The Goldilocks Bike

[Canuk]

I'm thinking of trading up to Trek gravel bike next Spring. For me it has everything I want in a bike: available in a large variety of sizes and finishes, lightweight, stiff, huge clearances for tyres and mudguards, disc braking, can fit a rack and the ability to run internal or wireless electric gearing. It's my perfect bike, the Goldilocks bike if you like, its just right.

What's your Goldilocks bike?

[foxyrider]

Don't think there is such a beast for me. I like my 'race' bike, I like my CX bike, I like my folder - somehow I don't think i'll find anything that could combine those three successfully!

I guess if I had to downsize to one bike it would be - no I can't imagine only having one bike!

[100%JR]

I love my road bike(Canyon Ultimate CF SL )...for the road.I like my CX(Boardman) for off road but not so much on Tarmac.If I wanted to go back to proper off roading(MTBing) I'd build another MTB.
I don't think a bike that is good for both on and off road exists for me.

[Brucey]

you've spent so much time with your nose in bike mags that you are just about to buy a touring bike (albeit in a different frock) which is something I bet you wouldn't have done in a million years if it were not for the flannel this 'new idea' has been subjected to.

Speaks volumes about the job that the press does on the weak-minded....?....

cheers

[amediasatex]

No such bike exists for me sadly, too much variety in my riding for any single bike to cover all bases with an acceptable level of compromise.

Perfect excuse for multiple bikes though

[joshua3]

Fit and geometry are what makes a goldilocks bike. Tailored to your expectations.

[Canuk]

you've spent so much time with your nose in bike mags that you are just about to buy a touring bike (albeit in a different frock) which is something I bet you wouldn't have done in a million years if it were not for the flannel this 'new idea' has been subjected to.

Speaks volumes about the job that the press does on the weak-minded....?....

cheers

I've had a touring bike since I was 16 years old, and several in various iterations since. My current squeeze is a 1980's Wester Ross upgraded to death with new Shimano. It's a ride all day lightweight (753) elegant machine, but it's touring specific and I certainly wouldn't use it to commute with all the shiny chrome plate on it. As for bike mags, I don't read them. I prefer to make my own evaluations of kit and kaboodle, because it's my hard earned $ going on it and no one else's. As I do in my professional life. Other people's opinions are not much interest to me.

The Trek though will suit my current commute and day rides around this lovely Midi Pyrenees countryside (18C today), and perhaps the odd rumble off road, which I do so infrequently it would be madness to buy a dedicated bike for it. It can't do everything but it can do enough of what I need most to justify the purchase.

[slowster]

I am on the verge of ordering the frame for a touring bike. It won't be a Golidilocks bike, because I have others which I can choose from, but it will probably be one of the most versatile, being suitable for road and off road, and for day rides, touring and shopping.
- unfortunately a test ride is not practical, but I know the frame should deliver a predictable handling ride that's like wearing a comfortable pair of slippers
- it will be a frame of good quality steel, and I'll spray the inside with Dinitrol ML. It will probably last a lifetime. I expect it to able to shrug off those minor knocks that can occasionally occur
- it will have clearances for 47mm tyres with mudguards, which is important because it will be used off road a lot
- it has a 640mm front centre measurement in my size, which is good because I don't want toe overlap on a bike ridden off road
- it has 460mm chainstays, so my heels should clear large panniers on the rear rack
- it will be 9 speed because that gives the optimum balance for me of a suitable choice of gears and components, initial cost of parts, and lifespan and replacement cost of chains and cassetttes
- it will have a 44/34/24 triple and probably something like a 12-36 cassette, because that will enable me to ride steep tricky hills off road which I cannot with a typical compact double, as well as giving a good range of cruising gears for road and off road riding
- it will have a dynamo hub and lights
- it will have a leather saddle, which I find comfortable enough that I can wear ordinary shorts if I want (and often I do prefer them to lycra bibs)
- it will look pretty. It will have a simple solid colour paint set off by silver componentry throughout. It will look even prettier by virtue of being a rare exception in world full of bland plastic bikes with one dimensional paint colours and even blander, dull black anodised parts
- it will have a Carradice saddlebag (which I will transfer from my old tourer and which is rather old and, I admit, not pretty), because that is the most convenient type of luggage for carrying items on a day ride.

On most of those counts, my touring bike will be superior to most of the bikes currently marketed under the moniker 'gravel bike'. I know that because I've got a gravel bike. Moreover, my touring bike will cost less, and as well as the bike overall generally being functionally superior, the individual components on it will be functionally superior to any off the shelf gravel bike.

And what's more, not only will it look great and be a delight to ride for a day out or a week's tour, I will look cool riding it, much cooler than anyone in lycra on a gravel bike or a road racer, no matter how fast they overtake me.

[pliptrot]

So you'll be giving up a lightweight steel frame for something either aluminium or composite, mass produced and cleverly marketed. I think Brucey made more than one good point. I see you don't take much interest in the opinions of others but you started a thread requesting just that?

[Canuk]

So you'll be giving up a lightweight steel frame for something either aluminium or composite, mass produced and cleverly marketed. I think Brucey made more than one good point. I see you don't take much interest in the opinions of others but you started a thread requesting just that?

If you read the OP it clearly states the opposite. I know what I like, and I'm interested in what other people might think a 'do most everything bike' could be. So you're critique is not only inaccurate, but also misplaced.

Mass production bikes are probably now among the best bikes in the world. Bespoke bike builders can't really compete with the technology and continuous development of the likes of Trek and Cannondale. The R&D budget of the likes of Giant runs into $30 million a year. I like steel bikes (I have a dozen of em) but I'm not so much of a luddite to accept 1970's technology when fundamentally better exists in 2018.

[Vorpal]

I don't have a Goldilocks bike. I like having bikes almost as much as I do riding them

[mjr]

No such bike exists for me sadly, too much variety in my riding for any single bike to cover all bases with an acceptable level of compromise.

Perfect excuse for multiple bikes though

Yes, I'm reconciled to three being ideal: the roadster is the do-it-all bike, the lighter/shorter road bike for when I know I'm going to be lifting it a lot and don't need to carry much, and the folding bike for trains/buses.

[Cugel]

I'm thinking of trading up to Trek gravel bike next Spring. For me it has everything I want in a bike: available in a large variety of sizes and finishes, lightweight, stiff, huge clearances for tyres and mudguards, disc braking, can fit a rack and the ability to run internal or wireless electric gearing. It's my perfect bike, the Goldilocks bike if you like, its just right.

What's your Goldilocks bike?

Usually, the one I've got. Or rather, the several. One just gets used to them.

On the other hand, even I get tugged by the odd techno-gubbins advert hook. The last time was 7 years ago, bike-wise. I excuse myself on the grounds that the selling of my 1980s racing bikes in 2009 for two cyclo-cross bikes then two Domanes a few years later was a necessary procedure because I moved from super-fit racing fellow to not-so-fit ole scroat (albeit still quite a rapid one) wanting comfort over nose-to-the-wheel and rock 'ard tyres kicking me nether.

I have no plans to buy another bike in the foreseeable future. The ladywife has just bought an electric bike of the racing style (Focus Parlane2) but this is to ride out with me, since she has given up fell running as it's likely to lead to the usual bad back, hips, knees, ankles and everything else, as with all her older and less careful friends who pursue that activity.

Still, I do consume the odd new thing. One bike has hydraulic disc brakes and tubular tyres. More an experiment to see if they really do have advantages for no real cost in practicality over the old fashioned alternatives. So far so good with them .... but I won't be getting rid of the tubed tyres and the calliper brakes on my other bikes.

Electric gears? Why does anyone need them? I know - cack-handed, mechanically ignorant and saw the adverts.

Cugel

[thelawnet]

I'm thinking of trading up to Trek gravel bike next Spring. For me it has everything I want in a bike: available in a large variety of sizes and finishes, lightweight, stiff, huge clearances for tyres and mudguards, disc braking, can fit a rack and the ability to run internal or wireless electric gearing. It's my perfect bike, the Goldilocks bike if you like, its just right.

I have been thinking about this, and I don't think there is such a thing.

A lot of the roads I go over are sufficiently sketchy on entry-level 2.1" MTB tyres (but much better with better tyres), and suspension is a definite requirement, so I would certainly not countenance them on any kind of 'gravel bike'. So you end up at a minimum with front suspension, and heavy wide tyres.

On the other hand if I was doing this climb, I'd like a lightweight road bike. https://www.strava.com/segments/12030016

But heading down I'd rather use this track: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@2.551822 ... 312!8i6656

which descends at 15% on an unsurfaced rocky track for several km. And I'd rather do that on a proper mountain bike.

And of course to get there in the first place I might cycle several days or weeks with luggage, and that is potentially a different bike again - a bike that can take lots of luggage is not the same as one that can carry a little.

Essentially if you want to climb up steep hills without luggage than you need a bike, to tour you need a different bike again, and for steep downhills over lots of rocks then another bike again. You can have 'one bike' that can do everything (aka 'a mountain bike'), but it's not going to do everything well.

Of course if you do have three bikes, it still doesn't solve the problem of which one to use! Some people like to drive their mountain bike to the trail for example. But I don't like that. If there is 'one' it must be a mountain bike (which still doesn't necessarily solve the problem of touring with luggage & trying to navigate trails).

As for the Trek gravel bikes

https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bike ... 6/p/22634/

you get 127tpi tyres that are "a pleasure to ride over forest paths and rolling fields". These will, yes, cope with a tow path, but they will wear out quickly & cost lots of money. The bike itself is just a lightweight touring bike and there's no real novelty there.

If you want to ride properly off-road than a MTB is the way to go and there are no magic 'gravel' tyres that can really solve that.

[Jamesh]

Croc Dr fer would get close to the all round bike?
Can anyone say if the 725 version is much better riding than the 525 version?
I guess it's the difference between 531 and 501?!

Would I give up my Cannondale carbon bike, my scott CX bike, my retro steel spd raleigh, my steel tourer and my steel mtb for a cdf??!!

Does anyone know the number for bikes annonymous?!

Cheers James