Canyon vs Rose

EKIMIKE

In a lab test you may be able to compare 'stiffness'. In reality, on the road, no human will realistically be able to tell the difference in 'stiffness' between these two high end carbon bikes.

If you were comparing a high end carbon frame with a frame of another material (Alu, Ti, Low end carbon, Steel e.t.c.) then maybe. In this case however, there are more relevant questions like does the geometry suit you, which one do you prefer the look of e.t.c.

MarcoX

Are there lab test for any of the alu or carbon models? I have seen some German made tests with flex per newton, for one (can't remember which) Canyon, but are there any for Rose, too?

EKIMIKE

MarcoX wrote:

Are there lab test for any of the alu or carbon models? I have seen some German made tests with flex per newton, for one (can't remember which) Canyon, but are there any for Rose, too?

Probably but i doubt they're published. No need really. You're simply not going to be able to purchase a bike that is 'sub-standardly flexy' of 'flexy' to a noticable degree. The modern standards of manufacturing are simply too good. They would stand out like a sore thumb in the market if they were anything but superb.

I'd even go as far to contest that this whole discourse about 'stiffness' is a subjective/'feel' matter as opposed to objective/measureable performance gains. So when a tester describes a bike as super-stiff, he's talking about a feeling, a sensation of stiffness. Not a gain in speed due to efficient power transfer. Bascially what i'm trying to say is that the generally noticeable obsession with 'stiffness' is a total red herring so don't even consider it. Fit, on the other hand, is entirely noticeable and entirely paramount!

MarcoX

EKIMIKE wrote:

MarcoX wrote:

Are there lab test for any of the alu or carbon models? I have seen some German made tests with flex per newton, for one (can't remember which) Canyon, but are there any for Rose, too?

Probably but i doubt they're published. No need really. You're simply not going to be able to purchase a bike that is 'sub-standardly flexy' of 'flexy' to a noticable degree. The modern standards of manufacturing are simply too good. They would stand out like a sore thumb in the market if they were anything but superb.

I'd even go as far to contest that this whole discourse about 'stiffness' is a subjective/'feel' matter as opposed to objective/measureable performance gains. So when a tester describes a bike as super-stiff, he's talking about a feeling, a sensation of stiffness. Not a gain in speed due to efficient power transfer. Bascially what i'm trying to say is that the generally noticeable obsession with 'stiffness' is a total red herring so don't even consider it. Fit, on the other hand, is entirely noticeable and entirely paramount!

You put forward a valid point. However, as I have been reading a lot of tests I can't help to wonder: is it truly not so that, for example, a Specialized Roubaix is more comfortable than a Rose (which in tests, do seem to be pegged as stiff)? And if this is true, there might exist a noticeable difference between Canyon and Rose. A difference that might change my purchasing decision.

EKIMIKE

@Marcox: Define comfortable? Nothing is more comfortable than a bike that fits your position 100%. The Roubaix may be defined as more comfortable because of it's relaxed geometry not necessarily any frame properties.

The notion that a frame provides much of a meaningful input in terms of ride comfort (beyond fit) is clutching at straws IMO... for a few reasons. First being that a frame is not a contact point; true it may transfer unwanted forces to your contact points but nothing that can't be mitigated with smart contact point selection and adjustment. For example if your bum is sore then chances are your saddle is the cause. Even if the saddle is not to blame then next port of call is seatpost. There are a growing number of seatposts out there with specific 'flex' design that can mitigate a harsh frame. Next port of call is tires, if they're running at 120psi then clearly this is the problem not the frame. You will roll just as fast with 23/25mm tyres at 100psi and corner even better with 25mm tires.

Then consider handlebars as the other significant contact point. The most likely source of sore arms and hands is associated with height and angle as opposed to frame. Choose a bike with the correct head-tube height for your position and your handlebars will be at the right height (without the compormise of loads of spacers or a flipped stem). If you're really desperate double wrap your bars or use thick tape and if you want to go further use gel gloves.

Ultimately frame comfort (beyond fit) is really not relevant in the list of desireable frame attributes. Correct fit, good handling, sufficient BB/chainstay stiffness and durability rank higher.

As for the specific example of the Spec Roubaix, don't confuse the context of the reviews your are reading. You must consider not just the frame but also the kit supplied. They come with 25mm tires as opposed to 23mm as standard and thick Spec. bar tape which is damn comfy. This, combined with the relaxed geometry account for the majority of what is being described as comfort IMO. Whilst you can make more/less compliant carbon frame, in the wider context it's very insignificant. It definitely doesn't compare to any sort of 'suspension' despite some of the raving reviews. They're simply wrong, or have an interest in perpetuating marketing myths (which lets face it, almost all cycling publications do as they are part of the industry, directly or indirectly).