Rivendell vs. Orbea?

  • Home
  • Rivendell vs. Orbea?
12 replies [Last post]
Anonymous's picture

"Getting past the tease, I think some discussion is in order about the criteria for a good ""club"" bike.

I don't race. Neither does anyone I know. So why should I compromise reliability, ease of service, versatility and safety for a small gain in lightness and aerodynamics?

If my bike is 10% heavier/slower than yours, does that mean a get a 10% better workout on the same ride?




Anonymous's picture
April (not verified)
If workout is your goal

"""If my bike is 10% heavier/slower than yours, does that mean a get a 10% better workout on the same ride?""

Sure, if a workout is why you ride.

If my bike is 10% lighter/faster than yours, it means I can ride 10% further and see 10% more of the country sights before returning to Manhattan before it gets dark.

I don't need stinking workouts. I ride for fun. I try to expend the least amount of energy to go the most distance."

Anonymous's picture
Neile (not verified)
Oh yeah, well even on my fastest (club) bike, I can throw on

fenders and panniers and stuff in all sorts of gear and go as far as my credit card and accumulated vacation hours will allow. So there. (nyah nayh)

And, yes I enjoy the work out. Builds me up for spin class.

Anonymous's picture
JP (not verified)
Me too!

I ride week days and longer on weekends so that I too may be stronger in spin class :-)

Anonymous's picture
B. Dale (not verified)
bike weight

When comparing bike weights, be sure to remember to include the weight of the rider, clothing, water, tools, tubes, etc.

I suspect your total weight difference (between the two bikes) is closer to 1% than 10%.

Anonymous's picture
April (not verified)
In that case,

Neile is not going to get his 10% increase in workout by riding a heavier bike!

Anonymous's picture
Mordecai Silver (not verified)
"""Builds me up for spin class"""

I think I'll fill one water bottle with lead shot. Then, when that spin class comes around that I've been peaking for, I'll be flying. I'll ride everyone off my wheel. I'll drop the whole pack on that 12% grade. I'll... wait, I'm getting carried away a bit...

Anonymous's picture
<a href="http://www.OhReallyOreilly.com">Peter O'Reilly</a> (not verified)
better workout

First find the bikes that fits you well and then next choose the one that gets you jazzed up the most which should result in more miles ridden.

Anonymous's picture
Jersey guy (not verified)
Gearing is important, too

"Most ""racing bikes"" pretend that a 39-23 ratio gets the average Joe or Jane up big hills at a reasonable cadence. Poppycock. Most people who ride any kind of significant grades, including most club riders, need a triple or at least a compact double (34-27 or so). Do you want Lance-like gearing, or happy knees?"

Anonymous's picture
Tony Rentschler (not verified)

I don't know from weight, but all good club bikes ought to have one of these:


Light, aero, reliable, and, uh, not cheap.

Anonymous's picture
David R (not verified)
A valid point

The weight of a bike is often the most emphasized characteristic of performance, but in my observation, that's because it's the only one that's quantifiable (it's a lot like megapixels with digital cameras; we assume more is better). Weight is certainly a factor with wheels--lighter wheels just spin up faster--but not so much with the frame. I have a steel racing bike and a CF racing bike, and they accelerate about the same with the same wheels (they have nearly identical components, so it invites comparison). The CF bike is about 1.5 lbs lighter than the steel bike, but honestly, I can't tell from riding them; it's way easier to tell that I lost 6 lbs off my gut. Try taking 6 lbs off your bike!

There's no question--the CF bike is stiffer without being harsh; it also holds a line better, so it's better for racing--which is what I use it for. When it's the last lap of a race and I need to catch a break-away, I can count on my CF bike to resist flexing and hold a line; my steel bike requires more attention.

Yet I travel with my steel bike, because it's repairable; in a pinch, a plumber could fix it (trust me--few things suck more in cycling than breaking your bike in an unrepairable way at the start of a cycling vacation). Another nice thing--you can modify a steel bike. My steel Spectrum (now 17 years old) was sent back to Tom Kellogg 3 years ago; he removed a stuck seatpost, spread the rear dropouts to 130mm, changed the steering tube to work with an unthreaded headset and repainted it.

So what would I choose if I could only have one bike? No question--it would be steel. I still love my CF Aegis, though!

Anonymous's picture
John Z (not verified)
Its All Good

Ultimately, you can only go as hard as you can go; a joule is still a joule no matter what you are riding. Speed may vary, but each individual only capable of a certain effort. Moreover, adding weight is only a factor on a grade, other than marginally increased rolling resistance when riding on level terrain. However, there are times when riding a “harder” bike can be an effective training tool, especially in the winter when moving slower might keep you warmer.

Anonymous's picture
Steve (not verified)

Very true. Power is absolute no matter what you ride. If the 3oo watts you produce can push your Madone road bike @ 22mph it might be struggling to keep your Kmart MTB @ 14 mph.Whatever it is it might be a good idea to add a LOJACK here in the city ( if they exist)I've lost 1 road and 1 mtb already. It might be worth the added wieght...

cycling trips