First Carbon Bike

smithy05

I am after my first Carbon bike and have around 1500-2000 to spend. I am a bit more limited in terms of what bikes I can have, being very tall at 6 foot 5. Today I went to my LBS, which stock Scott, Trek and Cube bikes, and had a look at the CR1 Comp which I really liked at £1599.

I didn't see it in the flesh, but also liked the Madone 4.5, however this is out of stock at Trek UK, so it is a case of finding stock in the UK within bike shops and not being able to buy it locally. I would also like to consider the Giant TCRs.

If I purchased the 1599 Scott, I would consider upgrading the wheels immediately with a set of Fulcrum 3's or American Classics.

Has anyone ridden the Scott, or other Carbon bikes at a similar price point?

Thanks in advance

smoggysteve

The MAdone and the Scott CR1 are very different animals. The CR1 is more upright and the Madone an out out race machine. Therefore the geometry and fit will be very different. At your height, I would think a more upright comfortable position would be suitable. Most of the German brands have frame sizes to cater for tall people but some like Focus and Canyon don't offer much choice so fitting can be a bit awkward. I know the temptation of a carbon bike is big, but if your on a budget, some of the top end Alu frames out there are just as good if not better that the comparably priced carbon ones. CAAD 10 Cannondales are the benchmark along with Giants TCR alu frames. Even the Canyon AF frame bikes come in at around 7.5kg depending on the groupset.

Grill

SmoggySteve wrote:

The MAdone and the Scott CR1 are very different animals. The CR1 is more upright and the Madone an out out race machine. Therefore the geometry and fit will be very different. At your height, I would think a more upright comfortable position would be suitable. Most of the German brands have frame sizes to cater for tall people but some like Focus and Canyon don't offer much choice so fitting can be a bit awkward. I know the temptation of a carbon bike is big, but if your on a budget, some of the top end Alu frames out there are just as good if not better that the comparably priced carbon ones. CAAD 10 Cannondales are the benchmark along with Giants TCR alu frames. Even the Canyon AF frame bikes come in at around 7.5kg depending on the groupset.

This isn't the case. The Madone 4.5 uses Trek's H2 geometry which is very similar to the CR1. You'd have to go up the line to get H1 fit which would be considered "pro".

sloppyschleckonds

It's a Sportive bike ffs!

smithy05

Which is a Sportive bike?

Grill

You can use either bike for anything but both have more upright geometry that would place them in the "sportive" category.

smithy05

Grill, I see you have the Scott Foil. What are your thoughts on this? The guy in the LBS said that it is not a comfortable ride, but is a very fast bike. I would consider the Scott Foil 40

Grill

I do all my audaxes on Foils. So far this includes the Brevet Cymru (253 miles across Wales) and the Bryan Chapman Memorial (388 miles to Anglesey and back) with no comfort issues. My saddle is full carbon (read: stiff) and the only comfort related change I've made to it is I run 25mm Michelin Pro4. I'll be doing the LEL on one of my Foils as well. So in short, yes I find it quite comfortable and I can only assume that those who say otherwise have either not ridden one or are just really soft.

smithy05

Haha thanks for your reply. Do you know anything about the Giant TCR Advanced? I have the chance to buy an Advanced 1 from my LBS, for £700 off, meaning I get a £2500 bike for £1800!

jacckson76

Welcome to this forum site, here you will find many new things. I suggest you to ask this to an expert as I don't know the

answer. Sorry for that................................................
................
Top Ten classified website

Grill

All the mags seem to love Giants, including the TCR line. I have no doubt they're good bikes (after all Scott's are made in the Giant fab in Taiwan), but they've never held appeal for me. You won't go wrong either way.

canny_lad

I've got a CR1, did my first 100 miles on it on Friday and it was great. If you do go for the Scott I'd be looking for a discount as I got the Team for Comp money. Time for some test rides......

smithy05

Whereabouts did you buy it from please?

canny_lad

Epic in Ludlow

markhewitt1978

I went from a Trek Madone 2.1 to a Scott CR1 and I can confirm the geometry is similar.

Either the Trek 4.5 or Scott would be a good buy; and yes, you do want carbon

PS. Keep in mind that the Trek range is in the process of being refreshed at the end of July, so everywhere will be running down stock. If I were you I'd wait a couple of months and get a 2014 model, but I know, that 2 months would be the longest ever

denniskwok

SmoggySteve wrote:

At your height, I would think a more upright comfortable position would be suitable. Most of the German brands have frame sizes to cater for tall people but some like Focus and Canyon don't offer much choice so fitting can be a bit awkward. I know the temptation of a carbon bike is big, but if your on a budget, some of the top end Alu frames out there are just as good if not better that the comparably priced carbon ones. CAAD 10 Cannondales are the benchmark alu frames. Even the Canyon AF frame bikes come in at around 7.5kg depending on the groupset.

Being tall has nothing to do with needing an upright riding position. A tall person can have a reletively much lower position that a very short person, as it's all to do with the individuals flexibilty, experience and core strength. Your comment about Canyon and Focus not offering much choice of frame sizes is a mystery too. Both makes offer anything up to eight different sizes on their frames.

As for buying an aluminium frame instead of carbon in the £1.5 - 2k bracket, I'd go for a good carbon frame all of the time. A good carbon frame in this price bracket will outperform Al. The combination of light weight, stiffness, compliance and good looks (it matters) are just simply superior IMO. The only reason to buy Al at this price range, is if you want better componentry for your cash. For instance, for under £2k, you can buy the Canyon Ultimate AL 9.0 with full Ultegra Di2, Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels, carbon post and Ritchey WCS finishing kit. Personally, I'd rather buy the bike with the best frame I could afford and upgrade when bits wear out or when I fancy.

Avit5

Being tall has nothing to do with needing an upright riding position. A tall person can have a reletively much lower position that a very short person, as it's all to do with the individuals flexibilty, experience and core strength. Your comment about Canyon and Focus not offering much choice of frame sizes is a mystery too. Both makes offer anything up to eight different sizes on their frames.

As for buying an aluminium frame instead of carbon in the £1.5 - 2k bracket, I'd go for a good carbon frame all of the time. A good carbon frame in this price bracket will outperform Al. The combination of light weight, stiffness, compliance and good looks (it matters) are just simply superior IMO. The only reason to buy Al at this price range, is if you want better componentry for your cash. For instance, for under £2k, you can buy the Canyon Ultimate AL 9.0 with full Ultegra Di2, Mavic Ksyrium Elite wheels, carbon post and Ritchey WCS finishing kit. Personally, I'd rather buy the bike with the best frame I could afford and upgrade when bits wear out or when I fancy.[/quote]

Why will a carbon frame outperform an AL frame ? The Canyon Ultimate AL you mentioned or the CAAD 10 are light weight and as stiff as carbon frames.
I doubt either a carbon or AL frame at 1.5-2k will be much difference in performance as surely it's the rider that counts to get the bike to move. :?:

smithy05

I will definitely be going for a Carbon bike, always wanted one and more than happy to upgrade as and when needed. I think I am swaying towards a Giant TCR Advanced 1 at the moment, subject to riding it this friday, as I have managed to track one down near me for £700 off RRP!

daniel_b

Have you considered buying a frame such as this http://www.westbrookcycles.co.uk/frames-c6/road-frames-c112/scott-cr1-pro-hmf-road-frame-set-2012-p194664

Buying a groupset from Merlin on similar, wheels of your choice, a bit of finishing kit......

Frame £480 with cashback
105 Groupset £390 with cashback
Fulcrum Wheels £330

That is only adding up to £1210, leaving you plenty to get some tasty finishing kit, for example, Planet X have the FSA full carbon stem and bars down from £250/£300 to £100 a pop.
That puts you up at £1410, then all you would need is bar tape, saddle and post.

smithy05

Hadn't seen that frame deal, so thanks for the heads up on that, I will definitely be considering doing that. Could build a very nice bike using that frame for not much more than £1500

daniel_b

smithy05 wrote:

Hadn't seen that frame deal, so thanks for the heads up on that, I will definitely be considering doing that. Could build a very nice bike using that frame for not much more than £1500

My pleasure - I bought an SL when they still had them in stock, and a Contessa for my gf - Westbrook were excellent to deal with.

Most of the stuff you would need to fit should be 'easy' enough to do yourself, according to people on here!
The 2 things I am most nervous about are cutting the carbon steerer and also fitting the headset.
You would always get your lbs to do that part of course.

That would certainly be my choice, as your kind of getting a custom specced bike for less money than a lesser specced finished article, as I notice the CR1 you listed has a fair bit of Tiagra throughout for example.

Do you know if it is a 61 you would need?

denniskwok

denniskwok wrote:

As for buying an aluminium frame instead of carbon in the £1.5 - 2k bracket, I'd go for a good carbon frame all of the time. A good carbon frame in this price bracket will outperform Al. The combination of light weight, stiffness, compliance and good looks (it matters) are just simply superior IMO.

Avit5 wrote:

Why will a carbon frame outperform an AL frame ? The Canyon Ultimate AL you mentioned or the CAAD 10 are light weight and as stiff as carbon frames.
I doubt either a carbon or AL frame at 1.5-2k will be much difference in performance as surely it's the rider that counts to get the bike to move. :?:

Both the Canyon and Cannondale are light frames for Al, but they still weigh around 1250g, which is 300g heavier than something like a Focus Cayo Evo frame, which can be had from as little as £1375 with 105. That's a big chunk of weight. As for being as stiff, maybe so. But the stiffness and compliance of a carbon frame can be precisely engineered in a way which is impossible with Al. With carbon you get torsional stiffness with vertical compliance and a smooth ride to an extent which you just cannot engineer into an Al frame.

Also, a nice carbon frame can be made to look miles better than an Al frame due to the design possibilities which carbon allows. The asthetics of a bike can't be underestimated.

For around £2000 I could get either a Canyon Ultimate AL 9.0 with Di2, or a Focus Izalco Pro 2.0 with SRAM Force. No brainer really, the Izalco destroys the Canyon.

Avit5

denniskwok wrote:

denniskwok wrote:

As for buying an aluminium frame instead of carbon in the £1.5 - 2k bracket, I'd go for a good carbon frame all of the time. A good carbon frame in this price bracket will outperform Al. The combination of light weight, stiffness, compliance and good looks (it matters) are just simply superior IMO.

Avit5 wrote:

Why will a carbon frame outperform an AL frame ? The Canyon Ultimate AL you mentioned or the CAAD 10 are light weight and as stiff as carbon frames.
I doubt either a carbon or AL frame at 1.5-2k will be much difference in performance as surely it's the rider that counts to get the bike to move. :?:

Both the Canyon and Cannondale are light frames for Al, but they still weigh around 1250g, which is 300g heavier than something like a Focus Cayo Evo frame, which can be had from as little as £1375 with 105. That's a big chunk of weight. As for being as stiff, maybe so. But the stiffness and compliance of a carbon frame can be precisely engineered in a way which is impossible with Al. With carbon you get torsional stiffness with vertical compliance and a smooth ride to an extent which you just cannot engineer into an Al frame.

Also, a nice carbon frame can be made to look miles better than an Al frame due to the design possibilities which carbon allows. The asthetics of a bike can't be underestimated.

For around £2000 I could get either a Canyon Ultimate AL 9.0 with Di2, or a Focus Izalco Pro 2.0 with SRAM Force. No brainer really, the Izalco destroys the Canyon.

Focus Izalco destroys the Canyon - Says who ?

Jim C

Hilarious stuff. Keep it coming :-)
Someone will be on to bemoan 130mm stems in a min for a fantastic Brucie Bonus

Cobi

Just seen this on facebook, its a lot of bike for the cash (wheels upgrade need though)

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/verenti-sense-dura-ace-2013/

daniel_b

If you are happy with 105 black, then you can get it off Merlin for the next few days for £360, or £350 if you go through Quidco - steal!

denniskwok

Avit5 wrote:

Focus Izalco destroys the Canyon - Says who ?

Me and every single pro peloton. There are multiple reasons why not one of them rides an Al frame. Bit hey, each to their own.

Avit5

denniskwok wrote:

Avit5 wrote:

Focus Izalco destroys the Canyon - Says who ?

Me and every single pro peloton. There are multiple reasons why not one of them rides an Al frame. Bit hey, each to their own.

What a load of crap. Pro riders ride what they are told to by their sponsors. Carbon happens to be the current trend in bikes but if all of a sudden paper mâché bikes were in vogue then they would be riding them.
It's the rider that counts not the frame material.

denniskwok

Avit5 wrote:

denniskwok wrote:

Avit5 wrote:

Focus Izalco destroys the Canyon - Says who ?

Me and every single pro peloton. There are multiple reasons why not one of them rides an Al frame. Bit hey, each to their own.

What a load of crap. Pro riders ride what they are told to by their sponsors. Carbon happens to be the current trend in bikes but if all of a sudden paper mâché bikes were in vogue then they would be riding them.
It's the rider that counts not the frame material.

Of course the rider matters, I've never said anything to the contrary so I'm not sure why you have your knickers in such a bunch? The rest of your argument is laughable though. Sure, the teams have to use a bike supplied by the manufacturer of the sponser. But pro cycling is a sport where the difference of winning and losing measured in fractions of a percent where teams are looking for marginal gains to gain a competative edge. Yes, they have to use a bike in their sponsors range, but they choose the bike which gives their riders the most performance. Wherever that bike is a Domane under Cancellara, or a Madone under Andy Schleck, that bike is always, invariably carbon.

If the teams don't chose the best bike available to them, then they risk losing and no bike manufacturer wants to see their bikes being used by an unsuccessful team. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a team seen to be losing on a manufacturers bike isn't exactly positive marketing for said manufacturer is it? It kind of defeats the object, no? :roll:

If it were possible to make a mid-range to top-end Al frame which performs equal to or better than a mid-range to top-end carbon frame, then they would have done so. Imagine the marketing and related profit opportunites that would create! They could build the frame for less than a carbon frame, market it as being better than a carbon frame, sell it for more than a carbon frame and make a bigger profit margin.

But they can't, so they haven't.

Why the hell would teams spend millions in training and preparation, only for then to use a bike for marketing reasons, which compromises their performance. The whole notion is just stupid when you think about it.

You say that carbon fibre is the current trend. Well, this 'current trend' has been going on for over 25 years. I imagine that you think the extensive use of carbon fibre in the motorsport and aerospace industry is for marketing reasons too? :?: Maybe you should write a letter to Mclaren and advise them that they should start building everything out of good old aluminium to try and cure the problems they are having with their current F1 car, instead of using carbon fibre because it is 'the current trend'? Wind your neck in and open your eyes.

P.S. Your example of paper mache shows your naivety. Paper mache is a great example of a composite material which can be made to have a very high tensile/compressive strength-to-mass ratio, just like carbon fibre.

smoggysteve

You say that carbon fibre is the current trend. Well, this 'current trend' has been going on for over 25 years.

Would have thought it was closer to 15 since Aluminium was still king just before the turn of the century.

denniskwok

SmoggySteve wrote:

You say that carbon fibre is the current trend. Well, this 'current trend' has been going on for over 25 years.

Would have thought it was closer to 15 since Aluminium was still king just before the turn of the century.

It's still a pretty long 'trend' either way.