a few bikes and the 2 I narrowed it down to were the Norco VFR 3 and the Dr Dew. After riding them I found I was sitting way to high on the Norco and climbing was a pain, but the Dr Dew fit me perfectly.

Brian Ratliff

Look at a Raleigh or Bianchi options as well.

Personally, I'd put an 8 speed Nexus hub on a Raleigh One Way or Bianchi San Jose, like Sheldon Brown did.

b_young

If you only have to ride the road I would suggest something with a smaller tire width. If you truely want speed it will be more in the weight and width of the wheel/tire. Other than that go with the one you like the most. They are all great. I have a Specialized Sirrus. I currently have 700 X 25 on it and will be going to 23 asap. My next bike will be the Specialized Tricross. I will keep the wheel set I have on this bike and save the ones that come with the Tricross for long distance or path riding. I think it comes with a 700 X 32.

scubaluke

I ride a Kona Smoke and I love it. I never got to see a Dew before I bought my Smoke but I think if I had I still would have gotten the Smoke. I am glad my bike came with fenders I never would have put them on if I had bought a bike with out them but now anything I will be using to commute will have full fenders and mudflaps.

Schwinnrider

Sorry, but I think that is TERRIBLE advice. Tire width has very little to do with speed, and a whole lot to do with comfort. I wouldn't suggest anyone commute on 700x23s, unless they're a flyweight who's blessed with perfect road conditions. Flatting on the way to work sucks, and a narrower tire also offers less protection against potholes and such. A good 700x28 tire would be the minimum.

Brian Ratliff

Also terrible advice.

There is a tradeoff involved; no way to scoot around the issue. Narrower tires take higher pressure and roll faster. But they pinch flat easier due to the smaller diameter and they puncture easier due to the high pressure. Fatter tires are slower but are more durable both for pinch flats and for punctures due to the larger diameter and smaller tires.

Ultimately, it is rider preference. I ride mostly 700Cx23's, with 25's on my fixed gear. But I like going fast and I don't mind changing a flat every now and again; it takes 10 minutes max and is no big deal. I might get a flat 2 or 3 times during the rainy season and I haven't had a flat all summer (knock on wood). Learn to deal with flats gracefully and you'll have many more options for the type of cycling you can do. Cycling fast is one of my greater joys in life.

Cyclist0383

Here are a few discounted bikes in the UK that might be just what you are looking for.

£599.00
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product-T...iled-13373.htm



£350.00
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/product-S...loss-14757.htm

Sammyboy

7.5 miles is a pretty short commute. You should be fine on anything, really. Of course, choosing a bike you really love is a great idea, but if you're finding the ride tough at the moment, it's most likely more to do with fitness than the bike. A new bike may not make it as fast and easy as you think, but a few more weeks riding will make a huge difference. I'm assuming you're new to this, so apologies if I assumed wrong.

b_young

I am at 240 with 30/40 lbs in the trunk/pannier. I have had 2 flats in 1500 miles both due to what appears to be a sliver of metal either from the train tracks I cross or a steel belt that I picked up riding the shoulder. I have not had a pinch flat yet and I cross a RR track to and from work. I run around 105 to 110 psig tire pressure. Smaller tires have less rolling resistance.

S Rider

Thanks for sharing your interesting opinions and experiences. I have had 3 bikes in my life (which all got stolen) but I am still fairly new to commuting by bike but this will hopefully change soon.

In case I get the Trek 7.3 FX which comes with Bontrager Race Lite HC 700x32c tires. Would it be possible to put thinker tiers on the bike without a problem? If so what are the measurements of the thickest tiers which can be put on this bike?

bsyptak

There's a reason Trek puts 32s on the 7.3. It's to make the all aluminum bike rideable. I think you'd be hating the jarring ride from narrower tires, and fatter is likely to be overkill (though vastly more comfortable). Either way, you could probably go up or down 5mm without much trouble.

Schwinnrider

[QUOTE=Brian Ratliff;5202898]Also terrible advice.

There is a tradeoff involved; no way to scoot around the issue. Narrower tires take higher pressure and roll faster. But they pinch flat easier due to the smaller diameter and they puncture easier due to the high pressure. Fatter tires are slower but are more durable both for pinch flats and for punctures due to the larger diameter and smaller tires.


Not according to Jobst Brandt. Narrower tires are not necessarily faster. There is a psychological effect, perhaps, but they're not faster.

Continental Tire company did some research:

https://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=...res/conti_tech

Conti's figures further demonstrate how tyre design and construction - even at the high-end - is still a compromise of conflicting objectives. Continental's numbers support the widespread belief that tubular tyres are faster than clinchers, but most surprising was research that showed how wider tyres have less rolling resistance. For example, a 25mm tubular offers less rolling resistance than 22mm and 19mm tyres (see graph).

But when a bicycle and rider build up velocity, resistance is not as important as aerodynamics, and wind resistance becomes the all-important factor. For this reason, Continental found that - conversely - a thinner tyre requires less energy than a fatter tyre to travel at 50kmh, principally due to aerodynamics (see graph).


So to issue a blanket statement that "narrower tires are faster" is terrible advice.

Schwinnrider

No, they don't. It's a myth. They may FEEL faster but that's not necessarily so.

Brian Ratliff

^^^
If you look at the graph carefully, you'll see that they are comparing a very narrow range of tire widths (19 to 25mm), and they are all inflated to equal pressure. If you inflate your 28mm tire to 110 psi, it might have less rolling resistance than a 23mm tire at 110 psi, but it would probably get punctures more easily and would not give you your supple ride that you are looking for, plus, your tire might blow off the rim. That same 28mm tire at 85psi will be more durable, more comfortable, but slower.

I'm just saying there are tradeoffs. Narrower tires are very likely to be faster than fatter tires. And each cyclist has his or her preference. I've been commuting for years with 700Cx23's at 110psi, and flats are infrequent and not a big deal when they happen.

Brian Ratliff

Let me clarify here. Narrower tires can withstand higher pressures than wider tires. If you read the article on post 17, at the bottom where they are explaining why a narrower tire has more resistance than a wider one, you'll notice that they assume an equal area contact patch, which assumes an equal tire pressure. What they don't explore is the effect of tire pressure. If that same 19mm tire were inflated to 140 psi up from 120 in the article, it would certainly have a smaller contact patch and the circumference of the contact patch might be smaller than for the wider tire at lower pressure, say 120 psi. This means, for tires of equal construction, less rolling resistance. This is why you use smaller tires; to enable an increase in tire pressure.

I mention tire construction: another effect of larger diameter tires is that larger diameter tires must be made of stronger material than smaller diameter tires because the material is under more tension than a small diameter tire of equal pressure. Stronger materials in the sidewall lead to more losses as the sidewall flexes, making for more rolling resistance.

-=(8)=-

Please dont take this antagonistically....
But my real life experience is way different
than Jobst Brandts. Tire size makes a huge
difference in the relative speed of any bicycle
Ive owned and ridden. 700X28 is going to
be a much faster tire than a 26x1.5

MrCjolsen

So does a 32mm tire inflated to 100 psi have the same rolling resistance as a 28mm tire inflated to 100 psi?

Schwinnrider

Yes, but that's different than saying 700x23s are much faster than 700x28s.

badger1

Sorry, gotta go with Schwinnrider on this: 700c x 28 (or 25, or 23 for that matter)high pressure might 'feel' faster than 26x1.5, but assuming both are equal quality, both properly inflated, and that both are on bikes with equivalent ride position (e.g. either drop or flat bars), and that gearing is equalized, the physics just does not support this very common assertion.

DataJunkie

The motor is more important than anything. However, I average 10% faster on the same bike with 23s over my 32s. However, the wheelset for my 23s weighs quite a bit less than the 32s wheelset. So... it is a matter of personal preference. One could not pay me enough to commute on anything larger than 23s. But that could change in a year or two.