Should I get a road bike, a hybrid, or a MTB? I'm planning

>>987327

>I've rode shitty hand me down MTB's all my life

I would suggest getting a much nicer used bike off craigslist but it sounds like you're dead set on getting a new bike. Which is fine I guess.

For exceptionally shitty roads, the factor that will make or break your choice of bike is tire clearance on the frame and brakes. Bigger tires will really take the sting out of the roads. Think 32-35c. No road caliper brake will accomodate tires of that size. You're going to need discs(probably out of your price range), cantilevers(shitty) or V-brakes(ehhh.)

That limits your choice of bikes to cyclocross, touring, or hybrid. Probably only the hybrid will be in your budget.

DO NOT GET FRONT SUSPENSION. Shitty front suspension is worse worse worse than no suspension, and a $250 will have uber shitty suspension.

>>987328
my craigslist is shitty and is just filled with ghetto tier frankenstein bikes, kids bikes, or old ass collectors and pros bikes being sold for like 3000 dollars.

I don't really want to go past $300 for a nice bike, because at that point i could probably just start saving up for a fucking car.

>>987332

Yeah, bikesdirect bikes are probably right up your alley then. The bike in your picture will not handle fatter tires though. You need something with different brakes.

Within your budget a hybrid is probably most realistic, even though people on this board shit all over hybrids.

There are no good new bikes at your price point.

I'd go with what anon >>987328 says, although if your roads are gravel or New Jersey levels of shitty, possibly go even wider on the tire maybe all the way up to 45, or 26 X 2.0

>>987337
>Within your budget a hybrid is probably most realistic, even though people on this board shit all over hybrids.

At anon's price point, there's not much choice.

Personally I'd go with a mountain bike conversion because of the crap roads, but you might not have a choice.

>>987332
>saving for a car if the budget is more than 300

File: Bentham_Speaking_Through_Impel_Down_Den_Den_Mushi.png (264KB, 589x638px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 589x638px

>>987346

>New Jersey levels of shitty

MFW I take knee-jerk offense, but it's true as fuck.

>>987327
That's basically a walmart bike except it comes in sizes.

>>987332
>I don't really want to go past $300 for a nice bike, because at that point i could probably just start saving up for a fucking car.
If you want a fucking car you shouldn't be buying any kind of bike in the first place. Start saving for the fucking car.

hybrid

bikesdirect, op

or save for car

>>987355
Ignore the pleb. It is obvious bait from the fag who failed to bait us from /o/.

Road bike. Not a hybrid, not a flat bar roadie- a road bike. 'Endurance' geometry if you must. Look for Sora at a minimum and if you can fit a 25 or 28mm tyre it is a good thing.

You'll dig it.

>>988184
Why though?

Because.

I bought a mountain bike to commute because I was worried about the standard or roads, riding in traffic and just a bit of a bitch.

After a few months of confidence building, I bought a roadie. The difference in efficiency and comfort is enormous- I simply should have bought a roadie from the get go. Neither are weapons but neither are shit either- I spent $1500 on each of them.

Someone posted a while ago that no one riding on the road needs a MTB and I couldn't agree more now I've got both.

The hint is pretty much in the name- if you want to play in the mud, go the mountain bike. If you want to ride on the road, get a roadie. A hybrid or a flat bar carry too many of the negatives over- they are not as good in either instance and don't really grant any advantage.

Don't be scared by a road bike. I haven't died yet.

>>988188
>A hybrid or a flat bar carry too many of the negatives over- they are not as good in either instance and don't really grant any advantage.
Flat bar road bikes (i.e. decent hybrids) can be very good and perform very close to drop bar road bikes. They won't be quite as aero but if OP doesn't want to go super fast that's not as big a concern. The advantages would be price and potentially comfort as well as greater control especially on rougher terrain.

Sounds to me like you've never tried one, they're not an in between but rather much closer to typical drop bar road bikes, only the shittier "city bike" style hybrids (that truly is one of the most useless terms) could be considered close to department store tier mountain bikes.

>>988189

Fair call- but the aero is a big element. People whinge about weights and components and all kinds of stuff but overcoming wind resistance isn't just about going fast, it reduces effort too.

But fuck it- we all know it is all about going fast. Who wants to doodle around all the time?

>>988191
It's certainly possible to go fast on a flat bar bike, not as fast as a drop bar but still not slow.

> isn't just about going fast, it reduces effort too.
For the same speed, sure. You can put in just as little effort on a flat bar bike, you'll just be going a bit slower

Drop bar bikes are for when you want to go as fast as you can, that's their purpose. If you're racing then get one, if you're commuting and have a certain time you need to make then get one, otherwise it's hard to argue against a flat bar bike.

>>988189
Oh look, it's the flatbar road bike autist again. Go wank to your Boardman and stop tricking newcomers to buy into a shit concept. Thanks m80.

>>988225
How about you stop trying to trick people into thinking that they must have drop bars to have a real bike. You're like the Harley rider of the bicycle world.

Blue star brewing company has great bicycle culture in san antonio

File: heh.jpg (23KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x501px

>>988210
Drop bar bikes are also for riding in cities because having wide handlebars in a city is restrictive, hazardous and foolish.

>>988234
I suppose, but there's nothing stopping you cutting down some flat bars if you really wanted.

>>988229
How about you eat chain lube and die? You bought a hybrid. Stop squinting your buyers remote all over the place. My God is it ever obvious this is a slow board when one sperg can keep shitting up bbg threads with this roadbike-hybrid nonsense constantly. There's a reason you're the only one anon. The sooner you get it, the better. Most of all for the poor people you keep leading down an ergonomic/aerodynamic dead end street.

>>988235
then you can cross comfort and control off your list and add tite gapz, can't stop, don't want to, and absolute faggot.

>>988237
>Stop squinting your buyers remote all over the place.
I'm perfectly happy with my purchase, that's why I try and help others make one they'll be happy with too.

>There's a reason you're the only one anon
There are plenty of other flat bar riders on here (excluding mountain bikes), the others may not care if other people make the right choice but I do, just like you (we just have different thoughts on what that right choice should be).

>Most of all for the poor people you keep leading down an ergonomic/aerodynamic dead end street.
I could say the same about you, leading those people down an uncomfortable and expensive path.

There are positives and negatives to ever bar type, I've never once said flat bars are the be all and end all and I'm perfectly fine with someone going with a different choice if it fits their needs better. The problem is you are completely dismissive of flat bars, you fail to consider their advantages.

File: lel.gif (3MB, 377x372px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 377x372px

>>988225
>Oh look, it's someone who disagrees with me again

>>988245
I just refuted all of your advantages

>>988253
Do you mean >>988239 ?

Cutting the bars down is a possibility, not something you must do. So no, you did not refute the advantages. Being able to squeeze through tight gaps is an advantage of drop bars over flat bars if you want to maintain the added control afforded by having wider bars. It's one or the other, there's no magical choice that will give you both (well, maybe some sort of folding or telescopic bar but I don't think that exists).

>>988248
>>988245
Confirmed for samefag trying to look like there's more than one flatbar autist. You're our new nikkiv. How does it feel?

>>988256
Having a long lever is what gives your control. Flat bars have a 5-10cm stem and add no length. The leverage has to come from width. A drop bar bike has a 10cm+ stem and add 80-120mm in reach by handlebar design. That's a massive increase in steering leverage with no increase in width.
You don't even understand the basics of bike geometry. Stop trying to give advice.

>>988259
Are (You) just collecting (You)s now? Because it seems like it.

Either that or (You)'re so unbelievably arrogant that (You) unironically believe that not more than one person could possibly disagree with (You). In fact (You) probably believe that that one person is just pretending to disagree with (You) and in reality they do actually agree with (You). Because (You)'re always right!

W O W
O
W

fun fact: flat bars and stems come in various sizes, just as drop bars do.
bonus fact: an upright position helps you see through city traffic better.
optional reading: if a gap is so tight that your bars are a consideration then you probably shouldn't be trying to squeeze yourself through it.

File: nope.png (13KB, 979x131px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 979x131px

>>988259
>

>>988263
So then why don't mountain bikes have wider drop bars?

Forward extension is irrelevant as it's harder to resist side to side movement than it is forwards and backwards when you have a hand on each side. What matters is width and in that regard flat bars are better.

Also it's not just the leverage that gives greater control but also the hand positioning and the more upright riding position (yes you can use the flats of drop bars, if you don't need immediate access to the brakes or shifter).

>>988265
>im not autistic
>throws tard tantrum over being seen through
GJ m80! Ask your mom permission before you take that Boardman anywhere but the sidewalk.

>>988269
Yup. Thought I recognised you. You're that fat bitch who's keeping /n/ shit.

Every time you're backed into a corner you accuse others of doing exactly what you're doing. Basically giving a running commentary of your own actions.
For the life of me I'll never understand why you haven't killed yourself yet.

>>988266
Fun fact: stem length is dictated by desired fit and frame geometry and not something you can just choose freely. You can not cut a flatbar bikes bars down and install a massive stem, because you'd not reach the bars if you did.
You could of course duplicate the road bike hood position fit and steering geometry _if you started out with a road bike frame_ and converted it to flat bars. But that's not what this is about. A hybrid will not accept such a geometry.

>>988278
I give up on you.

Falt bar road bikes address the issues that you made up by incorporating the stem length into their geometry.

You should learn about radius in relation to leaverage, as per your earlier comments.
I'd draw you a picture but I'm busy atm.

File: Cross Country Mountain Biking_UCI Mountain Bike World Cup 2013 Vallnord.jpg (1MB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1000px

>>988267
>So then why don't mountain bikes have wider drop bars?
I'll get to that.

>the more upright riding position
Bikes are fitted instruments. The riding position in the primary (only for flatbars) prosition is exactly the same if they're fitted for the same rider. Drop bars do not give you a longer/lower riding position if the bike is properly fitted. And if it isn't, well then the opposite might as well happen.
>Forward extension is irrelevant
If you look at early mountainbike geometry development you'll see this it patently not true. Early mountinbikes did just this to improve stability and steering control: they added lots and lots and lots of stem. 140-150mm was not unheard of.
This affords you two things. One being better leverage, and the other shifting your center of mass into the turn, stabilizing you.

This was all good and well and led to small frames with short wheel bases and narrow bars for ducking between the trees on the singletrack.
The downside to this short wheelbase and forward center of gravity is that it throws you over the bars when going down hill. So mountainbikes of late, as they evolved towards downhill stability, climbing boulders and ever more unforgiving terrain, have grown longer. Much, much longer. And slacker, with greater trail. A modern XC bike and course is to an early mountainbike what a heavy AM bike is to XC. All in the name of making them safer down the mountain. The rider has been pushed back, towards a more upright position to keep the center of gravity back, and stems are now super short out of necessity. This diminishes control, and the only way to gain it back is widening the bars and manualy shifting your upper body around, reaching to hold onto the opposite end of the bar in extreme cases.
The tradeoff is generaly thought to be worthwhile, but your assertions are both false and betray a lack of understanding as to how mountainbikes evolved, and why it has nothing to do with steering geometry.

File: john_tomac.jpg (687KB, 798x1024px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 798x1024px

>>988267
>So then why don't mountain bikes have wider drop bars?
So, now were back to that question. It's because the frame geometry required to make them feasable is incompatible with the design goals of modern mountainbiking.

While the frames would accept such a cockpit geometry they were very popular in some circles. See John Tomac for the most famous example. He also rode disc wheels. Even those who rode flat bars due to mountainbikings clunker heritage had, as explained earlier, stem lenths and bar widths that very closely emulated the rcockpit geometry of a drop bar setup, without the actual drops.
And they are certainly making an off-road comeback with the adventure touring crowd where frame geometries allow their use.
>>988280
>Flat bar road bikes address the issues that you made up by incorporating the stem length into their geometry.
Please show me a picture of your bike, as it came, with a 160mm stem. That's a short reach drop bar 70mm and a (by roadbike standards) very short 90mm stem. I will not hold my breath.
Or you can just concede that you can't simply cut the bars on your road hybrid and maintain steering control similar to what a road bike offer. And stop calling your hybrid a road bike. It confuses the newcomers.

File: radius-of-a-circle.jpg (9KB, 272x268px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 272x268px

>>988288
you cannot be serious

what are you even arguing about and for who's benefit are you arguing?

simple test: place you hand anywhere on a car's steering wheel and turn the wheel. then move your hand to another position on the steering wheel and turn the wheel again. see if you notice any difference in 'control' or 'leaverage'
now imagine the steering tube of your bicycle as the center of the steering wheel and draw, with a permanent marker, either a straight line (to simulate flat bars) or a curvy line (to simulate drop bars) and then drive yourself off a fucking cliff you retarded hippy.

>>988290
The headset is the center is the "steering wheel". A longer stem and wider bars both more the hands further away from the headset (the origo of your imagined steeringwheel), increasing the effective lever, or "radius" as you wish to call it.
Please think about this for a few seconds.

>>988293
The mistake you're making is that people don't ride with one hand. With a wide straight handlebar and a short stem you may technically have less leverage than with a longer stem and narrower bars but you have two hands that can apply opposing fore and aft forces much easier than side to side.

Imagine you're trying to loosen a nut with a t-bar. Which is easier, with the bar parallel with your shoulders or perpendicular? The correct answer is the former which is just like a straight handlebar.

>>988294
>With a wide straight handlebar and a short stem you may technically have less leverage than with a longer stem and narrower bars
But you don't. You have exactly the same leverage. That's the point. That's why you can't simply take a short stem and a short bar, and thing you'll end up with the same leverage as a long stem and a short bar. This is why you can't cut the bars on your "flatbar roadbike" to fit in the t i t e g a p s and not lose steering control.
>The mistake you're making is that people don't ride with one hand.
No. Also irrelevant.

>>988299
>That's why you can't simply take a short stem and a short bar, and thing you'll end up with the same leverage as a long stem and a short bar. This is why you can't cut the bars on your "flatbar roadbike" to fit in the t i t e g a p s and not lose steering control.
Correct me if I'm wrong but that wasn't the point of discussion.

Go back to >>988263 , he (not sure if that's you) was arguing that despite having narrower bars drop bars have comparable leverage to wider flat bars due to having more forward extension. Whilst that may technically be true in some form it's not the case when it comes to actually manipulating the bar, where it is much easier to apply fore and aft forces than it is side to side.

>No. Also irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. You have opposing forces on two ends of the lever effectively doubling its length. Forward extension is not the same. It is extremely hard to actually calculate how the leverage works out in the real world especially taking into account how the human body works easier with certain motions (as mentioned above). You can't just work out on paper that one combination provides equal leverage to another, however through anecdotal evidence with which everyone agrees wider bars provide greater leverage and control.

>>988304
>Correct me if I'm wrong but that wasn't the point of discussion.
>>988235
Corrected.
>It's not irrelevant. You have opposing forces on two ends of the lever effectively doubling its length.
Applicable to both situations and therefore irrelevant. It's also a fact I'm very much aware of, hence the 'no'.
>It is extremely hard to actually calculate how the leverage works out in the real world
No it isn't. The effective lever is the hypothenuse of the right angle that the stem+bar constitutes. The angle of said hypothenuse is then maintained relative to a force acting perpendicular to the stem, if we assume a worst case scenario of a human not being able to impart any sideways shifting force what so ever. It is still trivial to keep the effective lever as long, even relative the direction of teh force, through only forwards extension.>>988304
>You can't just work out on paper that one combination provides equal leverage to another, however through anecdotal evidence with which everyone agrees wider bars provide greater leverage and control.
But anon, I just gave you ample historical evidence that this is in fact not at all something 'everyone agrees with'. The fact that everyone agrees on is that forwards extension and wider bars are both ways of increasing steering leverage. The former having additional benefits, and the latter being forced by tradeoffs in other areas.

less weight on bars makes bars easier to move. rider is more balanced and less susceptible to losing balance should the front (steering) wheel move.

flat bar > drop bar

>>988189
>Flat bar road bikes
wew lad

http://vitusbikes.com/products/dee-29-2016/

File: jjjlol.jpg (28KB, 801x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 801x534px

>>987327
>brand new nice bike around $250

File: hybrids.jpg (53KB, 905x398px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 905x398px

>>987327
>brand new nice bike around $250
You have to pay AT ABSOLUTE FUCKING MINIMUM $800 for a "brand new nice bike". Stop being a fucking faggot. Get a hybrid, but not the shitty kind. Pic related. Or else get a cyclocross bike. Not the race kind.
Marin Muirwoods 29er
Kona Dew Plus (this is literally the cheapest "nice bike" on the market)
Trek FX
Specialized Sirrus
Cannondale Bad Boy
Salsa Vaya
Surly Straggler
All-City Macho Man
Kona Jake

Or just buy a fucking used bike you fucking moron. Stop pretending you can get something new that isn't pure fucking shit for $250.

lol@fucktards recommending bikesdirect, their stuff is terrible

>>988189
>Flat bar road bikes (i.e. decent hybrids)
Not the same thing. FBRs and good hybrids are both good types of bikes, but they aren't the same. A good hybrid is basically a flat bar cyclocross bike.

>>988412
>Kona Dew Plus (this is literally the cheapest "nice bike" on the market)
IDK M80, I think the plain Dew is more than OK if you live in a climate where V-brakes are a reasonable option. And it's only about €400 IIRC.

File: boardman_comp.jpg (23KB, 474x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 474x300px

>>988412
>>Flat bar road bikes (i.e. decent hybrids)
>Not the same thing.
Please s-stop this a-abuse of boardman-san.

>>988412

$250 is not bad. You can get a low-end aluminum bike that will last you a couple of years for that price .

>>988419
Plain Dew won't be pure shit, if you want to go as cheap as possible while having something that is """okay""" then the Dew is probably the best option.

>>988412
>A good hybrid is basically a flat bar cyclocross bike.
And what's the difference between a road bike and a cyclocross bike? Disc brakes, wider tyre clearance?

Cyclocross bikes are just a subset of the more typical drop bar road bikes, more suited to off road use in a few minor ways. Decent hybrids can also vary in these ways with some falling closer to one discipline than the other and really they can be shifted right to the opposite end with a few component changes.

Out of interest, could you post an example of a decent hybrid (a flat bar cyclocross bike as you put it) and what you would consider a true flat bar road bike?

>>987327
the only thing you can get for 250 is a old used bike on craigslist or a department store shitbike that is on sale. As>>988412 said 800 is the minimum for anything nice.

>>988428
>And what's the difference between a road bike and a cyclocross bike? Disc brakes, wider tyre clearance?
Different geometry.
>Out of interest, could you post an example of a decent hybrid (a flat bar cyclocross bike as you put it) and what you would consider a true flat bar road bike?
Good hybrids: Kona Dew Plus, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Specialized Sirrus, GT Tachyon
Flat bar road bikes: I have no interest in a FBR so I don't pay attention to the models, but a web search turns up the Giant FastRoad CoMax. That looks like a true FBR.
Basically the difference is fbr has road geometry whereas hybrid has a little more relaxed geometry (closer to cx/tourer/mtb).

>>988428
Hot him, but I'll have a go.
>And what's the difference between a road bike and a cyclocross bike?
While there is some overlap on the extremes of their respective spectrum, generally it's longer seatstays, slacker front end, wider bars, higher bottom bracket, shorter and higher top tube, different brakes and larger tyre clearence. Or in short: pretty much everything that can ever be different on a bike, is.
>Cyclocross bikes are just a subset of the more typical drop bar road bikes
Naive nonsense. As expected of someone advocating hybrids or needing the differences between CX and roadbikes explained.
>could you post an example of a decent hybrid
The Dew family have already been brought up.
>what you would consider a true flat bar road bike
The KTM Strada 800, Scott Speedster or some PlanetX frankenbuilds come to mind. The common denominator being an actual roadbike frame. All with much too wide bars and too short stems making them unsuitable for the job, but it's the closest there is. The market for such a thing is obviously not very large.

>>988438
>Different geometry.
Bikes from both disciplines can vary quite a bit in geometry, enough that there is overlap. It's only fairly recently that there have been some super slack CX bikes that are much closer to drop bar mountain bikes, the majority of CX bikes won't be all that different from more typical road bikes.

Out of those bikes you listed they're all fairly similar to the FastRoad CoMax (there's not a lot of listed specs so I couldn't compare everything. Head tube angles are within a couple degrees with the Giant actually being slacker than some in certain sizes. The biggest difference is the chainstay length being 10-25mm longer than the Giant, but that's not a huge amount and there are other hybrids that are just as short.

There is no clear cut distinction. As >>988439 says (I know he's not agreeing with me) there is overlap. Whilst there are bikes right at the extremes, professional level bikes, that are obviously purpose built for one discipline and differ greatly from the other there are bikes in the middle that blur the line and are hard to determine where they fit, for some coming down to something as basic as tyre choice.

>>988453
Of course there's overlap and blurred lines. It's not clear cut. My point is that "hybrid" generally refers to bikes whose geometry is a bit closer to a cx bike or even mtb, whereas "FBR" generally refers to bikes whose geometry is identical or very similar to traditional road bikes. Of course lines are always blurred. Whether it's going from FBR to hybrid, or from road to gravel to cx, or from xc to trail to enduro.

>>988457
So why try and make a distinction between "hybrids" and "flat bar road bikes"? It's just two different names for a broad spectrum of a style of bike.

To most people the all encompassing term would be "hybrid", I just prefer to use the flat bar road bike name so as to minimise confusing with the department store tier city/town/comfort/cruiser/whatever bikes.

>>988462
Do you also have a problem with "cross country bike", "trail bike", and "enduro bike" since they can all just be called mountain bikes?
Then what about the things in between mountain and road, like the Salsa Fargo? The line there is blended too. So fuck it, let's stop referring to "road bikes" and "mountain bikes" since the line is blurred. Just call them bicycles!
Oh and then there's pedal assist bikes, then there's e-bikes, then there's mopeds, then motorcycles. All the same thing really! So let's just take all types of bicycles, motorcycles, and everything in between, and call them all the same thing! The lines are blurred, after all. Just a bunch of different names for a broad spectrum of a style of vehicle!

>>988462
>its all just bikes man why you gotta make the distinction between bmx and beach cruiser man theres overlap man they both have steering rods man its all relative pass the dope mane

>>988453
>chainstay length being 10-25mm longer than the Giant, but that's not a huge amount
Dude, that's a huge amount. Like, positively enormous. Like the difference in handling between an audax and racer.

>>988466
>Do you also have a problem with "cross country bike", "trail bike", and "enduro bike" since they can all just be called mountain bikes?
Yes, I have a problem with any term that so vaguely defined.

> Salsa Fargo
Drop bar mountain bike. The bars do not change the more broad group that it belongs to, hence flat bar road bikes.

>pedal assist bikes, then there's e-bikes, then there's mopeds
I use the term electrical assisted bikes, a subset of electric bikes. Mopeds are also assisted but by an ICE.

>>988468
A good rule of thumb for being able to make a distinction is being able to do so based on visuals alone, no measuring of angles or lengths. This would determine the intended discipline of the bike as a whole (thus including CX and road) but would not lock the bike into that discipline as it would be allowed to change via some component changes.

>>988483
If you can't tell a cx from a road bike no matter the "component change" you're ignorant, blind, retarded or all three. I seem to recall you having made this statement before. It doesn't become more true because you keep flaunting your ignorance.

>>988483
>A good rule of thumb for being able to make a distinction is being able to do so based on visuals alone
They all look the same to me so blacks aren't individuals. Neither are them there gooks.

>>988494
Take your average CX bike, chuck some slicks on it, what differences could you tell from an ordinary road bike?

>Brakes
Can road bikes not have cantis or Vs?

>Gearing
Can road bikes not run a wide range cassette, or God forbid 1x?

>>988627
>Take your average CX bike, chuck some slicks on it, what differences could you tell from an ordinary road bike?
Are you retarded?
>Can road bikes not have cantis or Vs?
CX bikes typically have neither. And road bikes pretty much never have cantilever brakes (V brakes are a type of cantilever brake, btw). CX bikes have discs, road bikes have callipers.
>Can road bikes not run a wide range cassette, or God forbid 1x?
can=/=do

>>988630
>CX bikes typically have neither. And road bikes pretty much never have cantilever brakes (V brakes are a type of cantilever brake, btw).
I worded that unclearly. What I meant to say is: V brakes are a type of cantilever brake. Neither road bikes nor cyclocross bikes typically use any type of cantilever brake (V brake or otherwise).

What's with those curved seatstays?

>>988654
Hipster fashion. Check my dubs.

>>987327
>freewheel
>tourney derailleur
>stem-mount shifters
>threaded steer tube

please kill yourself
this isn't anywhere close to anyone's conception of a "good bike". if you want a good road bike, you're going to go to a bike shop and spend $800 minimum.

>>988657
>>freewheel
>>threaded steer tube
>implying these things are bad

>>tourney derailleur
I agree with you there

>if you want a good road bike, you're going to go to a bike shop and spend $800 minimum.
You can get a good hybrid for that, but road bike? Nah, more like 1500

>>988229
if you're shifting with your thumbs and not your fingers, then sorry buddy, it's not a road bike

>>988659
>implying thumbs aren't needed when using downtube shifters
Thumb, index finger, and optionally middle finger are used in conjunction to shift on road bikes.
>inb4 muh brifters
Fuck off fred

>>988658
Freewheels and threaded steer tubes are for old school bikes that are being kept alive by their owners. If you're spending money in THE CURRENT YEAR on a bike with those parts, you're wasting money.

But eh, you can get a decent Sora roadie for $800 or $900. It's not the best out there but it's good enough for exercise or commuting. $1500 lands you a really solid Tiagra/Apex (maybe even 105) bike, but that's not really a "first real bike" amount of money for your typical poorfag.

>>988664
>But eh, you can get a decent Sora roadie for $800 or $900. It's not the best out there but it's good enough for exercise or commuting
A modern road bike for commuting is stupid. For commuting you should have one of the following:
>OTS
>90s rigid mtb with semislicks
>hybrid
>cx bike
>touring bike
Modern road bike just screams STEAL ME when it's locked up and left unattended.

>>988660
> using shift/brake levers with thumb buttons for tension release
disgusting. I bet you think gumwall tires are cool

>>988665
You can get a good hybrid for $800 so the point still stands.

>>988666
wat is gampagnolo

>>988674
>what is second-rate italian scrap

>>988627
>Take your average CX bike, chuck some slicks on it, what differences could you tell from an ordinary road bike?
Doesn't even need to have any components on it. You can easily tell just looking at the naked frame unless you're half retarded, just like with the various mountainbike frame types. But oh, wait, you are! Keep playing with your "flatbar road bike" but don't bother this board ever again, tyvm.

>>988630
>CX bikes typically have neither
>CX bikes have discs, road bikes have callipers.
And people think I'm the idiot here. Before discs came popular (for road bikes as well as CX bikes) CX bikes did indeed have cantis or Vs as they're better than calipers and a lot of the cheaper ones still do.

My point is that the type of brake does not mean that and fork is specifically either CX or road, they may have a preference for one discipline over the other but that's it.

>can=/=do
You didn't answer the question. Is a road bike with a wide range cassette and/or 1x now no longer a road bike? What about single speed or fixed gear, those still count right?

>>988725
>You can easily tell just looking at the naked frame unless you're half retarded
And how would you do that? Brake mounts, large tyre clearance, or even slacker geometry do not make a frame and fork specifically CX.

>>988733
Dude, you have your head stuck so far up your ass on this that you're beyond help. You've turned denial into an artform. Get help.

Hijacking the thread,

I have never rode a road bike. I have always had MTBs with those wide tires.

The idea of riding 23mm thick tires scares me

There are some downhill parts with curves on my usual route. I usually ride ~45-50 Km/h and so far the grip of my tires were good. How would 23mm perform on the same spot?

>>991505
Better. Go 25s though

>>991505
why not go with 28 for start. Imo I ride 35 on fx and no complaints. Its a good compromise. Faster than mtb, but not scary.

>>991509
Would 23mm be scary to ride??

Damn, wish I had some friends with a road bike so I could try it before buying. If I'm going to be on alert while riding, it will be no fun.

Also the misplaced water drainage covers scares me. It's rare but I remember seeing some, however my tires were thick so i didn't get stuck. It feels like 23 or 28mm wouldn't survive it.

>>991513
Go to a shop and test ride something.

>>991513
23 is too thin. Not even all roadies drive 23.

What is your current width?

28 is a good bet imo. I never drove slimmer than 35, I would feel comfortable on it on a rainy day, plus my fx is rigid enough. The slimmer you go the more it will shake you unless you rock all around shocks.

You can try a bike in a bike shop, any self respecting shop should give you few meters to get the hang of it.

You could see bikes on sale (roadies) pretend you wanna buy one (instead just try it out).

Really no harm done. Better safe than sorry.

>>991505
You'll be surprised just how much grip you can achieve with such narrow tyres. I was used to riding 2.3s with low profile tread but I'd say my slick 28mm tyres actually grip better on road. Whilst there being less surface area would make it seem like there'd be less grip the weight is spread over a smaller area and so the pressure is much higher.

>>991518
There is not a bike store in my place which sells the bike I want to buy... I'll order it from the internet.

>>991530
>weight is spread over a smaller area and so the pressure is much higher.

Makes sense! thanks

>>991687
>Makes sense! thanks
Just note that I simplified things quite a bit. What I was trying to point out was that width isn't the only determining factor, neither a wider tyre nor a narrower tyre always grips better.

Other things that can affect it are tyre compound (road tyres will be more suited to road surfaces, MTB tyres not so much), tread pattern (road tyres have low profile tread if not completely slick meaning more surface area making contact and less deflection), the surface you're riding on (unless the surface is movable by the tyre such as dirt then any tread pattern is detrimental to grip).