|
29/07/2009 3:58:00 PM
|
Tom Merrett
Posts 2
|
Hi thanks,
I am currently looking at a 2009 Avanti Sprint. What is it like and if anyone has one do you like it and what could be better. I cant find any reviews on the net.
Thanks
Tom
|
|
29/07/2009 7:05:16 PM
|
Michael Warner
Posts 122
|
Hi Tom,
Any bottom-end road bike from a reputable, well-known maker (such as Avanti) will be of decent quality, just heavier than more expensive ones. My first modern road bike was a Giant OCR3, which is similar to this one, and my only complaints were that the wheels (also Alex) wouldn't stay true and the supplied tyres and brake pads were crap. Chances are you'll want to upgrade these things pretty soon, at least.
Just looking at the Avanti's specs, I notice that it has a compact crankset (50/34 tooth chainrings), which gives you lower gears than the standard type (53/39). So it'll make climbing hills easier, but limit your upper speed on the way down - maybe compacts are standard on entry-level bikes now. More important than anything else is that you're well fitted to the bike, though - if the shop doesn't take this seriously and is reluctant to change the stem if necessary, go elsewhere.
|
|
29/07/2009 9:07:51 PM
|
Tom Merrett
Posts 2
|
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your advice and help. It is interesting about the wheels and brakes, also about the crankset. I see how important it is to get the bike fitted properly.
Thanks,
Tom
|
|
29/07/2009 11:03:28 PM
|
JDL
Posts 48
|
I have a 2001/2 (can't remember which!) Avanti Sprint which has been a great bike over the years. I've upgraded now but still ride it to work... Obviously the Sprint is heavier etc than more expensive bikes but you get what you pay for.... I've ridden it in the Adelaide hills for years on all the local climbs etc... They didn't have compact cranks back then and I've never tried them.. Not sure if they're a good idea or not? Great for people starting out climbing I guess, but I imagine if people climb in those lower gears they'll get a rude shock if they ever upgrade to a bike without compacts..
|
|
30/07/2009 12:53:24 AM
|
Frank Smith
Posts 6
|
Tom,
Sprint's not bad for entry level,
There is a 09 for sale on this site see market place http://www.cycle2max.com/sale-item.aspx?id=150
I have an Avanti 08 Giro. The avanti endurance range has a nice relaxed geometry and are really comfortable. My Giro has a compact crank and it's pretty handy when starting out for the hills. Where it's not so good is doing high cadence training on the flat as the lower chain ring is to low to hold a good pace and finding a good gear ratio is problematic. I wouldn't let this hold you back though, like i said handy in the hils when starting out.
As for picking up speed on the way down - the top chain ring is still a 53 the rest is up to how fast your willing to push it!
For a Wheel upgrade when the Alex's give up go for a pair of shimano WH-R500 round $200 @ LBS. I've run a pair of these for over 6000km and still going true and strong considering i'm around 90kg.
Great advice from Tom, tyres and pads would be a good upgrade as they are your key to staying upright and rubber side down! If you want them cheap try the Net: i've used wiggle.uk and torpeo7 and got tyres at almost %50 off.
Frank
|
|
30/07/2009 7:07:14 PM
|
Michael Warner
Posts 122
|
Frank Smith wrote:
As for picking up speed on the way down - the top chain ring is still a 53 the rest is up to how fast your willing to push it!
Frank
I think it's a 50, which is standard on compacts, but that's only about half a gear below a 53, so pretty trivial. The 39 to 34 reduction in the small ring is about 2 gears, though, so it effectively converts a 25 on the back to a 30 or so, which is nice for beginners climbing on heavy bikes.
I haven't ridden a compact crankset, but I'd imagine that the larger difference between rings makes front shifts a bit more prone to problems, and maybe requires a long-throw rear derailleur with some common clusters. Can anyone comment?
|
|
30/07/2009 8:07:30 PM
|
Jason B Spencer
Posts 5
|
Compact cranks are definately a plus.
I live in a hilly area of Melbourne and used them for the first 18months of cycling 'till they cracked (that's another story) I also took the 11-23 off and put a 12-27 cassette on also. Most ppl would consider this 'hack' gearing but i was racing A grade with that gearing. Definately not a hack but far from pro also.
Doesn't make sense to me why so many bikes seem to get sold with standard 53/39 and 11-23 or 25 cassettes when most pros don't train on that gearing.
Currently using standard cranks (don't train without a 27 though) but steal my old-mans compacts for 1 or 2 hillier races to keep the cadence up. On the steep stuff i still wish i had the 34 to pedal.
My dads Shimano R600 cranks shift almost as good as my dura-ace cranks (pretty much perfect) so if they're set up well the extra gap between gears shouldn't be an issue.
If you ride only flat roads standards are probably better, but if you have any hilly terrain and are looking at getting into the sport i'd definately lean toward compact cranks.
Jason
|
|
30/07/2009 10:17:11 PM
|
Michael Warner
Posts 122
|
Jason B Spencer wrote:
Compact cranks are definately a plus.
I live in a hilly area of Melbourne and used them for the first 18months of cycling 'till they cracked (that's another story) I also took the 11-23 off and put a 12-27 cassette on also. Most ppl would consider this 'hack' gearing but i was racing A grade with that gearing. Definately not a hack but far from pro also.
Doesn't make sense to me why so many bikes seem to get sold with standard 53/39 and 11-23 or 25 cassettes when most pros don't train on that gearing.
Jason
I'm a bit surprised that someone strong enough to race C grade or higher would use them, but perhaps you have worse grades there. I haven't found anything that I can't get over with 39/25, but I'm certainly standing and grinding hard at 20%, which is about the steepest I've tried. Perhaps I'd get up those sort of grades faster with a compact :-)
I agree that 23 is too small to be standard on new bikes, though. Even amongst strong riders, not many can climb well without a 25 IME.
|
|
31/07/2009 9:48:00 AM
|
Frank Smith
Posts 6
|
Jason
I'm a bit surprised that someone strong enough to race C grade or higher would use them, but perhaps you have worse grades there. I haven't found anything that I can't get over with 39/25, but I'm certainly standing and grinding hard at 20%, which is about the steepest I've tried. Perhaps I'd get up those sort of grades faster with a compact :-)
Compact crank never held me back in C grade here in Adelaide!
|
|
31/07/2009 1:00:51 PM
|
Clayton Marsland
Posts 6
|
Frank Smith wrote:
Jason
I'm a bit surprised that someone strong enough to race C grade or higher would use them, but perhaps you have worse grades there. I haven't found anything that I can't get over with 39/25, but I'm certainly standing and grinding hard at 20%, which is about the steepest I've tried. Perhaps I'd get up those sort of grades faster with a compact :-)
Compact crank never held me back in C grade here in Adelaide!
I have the same bike as Frank with 50 - 36 chainrings. I have found the compact system a bit impractical as there is a huge jump when changing from big to small eg before a climb but do love the 36 chain ring for the steep inclines, and recommend it for someone just starting out. I will probably change to 39 when my original chain rings wear out. However, I wasn't aware that the quality of a rider is determined by the equipment he or she uses. Like Frank, I manage to race with a compact system and have only spun out my biggest gear in a sprint once.
|
|
31/07/2009 1:20:15 PM
|
Robert Rau
Posts 150
|
I will probably need a compact crank when I get back into Adelaide due to lack of training. I was happiest with the 53/42 crankset with 23-12 gears as could climb most hills efficiently as I hate spinning - heart rate jumps up too quick with the rapid spinning Strength instead
|
|
31/07/2009 2:26:16 PM
|
Frank Smith
Posts 6
|
"I wasn't aware that thequality of a rider is determined by the equipment he or she uses"
Spot on clayton
|
|
31/07/2009 3:00:15 PM
|
Jeff Marsland
Posts 20
|
Just as a matter of interest. The standard gearing for a road bike back in the 60s was 54/48 with a 13/21, 5 speed cluster. Are cyclists getting weaker or are they just preserving their knees?
|
|
31/07/2009 3:41:53 PM
|
Frank Smith
Posts 6
|
Prior to the 60's they rode a single speed! its just progress!
|
|
31/07/2009 5:10:05 PM
|
Michael Warner
Posts 122
|
Jeff Turner wrote:
Just as a matter of interest. The standard gearing for a road bike back in the 60s was 54/48 with a 13/21, 5 speed cluster. Are cyclists getting weaker or are they just preserving their knees?
If you look at vintage footage of pro cycling, you'll see that they were real grinders by today's standards, and reportedly a lot slower, although the extra weight of steel bikes was also a factor on hills. So we're probably losing some absolute leg strength, but getting faster and fitter, and those who are prone to knee problems are able to avoid them and keep riding.
It's great that we have the choice of spinning or grinding up all nearly any hill these days, depending on what suits us, how we want to train and what our knees can take.
|
|
pages:
1 |
|---|