bhtooefr wrote:The other thing is, you might look at recumbents. (...) Trikes tend to be slower (...)
Ehh. I want one to get places faster! Hehe. I guess it'd still be faster than running, but my ability to transport it without riding it (in case of a flat or something) is also important -- that's another thing we were looking at at the shop. I found that I can pick up and carry the lighter alloy bikes pretty easy -- they had some kind of exotic titanium-framed bike that was so light it was kind of scary to think about riding on it -- but the cheaper steel bikes are pretty heavy for me to pick up and lug around. Some of the 26" bikes, I was struggling to even pick up! I'm sure a recumbent trike would be too heavy for me to comfortably carry any distance beyond a few meters.
keboman wrote:Let's say you spend an extra 400 and get a bike that is 5 lbs lighter. If you are 160lbs you may be moving 170lbs instead of 175lbs.
I don't even weigh 100lbs; well under in fact. 5lbs is more than 5% of the total weight of me and my bicycle. 5% is quite a bit.
Even if it didn't make any difference in the performance of the bicycle, though, it would still have a dramatic effect on my ability to carry
the thing, which could be relevant.
keboman wrote:None of the improvements (lighter frame, better bearings, lower rolling resistance tires (compared to standard road tires) really make any difference.
This seems dubious given that I know full well of the notable mileage improvements given by low-resistance tires on my car. Also,
keboman wrote:Let's say you spend an extra 400
bhtooefr wrote:paying more doesn't USUALLY give you anything other than less weight at the same durability.
Hehe, I didn't intend to spend any more than I have to just to get a lighter bike! My concern was simply that none of the bikes I tried were comfortable, so I'll have to probably get something more esoteric, which USUALLY means higher price (due to lower demand). That's why I remarked on saving money to spend more.