People on the internet like to say that the correct number of bikes to have is n+1, where n equals the number of bikes you currently have. To me, this seems mildly idiotic, as it tends to lead to an infinite number of bicycles.
My current thinking is that the correct number is three. These should consist of:
- A road / touring / randonneuring style bike
- A mountain / fire trail / all terrain style bike
- A city / commuter / foul weather style bike
It is becoming obvious to me that my Eastman Roadster is not a suitable bike for my purposes. It’s just to small for me, and no amount to monkey business with funny stems and handlebars is going to make it work. So, I’m getting rid of it. (If you want it, lemme know. I’ll let it go for a case of good beer or equivalent).
Anyhow, this leaves me with a hole in my holy trinity of bicycles. Before I got the roadster, I was planning to build up a cross check with Sturmey Archer gearing and whatnot, but I spent too much time gawking at Dottie and Velouria, and I got all swept away with the romance of the old style city bikes, and ended up with the Roadster.
In any event, the most obvious option would be to pick up a cross check frame as I originally planned, and use the cross check with albatross bars and hub gears for my city bike.
The other option is to put the sturmey wheels on my Trek (which currently sports Albatross bars anyhow) and get a whole new bike for the category 1 road / touring / randonneuring bike.
But why would I want to turn my road bike into a dopey City bike anyhow? Well, I’m not sure exactly what, but something is different about it ever since I crashed it and had to replace the fork. I’m not sure if it’s the rake, or if it’s merely aesthetic, but something is different, and I just don’t feel the love on the Trek anymore the way I did when she looked like this:
She looks like this at the moment.
Anyways, as I see it, if I’m going to get a new road bike, there are really only two legitimate options within my feeble budget. Either a Cross Check, or a Long Haul Trucker.
I’ve been spending the past few days reading frame geometry charts, stroking my beard, and being indecisive. I really like my Trek, except I with the top tube was a bit longer, and I wish it could take bigger tires. Either frame would do those things for me. Here is the geometry breakdown of both frames, compared to the Trek.
|Head Tube Angle||72||72||72|
|Seat Tube Angle||72||72.7||72|
My Trek appears to occupy the middle ground between the full loaded touring manliness of the LHT, and the more roadish sportiness of the CC. But, the CC has the semi-horizontal dropouts that would make it work with my Sturmey Hub if this frame ends up as the City bike afterall, and the CC can take pretty seriously big tires. I have seen pictures on the internet of people running nanoraptors on one. I don’t plan to run nanoraptors, but it’s pretty cool that I could.
On the other hand, the LTH has thicker tubing, which might come in handy since I’m a big fat ass at the moment.
Actually, now that I’ve had to go back through my blog and dig out the old pictures of the Trek, I’ve had time to reminisce about all our lovely adventures together over the years, and I think I want to give her another chance to be my road bike, ugly fork and all. I think I need to put the drop bars back on her before I make any rash decisions.