Best frame for around £1000
navier_stokes
Posts: 77
Anyone got any opinions on the best frame for around a grand?
Cheers!
Cheers!
0
Comments
-
This depends on what material you want, if you want a stock or custom frame, and what kind of frame ie. audax, race, sportive, etc.
It's a very open question as you have a helluva choice.0 -
Stock frame, probably CF but open to suggestions, sportive/entusiastic amateur type riding
0 -
I've just got a Kuota Kebel bang on the money. Haven't had chance to try it yet but hope to get it built up before next w/end.0
-
Planet X are doing a Titanium one for a grand,built by the same family who started up Litespeed & built it up before selling out to one of the big manufacturers.
Seems to be the material of choice for your riding requirements,& if anyone has the pedigree,they have,along with Planet x attitude to high turnover,low profit margins,you'd be onto a winner.
Not sure how much Sunday cycles charge for theirs,but certainly don't have the same in depth background knowledge.
As for searching out for the absolute lightest,as seems to be the craze,the VERY lightest frame may be up to 1lb lighter,but you'd be sure to notice more if you went for some light wheels.
I do ride a titanium frame (one of the last Raleighs) & at the end of a long day in the saddle,no back aches & pains.
Hope this helpsso many cols,so little time!0 -
nick hanson wrote:Not sure how much Sunday cycles charge for theirs,but certainly don't have the same in depth background knowledge.
As for searching out for the absolute lightest,as seems to be the craze,the VERY lightest frame may be up to 1lb lighter,but you'd be sure to notice more if you went for some light wheels.
I do ride a titanium frame (one of the last Raleighs) & at the end of a long day in the saddle,no back aches & pains.
Hope this helps
For racing, last week's Cycling weekly gave all the honours to CF bikes. However for long distance events such as audaxes or sportives or just a long day out on yiur own, I agree Ti is worth a look and a bit of research. The "relaxed geometry" of so called Sportive frames would be a good start. The Sunday Silk road is £800 frame only. I have one and can vouch for their fitting and service. Also check out Enigma, Van Nicholas at these price points. As Nick Hanson said Planet X have a competitive offering.
Expect to spend a total of £1800 - £2200 to spec up said frames and do them justice.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
Sunday seem to get very good reviews from people who've ridden them, and if (when) I add a titanium bike to my garage, they'll be in the running along with Enigma.
www.fatbirds.co.uk are doing Silk Road framesets for £700 at the moment, including free forks and headset.Carlsberg don't make cycle clothing, but if they did it would probably still not be as good as Assos0 -
Now thats a good price,especially as the silk road,in its category of all round road/audax/sportive gets a far better rating than the Sunday model (was it 'Mondays child'?) that was used in a recent race bike test.Slow Downcp wrote:Sunday seem to get very good reviews from people who've ridden them, and if (when) I add a titanium bike to my garage, they'll be in the running along with Enigma.
www.fatbirds.co.uk are doing Silk Road framesets for £700 at the moment, including free forks and headset.
Also you can't say cw had a very fair/objective test,when some of the bikes were a couple of grand,& some of the FRAMES on the other test bikes were a couple of grand!so many cols,so little time!0 -
Cheers for the suggestions, I'll check them out.
What are peoples thoughts on the Orbea onix frame? Seems a bit of a bargain to me - just under a grand0 -
As a comparison between Carbon and Titanium frames, in my own opinion here are a few pointers that may be of interestnavier_stokes wrote:Stock frame, probably CF but open to suggestions, sportive/entusiastic amateur type riding
Frames made of Carbon: With sufficient research and development can result in a bike that is comfortable, very light and efficient at transferring energy into propulsion as the material does not flex as much as other materials. Although strong they can be delicate, where other materials dent, Carbon will often crack. Most common rider is either a racing cyclist or someone who still likes to have a ‘best bike’ that can to an extent have a precious existance, therefore not normally the choice for audax/touring bikes where robustness may be preferred.
Frames made of Titanium: Becoming more popular, virtually no performance drop as they don’t even rust, comfortable, light, yet robust. Performance wise not quite as responsive as a top level well designed carbon frame, although really it is that not far off, some pro riders now even use Titanium like Magnus Bakstedt a former Paris Roubaix winner, other Pro Teams used Titanium frames painted up to look like normal production bikes of their team sponsors, often used in races where comfort can become an issue, for example over the cobbles of the Paris Roubaix, as riders are bashed about so much it can lead to fatigue.
The down side is that Titanium is very hard to work/build with; so most don't! On the upside because of this the workman ship simply has to be of top quality and it shows, most Titanium frames do look and are very well made. Most common used when someone wants a fast, responsive, light comfortable yet robust, durable bike and of course where price is not so much of an issue. Titanium is therefore and ideal choice for longer day rides/audax/touring bikes.
Some useful links regarding frame materials:
sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials
VN Frame materials
Caree frame-materials
Paul_Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk0 -
I do feel the need to point out that frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort - that's all down to geometry in combination with tyre size/pressure and to a smaller extent the flex in the seatpost and the saddle. Compared to the amount of vertical deflection from tyres, seatpost and saddle the vertical flex in a standard double diamond frame is negligible. Reported differences are pretty much just placebo effect.
Strange to see how you talk about differences in comfort, Paul, yet your first link is to Sheldon's page where he says much the same as I have. For those who won't believe me, I suggest a visit to http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html#ride
The only two valid arguments I can see for ti over CF are firstly aesthetic - a lot of people like the look of ti frames - and secondly the durability issue. Though I believe even that is overblown, as CF frames are tougher than people seem to think (I've got bruised toes from a huge lump of rock which had just bounced off the downtube of my CF mountain bike and not even scratched it). In reality, the sort of impact which would crack a CF frame would likely put a big enough dent in a high end ti frame that I suspect many would consider scrapping it.0 -
It is indeed one of the reasons why I stated at the beginning of my post “in my own opinion…” then linked to others who like you don’t agree that “frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort”aracer wrote:I do feel the need to point out that frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort - that's all down to geometry in combination with tyre size/pressure and to a smaller extent the flex in the seatpost and the saddle. Compared to the amount of vertical deflection from tyres, seatpost and saddle the vertical flex in a standard double diamond frame is negligible. Reported differences are pretty much just placebo effect.
Strange to see how you talk about differences in comfort, Paul, yet your first link is to Sheldon's page where he says much the same as I have. For those who won't believe me, I suggest a visit to http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html#ride
The only two valid arguments I can see for ti over CF are firstly aesthetic - a lot of people like the look of ti frames - and secondly the durability issue. Though I believe even that is overblown, as CF frames are tougher than people seem to think (I've got bruised toes from a huge lump of rock which had just bounced off the downtube of my CF mountain bike and not even scratched it). In reality, the sort of impact which would crack a CF frame would likely put a big enough dent in a high end ti frame that I suspect many would consider scrapping it.
I have ridden frames of same geometry and specification interms of tyre and equipment choice but in different frame materials, I am experienced enough to notice even small differences and would consider them large enough for them not to be just a placebo effect that’s for sure, where as others can hardly notice any difference between different styles of bikes let alone materials. I have been a club level rider for thirty years and have cycled what must be approaching 200’000 miles on various bikes, plus I have worked in specialist cycle retailers for over twenty so if I can’t tell by now then of course I am in the wrong job
!
As for CF ATB bikes these will be designed differently to a race bike of course, so expect them to be more robust. With sufficient R & D and quality manufacture even a carbon race bike though should enjoy a long life, it should not fail under normal circumstances. I personally prefer Titanium or steel for Touring or Audax and because I am inclined to keep bikes for a long time the same applies to race bikes also, although if I replaced them more often and was looking for out and out performance then for a race bike I would consider Carbon.
A forum is about sharing opinions of course and most of us have them, they are there to be either agreed with or dismissed as the reader sees fit.
Paul_Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk0 -
Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:
It is indeed one of the reasons why I stated at the beginning of my post “in my own opinion…” then linked to others who like you don’t agree that “frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort”aracer wrote:I do feel the need to point out that frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort - that's all down to geometry in combination with tyre size/pressure and to a smaller extent the flex in the seatpost and the saddle. Compared to the amount of vertical deflection from tyres, seatpost and saddle the vertical flex in a standard double diamond frame is negligible. Reported differences are pretty much just placebo effect.
Strange to see how you talk about differences in comfort, Paul, yet your first link is to Sheldon's page where he says much the same as I have. For those who won't believe me, I suggest a visit to http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html#ride
The only two valid arguments I can see for ti over CF are firstly aesthetic - a lot of people like the look of ti frames - and secondly the durability issue. Though I believe even that is overblown, as CF frames are tougher than people seem to think (I've got bruised toes from a huge lump of rock which had just bounced off the downtube of my CF mountain bike and not even scratched it). In reality, the sort of impact which would crack a CF frame would likely put a big enough dent in a high end ti frame that I suspect many would consider scrapping it.
I have ridden frames of same geometry and specification interms of tyre and equipment choice but in different frame materials, I am experienced enough to notice even small differences and would consider them large enough for them not to be just a placebo effect that’s for sure, where as others can hardly notice any difference between different styles of bikes let alone materials. I have been a club level rider for thirty years and have cycled what must be approaching 200’000 miles on various bikes, plus I have worked in specialist cycle retailers for over twenty so if I can’t tell by now then of course I am in the wrong job !
As for CF ATB bikes these will be designed differently to a race bike of course, so expect them to be more robust. With sufficient R & D and quality manufacture even a carbon race bike though should enjoy a long life, it should not fail under normal circumstances. I personally prefer Titanium or steel for Touring or Audax and because I am inclined to keep bikes for a long time the same applies to race bikes also, although if I replaced them more often and was looking for out and out performance then for a race bike I would consider Carbon.
A forum is about sharing opinions of course and most of us have them, they are there to be either agreed with or dismissed as the reader sees fit.
Paul_Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk
One thing worth pointing out is that carbon fibre can be manipulated into pretty much any shape ... and frame design is advancing in this respect. This, as aracer implies, does allow comfort to be built into a frame.
I agree the "carbon is fragile" thing is way overblown. Just think in terms of how many tens of thousands of carbon forks, frames and wheels are flying around out there right now ... failures only make it onto the internet because they're the exception.
On the aesthetic point, it cuts both ways. I actually think if anything the current market favours the carbon fibre nude or painted aesthetic rather than the plain jane silver of most Ti bikes, but each to their own.0 -
Nothing wrong with carbon when it comes to comfort, bikes like the Specialized Roubaix range make superb long distance fast mile eating bikes, they are set up to be just that and they indeed are.wildmoustache wrote:One thing worth pointing out is that carbon fibre can be manipulated into pretty much any shape ... and frame design is advancing in this respect. This, as aracer implies, does allow comfort to be built into a frame.
I agree the "carbon is fragile" thing is way overblown. Just think in terms of how many tens of thousands of carbon forks, frames and wheels are flying around out there right now ... failures only make it onto the internet because they're the exception.
I am inclined to agree, carbon is more robust than many believe it to be, but that does mean that it is a robust as other materials, so where a rider wants a bike with an element of robustness then it is a valid consideration in my opinion, in fairness I should have focused my post with more emphasis between carbon and Ti' on that.
Paul_Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk0 -
if you need a size '56' then sigma have am 07 S-Works roubaix frame in just your size:
https://www.sigmasport.co.uk/app/secure ... ilyID=1773
I have the 08 model (although I actually bought the 07 in this sale - it's a long story)
It's an amazing frame - built with carbon centaur / campag Eurus / ITM finishing kit - it came in at around £1800. very sharp frame but stil comfy (how do they do that...)
and it's a £1600 frame for under a grand - got to be worth looking at!0 -
I obviously missed the bit where you said that the links you provided were to people who had different opinions to yours (assuming that's what you mean by the above - the double negative makes it rather confusing). If that's the case, then if you don't agree with Sheldon or presumably John Olsen (since he makes no mention of comfort in his advantages/disadvantages, the reasonable assumption is that he agrees with me and Sheldon that it's a non-issue) then you also don't agree with Van Nicholas who say "It’s stiff enough so energy is not lost through the tubing, but springy too, so road vibration is minimized enhancing comfort on long rides."? :?Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:It is indeed one of the reasons why I stated at the beginning of my post “in my own opinion…” then linked to others who like you don’t agree that “frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort”
So the differences are large enough not to be placebo effect, yet not large enough that other people without your sensitivity can even feel them? I think maybe you need to look up the placebo effect to see how powerful it really is. The issue I believe is that frames made from different materials do feel different - that's not in dispute - because the amount of lateral flex and torsional flex around the BB when you pedal, or particularly when you honk is significantly different between them. However the amount of vertical flex is insignificant compared to the flex in the tyres/saddle/seatpost - basic physics and material properties tell us that, and those are fundamental laws of the universe which don't change just because you make the metal tubes into a bicycle frame. What I suspect happens is that somehow your brain thinks that because the frame is flexing sideways it is also flexing vertically and is therefore helping with the comfort (when it's not).I have ridden frames of same geometry and specification interms of tyre and equipment choice but in different frame materials, I am experienced enough to notice even small differences and would consider them large enough for them not to be just a placebo effect that’s for sure, where as others can hardly notice any difference between different styles of bikes let alone materials.
I suppose as I've only been an engineer for 16 years you've got me trumped there - though it is about 25 years since I knew enough physics to understand the basic principle about how bike frames don't flex (significantly) in a vertical direction - as explained by Sheldon, so I won't repeat the explanation here.I have been a club level rider for thirty years and have cycled what must be approaching 200’000 miles on various bikes, plus I have worked in specialist cycle retailers for over twenty so if I can’t tell by now then of course I am in the wrong job !
Indeed, but then you would expect the same from a titanium MTB, and I've seen those with dents in from the sort of thing my CF frame has shrugged off.As for CF ATB bikes these will be designed differently to a race bike of course, so expect them to be more robust.
So should I get rid of my 10 year old carbon bike since it's outlived it's reasonable lifespan? When should I consider getting rid of it - personally I was hoping it might last me at least another 20?I personally prefer Titanium or steel for Touring or Audax and because I am inclined to keep bikes for a long time the same applies to race bikes also, although if I replaced them more often and was looking for out and out performance then for a race bike I would consider Carbon.0 -
0
-
As I mentioned earlier we are all entitled to our opinions and for sure there are often examples that can be quoted in an attempt to justify those opinions, where you quote your carbon frame has shrugged of the sort of thing that has dented other frames, I could quote examples that could possibly indicate the opposite.aracer wrote:
I obviously missed the bit where you said that the links you provided were to people who had different opinions to yours (assuming that's what you mean by the above - the double negative makes it rather confusing). If that's the case, then if you don't agree with Sheldon or presumably John Olsen (since he makes no mention of comfort in his advantages/disadvantages, the reasonable assumption is that he agrees with me and Sheldon that it's a non-issue) then you also don't agree with Van Nicholas who say "It’s stiff enough so energy is not lost through the tubing, but springy too, so road vibration is minimized enhancing comfort on long rides."? :?Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:It is indeed one of the reasons why I stated at the beginning of my post “in my own opinion…” then linked to others who like you don’t agree that “frame material makes no real detectable difference to ride comfort”
So the differences are large enough not to be placebo effect, yet not large enough that other people without your sensitivity can even feel them? I think maybe you need to look up the placebo effect to see how powerful it really is. The issue I believe is that frames made from different materials do feel different - that's not in dispute - because the amount of lateral flex and torsional flex around the BB when you pedal, or particularly when you honk is significantly different between them. However the amount of vertical flex is insignificant compared to the flex in the tyres/saddle/seatpost - basic physics and material properties tell us that, and those are fundamental laws of the universe which don't change just because you make the metal tubes into a bicycle frame. What I suspect happens is that somehow your brain thinks that because the frame is flexing sideways it is also flexing vertically and is therefore helping with the comfort (when it's not).I have ridden frames of same geometry and specification interms of tyre and equipment choice but in different frame materials, I am experienced enough to notice even small differences and would consider them large enough for them not to be just a placebo effect that’s for sure, where as others can hardly notice any difference between different styles of bikes let alone materials.
I suppose as I've only been an engineer for 16 years you've got me trumped there - though it is about 25 years since I knew enough physics to understand the basic principle about how bike frames don't flex (significantly) in a vertical direction - as explained by Sheldon, so I won't repeat the explanation here.I have been a club level rider for thirty years and have cycled what must be approaching 200’000 miles on various bikes, plus I have worked in specialist cycle retailers for over twenty so if I can’t tell by now then of course I am in the wrong job !
Indeed, but then you would expect the same from a titanium MTB, and I've seen those with dents in from the sort of thing my CF frame has shrugged off.As for CF ATB bikes these will be designed differently to a race bike of course, so expect them to be more robust.
So should I get rid of my 10 year old carbon bike since it's outlived it's reasonable lifespan? When should I consider getting rid of it - personally I was hoping it might last me at least another 20?I personally prefer Titanium or steel for Touring or Audax and because I am inclined to keep bikes for a long time the same applies to race bikes also, although if I replaced them more often and was looking for out and out performance then for a race bike I would consider Carbon.
Although many can’t not tell any differences with frames of the same geometry but made of different materials, many can. As I mentioned in my previous post I agreed that carbon is more robust than many believe it to be, so many likes yours have lasted a long time and should continue to do so. Just because many Carbon frames will and indeed should enjoy a long life, that is not to say that I believe Carbon is as robust as Steel or Titanium though, although this will have to remain an opinion we don’t seem to share; but this is a what is healthy about a forum such as this, others can view what are as far as I am concerned often valid, yet remain different points of view.
Paul_Smith
www.bikeplus.co.uk0 -
The laws of physics couldn't care less about your opinion.Paul_Smith SRCC wrote:As I mentioned earlier we are all entitled to our opinions and for sure there are often examples that can be quoted in an attempt to justify those opinions,
As I said, I'm quite happy to accept that people can tell the difference between frames made from different materials - it's just that what they're feeling isn't a difference in ride comfort, but a difference in lateral and torsional flex due to pedalling.Although many can’t not tell any differences with frames of the same geometry but made of different materials, many can.0 -
get a fukin grip. :roll:0
-
I feel aracer is being overly pedantic here.
A frames material is a vital consideration. Both in terms of stiffness and strength, due to the fact that the way the frame is designed and made is dependent on the type of material used.
The difference in vertical compliance between different designs and materials can have a significant effect on the feel of a frame, as it can on stiffness in the chainstays( transmitting pedaling forces), steering precision etc.
I fail to see how you can discount the effect of vertical compliance in the frame and forks on ride comfort.Tthe effects of other components should be considered, but the effect of the frame and fork shouldn't be dismissed.
Vertical compliance in a frame isnt just at the back end as many people might assume. when you go over a bump the front and rear wheels will have a certain amount of fore and aft splay. Have a look at Jeff Jones mountain bikes which are designed to take full advantage of this type of compliance in the frame and forks.
This is due to flex in the fame and forks, and will translate to a degree of comfort provided to the rider. The amount of compliance due to the wheels splaying apart is dependent on the frame material, design and manufacture.
Well thats my opinion anyway, hope its of use to someone.0 -
fink wrote:I feel aracer is being overly pedantic here.
Well thats my opinion anyway, hope its of use to someone.
Well pedantic is one word but aarw is probably closer to the mark!
As to your opinion, it will be of use to aracer as he uses it to generate more rambling posts rubbishing it.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
Is it pedantic to point out that physics tells you a frame doesn't flex significantly in a vertical direction when everybody else is claiming it does?fink wrote:I feel aracer is being overly pedantic here.
Because it's insignificant compared to the other factors (ie <1%), hence the differences between different frames are more than lost in the noise of whether you've got 5psi more or less in your tyres.I fail to see how you can discount the effect of vertical compliance in the frame and forks on ride comfort.Tthe effects of other components should be considered, but the effect of the frame and fork shouldn't be dismissed.
Hmm - fork flex will contribute to "splay" to some extent, though I reckon the cushioning effect when the rear wheel hits a bump is pretty limited. However the frame is going to contribute no more to "splay" than it does to cushioning the bump through the seatstays, which is what is normally understood by a frame being comfortable. To do so the downtube would have to stretch and it is no more flexible along its length than the seatstays are along theirs, so the same principle applies.Vertical compliance in a frame isnt just at the back end as many people might assume. when you go over a bump the front and rear wheels will have a certain amount of fore and aft splay. Have a look at Jeff Jones mountain bikes which are designed to take full advantage of this type of compliance in the frame and forks.
Because he was more rude?pedylan wrote:Well pedantic is one word but aarw is probably closer to the mark!
Happy to obligeAs to your opinion, it will be of use to aracer as he uses it to generate more rambling posts rubbishing it. Though my posts are only rambling because I'm making an attempt to educate the folks on here who seem so unwilling to learn anything if it doesn't conform to their perceived wisdom. Would you be happier if I just replied "you're wrong, frames contribute nothing to comfort" to every post suggesting ti frames are more comfortable? Just because you don't agree with the physics doesn't mean it's wrong. 0 -
aracer wrote:
Because it's insignificant compared to the other factors (ie <1%), hence the differences between different frames are more than lost in the noise of whether you've got 5psi more or less in your tyres.I fail to see how you can discount the effect of vertical compliance in the frame and forks on ride comfort.Tthe effects of other components should be considered, but the effect of the frame and fork shouldn't be dismissed.
Aracer is right. 25mm tyres over 23mm make a far far far far greater difference to comfort than frame materials.0 -
"Hmm - fork flex will contribute to "splay" to some extent, though I reckon the cushioning effect when the rear wheel hits a bump is pretty limited. However the frame is going to contribute no more to "splay" than it does to cushioning the bump through the seatstays, which is what is normally understood by a frame being comfortable. To do so the downtube would have to stretch and it is no more flexible along its length than the seatstays are along theirs, so the same principle applies."
Frame and forks do splay apart, look at any cyclic testing rig that is used to test bike frames and forks. Why do they test this splay if it doesnt happen whilst riding?
It does happen, and it does contribute to comfort.
"Because it's insignificant compared to the other factors (ie <1%"
Where are you getting that figure from?0 -
Aracer is right. 25mm tyres over 23mm make a far far far far greater difference to comfort than frame materials.[/quote]
Yes bigger tyres do make a difference to comfort, but they also increase wheel weight and rolling resistance. As ive mentioned previously its worth considering all the components of the bike as a system. Compromises between performance and comfort will need to be considered in every component.0 -
"Aracer is right. 25mm tyres over 23mm make a far far far far greater difference to comfort than frame materials."
Just so! And make a great difference to SAME frame. In last week I have ridden my '64 531 Carlton ("lovely old steel comfort, long wheelbase and stays, springy...." etc etc) on 700x20s and 27x1 1/4"s. And yes I could tell the difference - over exact same route.d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
fink wrote:Aracer is right. 25mm tyres over 23mm make a far far far far greater difference to comfort than frame materials.
Yes bigger tyres do make a difference to comfort, but they also increase wheel weight and rolling resistance. As ive mentioned previously its worth considering all the components of the bike as a system. Compromises between performance and comfort will need to be considered in every component.[/quote]
The performance decrease is negligible to the comfort increase. If performance was no1 priority the frame construction would probably be very stiff, lowering the comfort anyway.0 -
fink wrote:A frames material is a vital consideration. Both in terms of stiffness and strength, due to the fact that the way the frame is designed and made is dependent on the type of material used.
The difference in vertical compliance between different designs and materials can have a significant effect on the feel of a frame, as it can on stiffness in the chainstays( transmitting pedaling forces), steering precision etc.
Hi there.
I may be missing the point here, but maybe you could explain how ti frames are often marketed as being stiff in the horizontal plane, but vertically compliant are these properties attributed to the material used?
Cheers, Andy0 -
nick hanson wrote:Planet X are doing a Titanium one for a grand,built by the same family who started up Litespeed & built it up before selling out to one of the big manufacturers.
Seems to be the material of choice for your riding requirements,& if anyone has the pedigree,they have,along with Planet x attitude to high turnover,low profit margins,you'd be onto a winner.
Not sure how much Sunday cycles charge for theirs,but certainly don't have the same in depth background knowledge.
As for searching out for the absolute lightest,as seems to be the craze,the VERY lightest frame may be up to 1lb lighter,but you'd be sure to notice more if you went for some light wheels.
I do ride a titanium frame (one of the last Raleighs) & at the end of a long day in the saddle,no back aches & pains.
Hope this helps
Your right, we (Sunday) have only been around for less than 2 years, but i'd suggest that we have fantastic design knowledge. In fact, as an example, we've actually been advising Reynolds on some wheel design issues recently, so bigger doesn't need to mean better....
Further, i saw some comment on Mondays Child not being as 'good' as Silk Road. For my opinion on this matter, see: http://sundaybicycles.blogspot.com/
Thanks,
Greg0
