How many of you have never turned to carbon?

2»

Comments

  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    LOL at entry level being 4k.

    4k would be a complete waste of money for a beginner. Spend a grand or so and you've a bike thats 95% as good as a 4k bike. See how you get on with that - you might hate it, or find its the wrong size or type.
    If you're still cycling after a year or two - then you may want to think about getting another bike - at which point your old bike can become the winter bike.
  • Jim C
    Jim C Posts: 333
    Been riding many years.

    Have a carbon track bike. Very nice
    Alu road, cross, track and TT bikes. Otherwise steel.
    Nothing wrong with Alu, up to and including racing. Have seen people race recently on Reynolds 953 steel.
    Its not about frame material
    jc
  • muzzan
    muzzan Posts: 203
    I've just ordered a new Aluminium bike as my summer/good bike. I was going to go for Carbon, but posted here asking what the benefits were (NOT weight as the alu bike I was looking at is actually lighter than its carbon equivalent).

    None of the replies convinced me the extra £300-500 was worth it for an equivalent spec. I had assumed comfort would be a factor, but having had a (albeit brief) test ride on a carbon bike I didnt notice any significant difference from my current alu bike.

    Thing is, if its only a subtle difference that you notice over time, I'd rather save my money & not know what I'm missing!
  • Mikey23
    Mikey23 Posts: 5,306
    Put a deposit on a spec roubaix elite this morning...

    Seems like a brilliant bike and a joy to ride. Then changed the brake pads on my defy 4 and took it for a spin and love that too
  • thescouselander
    thescouselander Posts: 549
    cougie wrote:
    LOL at entry level being 4k.

    4k would be a complete waste of money for a beginner. Spend a grand or so and you've a bike thats 95% as good as a 4k bike. See how you get on with that - you might hate it, or find its the wrong size or type.
    If you're still cycling after a year or two - then you may want to think about getting another bike - at which point your old bike can become the winter bike.


    Well, it depends on how you cut it. My logic was that £12k will get you anything except for the most exotic machine therefore splitting that figure evenly gives the figures I quoted. Obviously using other criteria would give a different result.

    Looking at is a slightly different way. I read something recently (possibly on here) from someone talking about what entry level groupset to go for - 105 or Ultegra?!?!?!?
  • smidsy
    smidsy Posts: 5,273
    thescouselander wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    LOL at entry level being 4k.

    4k would be a complete waste of money for a beginner. Spend a grand or so and you've a bike thats 95% as good as a 4k bike. See how you get on with that - you might hate it, or find its the wrong size or type.
    If you're still cycling after a year or two - then you may want to think about getting another bike - at which point your old bike can become the winter bike.


    Well, it depends on how you cut it. My logic was that £12k will get you anything except for the most exotic machine therefore splitting that figure evenly gives the figures I quoted. Obviously using other criteria would give a different result.

    Looking at is a slightly different way. I read something recently (possibly on here) from someone talking about what entry level groupset to go for - 105 or Ultegra?!?!?!?

    Well that just makes you both wrong :lol:

    Anything above Tiagra is certainly not entry level is it! :P
    Yellow is the new Black.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,169
    Entry level up to £4k? I probably only know one cyclist who has a bike worth over £4k and he owns the LBS so no doubt gets it cheaper than we would. I doubt there are many bikes in the 2/3/4 cat races I do that are worth over £4k. I would say entry level is less than £1k if that, bikes with the lowest or second tier Shimano components or possibly the lowest SRAM or Campag. They are perfectly good bikes that allow their riders to do pretty much anything that someone splashing out 5 times more can, more money spent may make it slightly more enjoyable though.
  • thescouselander
    thescouselander Posts: 549
    smidsy wrote:
    Well that just makes you both wrong :lol:

    Anything above Tiagra is certainly not entry level is it! :P


    Hmmm, could it be that many people consider entry level to be one spec level below whatever they happen to own? It all seems pretty arbitrary to me. At least there is some logic to the measure I gave.
  • cyberknight
    cyberknight Posts: 1,238
    MountainMonster wrote:
    16mm wrote:
    Why do you think the pros use carbon? You can't expect to get anywhere fast on aluminium, or even worse steel!
    Of course it will cost a bit, but it'll be worth it when you're flying past everyone!. Forget the Ali bike and get a decent carbon bike, and carbon wheels. It all adds up, with 20 watts here and there. Start upgrades with Frame and Wheels then move to bottle cages, seat post and pedals. Only old, fat & slow blokes ride Ali bikes and will tell you the bike doesn't matter, just as you leave them standing at the first hill!!! It's all about marginal gains, but it's taken Team Sky to prove this!

    Are you taking the mick or serious? The pros use carbon because they are forced to by the manufacturers. They are hardly faster, geometry and the rider dictate much more than the frame materials. I can keep up on my heavy aluminium Virtuoso with the club runs perfectly fine, no one drops me.
    +1
    Use a virtuoso for commuting and winter club runs and i keep up fine with guys at the same level riding a wide array of carbon and most of them are sky clone bikes .Its only my lack of time to train what with young kids that prevents me from making the jump to the "fast" group .MY nice bike is another aluminum bike and its as light as most carbon offering in its price bracket .
    At pro level marginal gains are what separate the winners from the second placers but many of the pro bikes are having to use ali stems and bars to help get over the uci limit.At the level of most club riders you are not going to notice the 1 lb of weight your going to save with carbon, your going to notice it a lot more if you lose a few pounds off your gut .
    FCN 3/5/9
  • pollys_bott
    pollys_bott Posts: 1,012
    Bought an aluminium/alloy framed Trek 1400 in 2003 and have ridden little else since. Wheels changed from Bonty Select to DT Swiss RR1850s then DT Swiss RR1500s, drivetrain has gone from 105 to Ultegra and I've just treated myself to a carbon seatpost and new saddle and Ritchey WCS bars and stem to pimp it up a bit. Although it has the traditional geometry I can ride it all day long. Have ridden a carbon bike once, hired a Madone for a day in the Alps last year - yes it felt lovely, but how much of that was a) the bike b) me just being like a kid on Christmas Day cos I was finally riding a bike in the Alps and c) the immeasurably-better French road surfaces..? I know not...

    Edit - my first wheel upgrade to the RR1850s came about because a chap had bought a £2k+ Focus Cayo, fallen off it within weeks and busted the frame so was selling everything off it. That's what puts me off buying a carbon bike...
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    thescouselander wrote:
    Hmmm, could it be that many people consider entry level to be one spec level below whatever they happen to own? It all seems pretty arbitrary to me. At least there is some logic to the measure I gave.

    Perhaps they do but they would be wrong.

    Entry level has a fairly specific meaning and that is the typical amount of money that someone new to the activity will spend. Anyone who spends > £1k buying a bike not knowing whether they will enjoy cycling or not has more money than sense.

    If we did a survey of how much people spent on their first bike, I would be prepared to bet that £500-£1,000 is typical.

    Once you know you like it, it may be time to splash out but it would be foolish to spend £4k on your first bike.
  • thescouselander
    thescouselander Posts: 549
    lotus49 wrote:

    Perhaps they do but they would be wrong.

    Entry level has a fairly specific meaning and that is the typical amount of money that someone new to the activity will spend. Anyone who spends > £1k buying a bike not knowing whether they will enjoy cycling or not has more money than sense.

    If we did a survey of how much people spent on their first bike, I would be prepared to bet that £500-£1,000 is typical.

    Once you know you like it, it may be time to splash out but it would be foolish to spend £4k on your first bike.


    Very true - there are however, quite a few people with more money than sense in my experience.
  • lotus49
    lotus49 Posts: 763
    thescouselander wrote:
    [Very true - there are however, quite a few people with more money than sense in my experience.

    I'd be quite interested to know. If I can work out how to post a poll, I shall do so and then we can get a rough idea at least in the case of BikeRadar readers.
  • bikingjohn
    bikingjohn Posts: 202
    Riding my first RB (CAAD10) and still haven't turned to carbon for now. Once I've got enough money, will go for a carbon like Super Six Evo.
    2015 Trek Domane 4.5 Disc
    http://chup.info/c/tag/trek/
  • cougie
    cougie Posts: 22,512
    I think what's happening now is that a lot of people are just starting to pay an interest in cycling.
    So without any research or understanding - they'll go into bike shops and buy on impulse.

    If a bike shop has a 12k Team Sky replica in, then some buyers might assume that 4k for a bike that looks identical to that one to them is a good entry level bike.

    Interesting results coming back on that poll though.

Categories